The gay marriage issue is a disaster waiting to happen.

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

It is a right wing strategy. They want this as an issue. They don't want to talk health care, education, the deficit, homeland security. This is the type of issue about which everyone can have an opinion (especially the LAZY media whores). The difference between marriage and civil union is irrelevant when it comes to a two-month (even one-month) presidential campaign. Even if you try to frame it as a civil rights issue, which it is, it doesn't matter. Trust me, you didn't hear a thing about Mars in the SOTU; it's because it fell flat, and even garnered a negative response. Not only did chimpy mention his anti-gay-everything position, he even talked about a consitutional amendment. There is a ton of polling that went into that assertion. You think the Ohio thing coming a day after the SOTU is a coincidence? Nope.

We will lose on this issue if we allow it to become an entrenched part of the debate. So here's the question: will the gay community, and those who heavily support gay rights, keep quiet during the primaries and the election? Will they trust the Democratic party to do the right thing once they are in office? In essence, will they take a play out of the conservative movement and allow a wink, wink throughout the campaign? Or will they demand their candidate to take a strong, firm, dedicated position (which I think is a perfectly legitimate position to take)?

And before everyone flames me for suggesting silence from a democratic constituency, I'm completely anti-death penalty and have thrown my support behind the democratic party for years--and that's without even a wink, wink, nod, nod; that's a "go screw yourself, Mr. anti-death penalty, we can't be labeled a Dukakis wimp ever again."

[donco6]

1. It's a moot point, really.

It's going to be an issue, whether or not "we gays" make it one. On the one hand, I'm not a big marriage fan anyway (I believe it's an anachronism.) On the other hand, I'm not sure how much we can sit back and watch a constitutional amendment get passed which will make it impossible to allow those who DO want to get married - even with a Democratic government.

It's a puzzlement.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

44. I can't imagine they could really pass a Constitutional Amendment

I just don't see that as a possibility realistically. I doubt anyone but the most hard core homophobes would want to "crack open the Constitution" over this.

Plus, only the religious right - a third? of the GOP - wants this to be an issue. The Rockefeller Republicans and the corporatists and the libertarians don't want to touch this. The bureacracy of government - from the state level up, Republican and Democratic - won't let this happen.

I hope.

[cinci]

66. This is why I registered to post here

after lurking for a couple of years....I believe marriage should be for everyone and an amendment would be contrary to what's stated in the Constitution.

[StopThief]

70. Excellent talking point!!!

Could you please point me to where in the Constitution it says this, so I can debate my conservative cohorts?

[i_am_not_john_galt]

2. "Will the gay community keep quiet?" - No, nor should they.

[theHandpuppet]

61. I agree...

I'll leave the "wink wink, nod nod" game to the Log Cabin Republicans. It hasn't worked for them and it won't work for us. I'm damned sick and tired of gays being the sacrifical bone to the right wing. NO MORE!

[Democrats unite]

3. They are not against gay marriage, they are against civile rights!

And so is anyone else who agrees with them.

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

7. I agree with you.

But is this how we should frame the debate? Will this be a winner? Will it carry the electoral college?

[Democrats unite]

11. When It's my civil right they are...

Fucking with, there is no debate IMO.

[LeahMira]

37. I think it's probably the only way...

But is this how we should frame the debate?

I think the only way to frame the debate is as a civil rights issue.

The anti-gay marriage folks want to frame it in terms of competing rights, which is why they are making comments about the "sanctity" of marriage.

(This is how we get ourselves into abortion debates... by discussing it in terms of competing rights.)

Please let's not let the fundies and bigots frame the issue here. Adults who are homosexual have exactly the same rights as all other citizens... no more, and certainly no fewer. Will it be a winner? It ought to be, because it's what's right.

[roughsatori]

4. no more closets, not even for the Democratic Party

If my civil rights are not worth the fight for Dems I will join the Greens.

[Bertha Venation]

10. Amen.

And if the FMA passes, I'll begin researching Canadian politics.

[bilger]

5. I agree

I agree, its a loser issue as harsh as it sounds. Now isn't the time IMO.

[Dookus]

6. I don't think it's a disaster at all..

people who are adamantly opposed to gay marriage will never vote for a Democrat anyway. A lot of people in the middle are starting to see this for what it is: a basic civil rights issue. We're on the right side of this issue, and we shouldn't be afraid of it.

[Kazak]

14. Agree...

kudos!

[Cannikin]

17. It wont be an issue at all by the time the election rolls around..

37 states have already banned it. The president doesn't have the balls to pass the amendment. He said that to appease his bible thumping base.

New people always come in here and say the gay people should just sit down and shut up. And the answer is always the same. Hell no.

[Bertha Venation]

8. IT IS NOT A RIGHT WING STRATEGY--IT IS MY LIFE.

Stop thinking politics for a moment and start thinking humanity.

Better yet, try this: "The negro issue is a disaster waiting to happen. It is a left wing strategy. They want this as an issue. They don't want to talk health care, education, the deficit, homeland security."

It is an issue of CIVIL RIGHTS. We do not table civil rights discussions for the sake of an election. Two of our own DUers -- a couple, foreigncorrespondent and sapphocrat -- are living on separate continents because gay Americans are not equal to straight Americans. You want them to shut up for a few months so we can get a Democrat in the White House -- a Democrat who, chances are, will have more than one chance to ream us like Bill Clinton did?

So to your question, "will the gay community, and those who heavily support gay rights, keep quiet during the primaries and the election?" HELL, NO!

Hell, no! I am not going to shut up! I can campaign for the Democratic nominee, and so can the rest of us, gay and straight, while retaining our integrity and keeping the fact that we are unequal at. the. fore.

Hell, no! I am not going to accept a wink & a nod from the "normal" Democrats, whose rights are NOT compromised, as a "promise" that once we're in things will be different! Don't DOMA and DADT mean anything to you?

HELL, NO.

On edit: put in quieter terms: I vehemently disagree. No offense intended with my rant, but IMO, your position could not be more wrong.

[Metrix]

18. Think about the next President appointing at least three new members

of the Supreme Court and you may lose some rights you didn't even know you had.

[Bertha Venation]

20. That's certainly a sobering prospect; however

the possibility that new USSC justices could be appointed by an ultra-conservative president still is not worth compromising THIS FIGHT FOR CIVIL RIGHTS.

[foreigncorrespondent]

33. And if we sit down and shut up...

...we risk the possibility of losing our rights all together, even the ones we already have.

People who can say such insensitive things don't really understand the seriousness of having the constitution used against you, to make you a second class citizen.

If this amendment passes, then you bet your bottom dollar buddy, it won't matter what judges are around, because the passing of that amendment will just be the beginning.

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

26. I take no offense AT ALL.

Your response IS exactly the type I was looking for. I agree, the gay community is treated with political disrespect repeatedly. No doubt, no question. It is a civil rights issue, no doubt.

I guess my political question boiled down is this: are you confident enough in our eventual candidate and that he will institute civil unions that you are willing to allow him a pass during the campaign? Are you willing to do what the religious right does: keep quiet with a complete assurance that your key issues will be addressed?

History dictates that you can't be that assured. But history also shows that your chance in gaining those rights with the right-wingers is ZILCH.

[Bertha Venation]

34. No, sir. I am not willing to stay quiet.

How can anyone stay quiet when what is right is being fucked six ways to Sunday?

I am confident, given that I know where each of our candidates stands on GLBT issues, that our new president will give us gay Americans a fairer shake than the Bush administration has, than the GOP ever will, and, pleeeeeze, god!, I have hope that our new president will do better for us than Pres. Clinton did. I am fully assured that our new president would not block any advances made for us in Congress -- even General Clark doesn't believe the ban on gays in the military is worth spit.

But to keep quiet on the chance that that might help in the campaign? No. Not when there's a chance that I could be denied my rightful place at my beloved's deathbed (god forbid) should she fall ill. Right now that is a very real possibility.

Every moment I am quiet is a moment longer that that possibility exists. Every moment I am quiet is a moment longer that sapphocrat & foreigncorrespondent have to live apart.

Every such moment is a moment too god damned long.

No, sir, I won't shut up. Not only would it be wrong to do so, but our nominee, whoever it will be, is strong enough to win without this niggling, paltry little problem of marginalized American queers.

[NWHarkness]

9. No disrespecr intended...

But being anti-death penalty is not self defining in the same way as being gay is.

Right is right. Either Democrats stand up for what we believe or we don't deserve to win.

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

15. No disrespect taken.

I asked the question to get an opinion from people on the board.

[terrya]

12. Well, we sat back and let Bill Clinton handle liftimg the ban on gays...

in the military. And we saw what a fucking disaster that turned out to be.

Sit back, be quiet and let the politicians take care of it for us? No thanks.

Bertha Venation said it much, much better than I can. Gay marriage is part of our lives. It's that simple.

[Stephanie]

13. Let's call it Civil Marriage

Not Gay Marriage. That's what we're talking about - civil rights, an agreement between two people under civic laws. Not a chuch issue, not even a gay issue - an issue of civil rights under the law.

Heard this guy last night on Democracy Now use the term - I think we should make an effort to use it. Like Pro-Choice rather than abortion rights. It makes people think differently.

http://www.civilmarriagetrail.org

[lastknowngood]

21. there is nothing civil

about segmenting people into groups so you can discriminate against them. It's a moot point 37 states are moving to ban gay marriage, one more and they can amend the Constitution and codify into law.

[lastknowngood]

16. No win for our guy

if he agrees he alienates a large segment of the party if not the
solidifies the shrubs bigots.

[Silverhair]

19. Too Late. The MA SC made it an issue. n/t

[JasonDeter]

22. You didn't hear anything on Mars because they knew the Rover

stopped working and didn't want to deal with the scoffing of bush*'s idiotic space cowboy visions. Your very right on the other and I SOOOO hope the Democratic candidates and the nominee doesn't fall for it!

[foreigncorrespondent]

23. I will NOT take a back seat for anyone, PERIOD!

So here's the question: will the gay community, and those who heavily support gay rights, keep quiet during the primaries and the election? Will they trust the Democratic party to do the right thing once they are in office?

How bloody dare you! How dare you just shit all over us queers lives like that!

We should not have to shut the fuck up to suit anyone. The Democratic party SHOULD be SUPPORTING us, and STANDING with us.

And is the party going to do the right thing by us? Think DoMA and who signed it BEFORE answering!

Sorry buddy, I have no intentions on taking a backseat, ever again. I am angry and have every right to be. It was my life Bush* shit on his SOTU the other night, NOT yours!

[emulatorloo]

24. The repubs need to be slapped down about it

fast and frequently. I don't know what the best strategy is to fight their FUD cuz I am not a politician, but they are in the wrong and we are in the right.

[Beetwasher]

25. Dems Can Turn the Tables On This Issue Very Easily

They just have to frame and coordinate their response properly to do it...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=1041163

[DuctapeFatwa]

27. It is not about gay marriage, it is about separation of church and state

and equal protection under the law.

It is about whether you believe the United States should be a secular state or a theocracy with doctrines of a particular religious sect hard-wired into the constitution, first by the passing of an amendment that mandates that religious doctrine, and the necessary next step, to avoid a constitutional crisis - amending the first amendment to remove the language pertaining to religion.

It is about whether you support a two-tiered system of equal protection under the law, kind of like the separate but equal schools back in the days of legal apartheid, whether you are in favor of amending the constitution to allow for the establishment of a second class of citizenship, today, gay people, tomorrow, well, we'll just have to see how that war on terror goes, I guess.

[Beetwasher]

31. Absoutley Correct! Maybe Pork Should Be Banned in this Country Too

I mean after all, many believe it's wrong to eat pork, so why don't we outlaw that?

How about this? My religious belief is that ANYONE can get married to anyone else. Why is their religious belief taking precedence over mine?

[ulysses]

28. wow.

will the gay community, and those who heavily support gay rights, keep quiet during the primaries and the election? Will they trust the Democratic party to do the right thing once they are in office?

Question - why would they?

[Sapphocrat]

29. Excuse me?

will the gay community, and those who heavily support gay rights, keep quiet during the primaries and the election? Will they trust the Democratic party to do the right thing once they are in office?

"Keep quiet"?

"Trust the Democratic party to do the right thing once they are in office"?

There are so many things wrong with that one sentence, I am going to "keep quiet" until my blood pressure goes back down.

All I'll say right now is that you might consider re-thinking -- or at least re-phrasing -- your words.

I can't begin to tell you how offended I am by your "request."

And before any of the usual suspects jumps on me for being "hypersensitive," let's ALL remember this has been one hell of a Kick the Queers in the Teeth Week. We are ALL extremely raw right now, and don't need any more salt rubbed into our wounds.

[MsUnderstood]

30. Why should gays trust any democrat nominee?

Those in the gay community remember when Clinton got elected in 1992. There was hope and energy in the air. Melissa Etheride came out on his inaguration night. . .then reality struck when Bill realized his promise to put gays in the military wasn't going to be so easy. He cowered to those who didn't feel equal rights were important and we now have the even policy DONT ASK DONT TELL in the military which is used in peace time to throw out homosexuals and in wartime to keep them in service.

Gay rights are not about being wimpy or complacent, it is aboutthat every human being given equal protection under the law. The candidates have it right when they say "Why shouldn't gay AMERICANS be given the same rights as other AMERICANS" (clark) or when they say lets not talk about gay marriage, lets talk about civil unions for gays which will give them their rights (edwards and kerry and dean).

If you want to help, then talk to people about the issue as a human rights issue. Don't use the word marriage, use the questions "Should gay people be allowed to see their partners in the hospital", etc.

But please, don't ask part of the group helping you to fight this war to sit down and shutup and maybe we'll throw some scraps to you when the war is over. Gays and Lesbians are fighting for your issues, so stand up for them. Let the right wing bring it on--and let the democrats show that we are the party dedicated to helping the helpless and defending the defenseless.

[kayell]

32. No, NO, NO I will not crawl quietly back into my closet

I will not wait patiently for someone to decide that it's a good time to give me my rights. Those are MY RIGHTS and I'm damn well going to fight for them. Others here have given you lots of reasons for this stand. I'll let their words speak for me also. My words would probably get me banned.

[Egnever]

35. Like hell I will

I am not gay but this is a very important issue to me it is about fairness and equality and compassion. If we arent willing to fight for these thinfs then we have allready lost.

[buddhamama]

i am not moved by your plea. in fact i am sick to my stomach

Very few DEM pols will stand up and do what is right unless they are made to by those whom they count on to get re/elected.

you should know that Mr.Anti-death penalty.

have you forgotten that we got DOMA under Clinton

Gay Marriage is a matter of Human Rights and Civil Rights
and i, for one, am not going to keep silent as Millions of my fellow citizens are continuously, institutionally discriminated against.

*god* i hope more DEMs don't think as you do

Jim Crowe would be alive and well in your "keep silent, don't offend, don't create waves" America.

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

60. If I made you sick to your stomach, then . . .

how do your candiadtes' responses tonight make you feel?

Your inability to parse a sentence is revealed in the subjectline of your post: "i am not moved by your plea. in fact i am sick to my stomach." In fact, if you were made sick to your stomach, then you were indeed moved by my post. But this is another issue completely.

I hope the debate tonight cleared up the issue as to whether or not other dems. "think like me." Shit, they all think "like me," except I never told you how I "think"; I was simply previewing the subtext of the bullshit avoidance you were about to hear tonight. Who stood up for your position consistently tonight? Do you think it was a coincidence that the gay marriage issue was brought up about 5 times tonight (and Brit Hume really tried to get them to define their positions)?

Edwards: state's rights. Claimed ignorance about the DoMA.
Kerry: silent, even though (or perhaps because) his name was invoked as someone who opposed DoMA
Sharpton: talked about state's rights versus federal civil rights, but never got into the issue directly.
Lieberman: enough said. Talked about religious values and how this made him a tough opponent against the repubs.
Dean: great first answer; he said that it was a civil rights issue, and not a very popular one at that, and then said he would defend it as such. But then he went on TO MAKE MY POINT/DILEMMA of this post: do we focus on this at the expense of the economy, health care, education?

I really don't need to be lectured about this issue. You can continue to lecture me if you like, but I understand all of the components. I was asking a political question, since this is a POLITICAL forum.

I will take your hostility directed at me as a projection of your hostility with the party you keep voting into power (I assume).

[buddhamama]

76. heh.

my candidate at this point is Kucinich.
His stand on the Gay issue is close to mine.

You made a plea for silence framed as a Political question that did not move me.
My sickness however is not specific to you or your post.
Yours is not the first post to make the argument that we need to be silent on the Gay Marriage issue.
I have encountered it outside of DU as well.

I have read the candidate statements.

Which leaves me with a questions of my own.

If, as you say, we elect one these candidates knowing where they stand on the issue, doesn't that contradict your "wink wink nod nod, they'll do the right thing once they're in office" argument? How can that be if they are not doing the Right thing now? And how can *we* expect them to do the Right thing unless *we* express ourselves and our expectations?

I am not full of hostility toward you.
Any hostility i may feel is reserved for hypocrites, religious zealots and bigots.

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

77. You've stated THE issue for our candidates.

First, you're absolutely correct: Dennis K. is about as straightforward as one can get. He's great. But he's not going to be our candidate.

We can know where the candidates stand on the issues; you can visit their websites, email the campaign, etc. The issue is this: how will they state their position, or how long are the willing to debate the issue and in what depth, in a public forum? Will it be at the forefront of their stump speeches? It's certainly a civil rights issue, which one would think should be at the forefront of any candidate's stump speech. But Howard Dean made it explicitly clear last night: he doesn't want to get sidetracked about "social issues" when there are 35 million people who live in poverty (or maybe it was who are without health care). He essentially made the point that "social issues" will be used as a distraction to get the nation away from a debate about education, etc (I will not respond to Dean posts here).

I don't think our knowledge of where the candidate stands on the issue is at odds with how we accept his campaigning on the issue. Will he avoid it as much as possible? Will he say it's a civil rights issue and then build on it as a major part of the campaign? If it's the latter, then no "wink, wink" is necessary. But if it's the former, then there has to be a level of "wink, wink": it's not a matter of where he stands but a matter of the level of his commitment. The level of commitment is the "winking" part. I hope this makes sense.

My question rephrased is simply, will we demand that our candidate put "social issues" in the stump speech? Will he only respond the the gay marriage issue, or will it be part of a primary platform? And how will those of us who support gay rights respond to either of these?

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

36. All I did was frame the inner-debate of the party right now.

This is a form for the democratic party, right?

I don't think I even stated my position. I do think it's a losing issue, but I didn't state my position.

The question I posed above, the one that has angered many people here (and rightfully so; it's an obsene question), is THE question being asked in the party.

I never intended anyone be silent. I simply asked the question, WILL you be silent. Personally, I don't think you should be. You should demand that your candidate represent you. But, as of 2004 in America, your candidate will lose.

The "shit" that I "shat" on you is simply the unspoken position of your party leaders. I asked the question that they won't ask.

[foreigncorrespondent]

38. No!

All you did was show bigotry by asking queers to take a back seat and trust in a political party that brought us DoMA and DADT.

I don't think I even stated my position. I do think it's a losing issue, but I didn't state my position.

If you didn't think it was a losing issue, then you wouldn't have asked in he first place, for us queers to get to the back of the bus.

The question I posed above, the one that has angered many people here (and rightfully so; it's an obsene question), is THE question being asked in the party.

Oh no it isn't. Most people with in the democratic party support queer rights. The only ones asking us to shit the hell up, are those who don't give a rats ass about our rights in the first place. And obviously don't give a shit about the constitution being used as a weapon to rank a group of people into the status of second class citizen.

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

41. Let me clarify.

You may be correct here, though polling on this question is still suspect (they haven't quite figured out how to cut through various layers of cultural biases in order to ask a good, scientific question): "Most people with in the democratic party support queer rights." I should clarify: the question I put out there is being asked by the party hierarchs, not the entire party itself.

[foreigncorrespondent]

47. And I still will not take...

...a back seat for anyone. And if the party hierarchs are such bigots, then maybe the queers should take their vote elsewhere.

Quite simply, anyone who would even think of asking a queer person to put their life on hold, their feelings on hold, their relationships on hold, is nothing more than a bigot.

I certainly will not be taking a back seat again. I have too much riding on the rights myself and my partner are fighting for. We have only seen each other for 56 days out of the last two years.

Do NOT ever ask a queer to take a back seat again! Especially if you aren't queer, because you haven't the foggiest of ideas how it bloody well feels.

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

57. I would NEVER ask you to take a back seat.

I simply asked the question as to what your response would be if someone, the democratic party namely, asked you to. You have answered my question quite clearly. Good for you.

[foreigncorrespondent]

59. Oh please!

You already DID ask me and every other queer to take a back seat!

So here's the question: will the gay community, and those who heavily support gay rights, keep quiet during the primaries and the election?

Don't insult my intelligence and expect to get away with it.

[ldf]

68. looking at the track record of the democratic party

recently, i would not do ANYTHING that they requested of me.

they are the reason we are in the pickle we are in (with all offense i can muster, to *Laura*).

if the party leaders say something, you can know that it is a sellout, er, i mean "compromise". we have been doing a damn lot of "compromising" lately.

[Bertha Venation]

39. I'm glad you asked it.

IMO everyone in Congress, regardless of party, is chicken shit. With the exception of the one or two who voted against the IWR (forgive me, I can't think of their names) I can't remember the last time I heard someone on the House or Senate floor speak his or her mind and damn the consequences back home, damn the reelection bid.

I could never be a politician. I'd be booted after a week for speaking my mind. But god damnit, if people aren't going to stand up for what is RIGHT then what good are they?! Honestly!

[PissedOffPollyana]

48. I believe it was 126...

... Congressional Dems who voted against IWR, thanks to the efforts of Dennis Kucinich and Barbara Lee. I watched the debate on the House floor (I'm a CSPAN junkie, ya'know) and there were MANY Dems speaking their mind. Actually, there are plenty that still do, frequently.

If we still keep buying the hype about our own party, we are done for. At least we should know what our Reps are doing for us in there. Most of them deserve a lot more credit than they receive and certainly a lot more than any blowhard that would paint the whole of the Congressional Dem contingient by the actions of some of the two or three talking head Reps you see on CNN. We are bigger and we are better than that.

[Bertha Venation]

50. I'm thinking of something else....

only one senator voted against it--the USA Patriot Act! That's it. That's who I'm thinking of. ONE person voted against it in the Senate.

Thanks, PHDiva.

And: "IF we keep buying the hype about our own party, we are done for." -- Hear, hear!

[soleft]

40. I hope Grendel isn't gay

[FreakinDJ]

42. Sorry guys but Grendal is right

This is the right wing's dream come true

The issue is designed to split the party and frame the debate for upcoming elections.

Most political discussion on the issue originally was "Why is it not at the State level?"..... The answer is simple, the right wing wants it to become the WHOLE ELECTION ISSUE....One they knew they can surely WIN

It is not about legalising same sex marriage as much as it is about 4 more years of a man that wants to make it a constitutional issue against same sex marriage

[Bertha Venation]

43. You haven't read the responses, have you, FreakinDJ?

I may agree with your last sentence, but IT DOES NOT MATTER!

Civil rights are not subject to plebiscite! And I don't give two shits what the right wing does with this issue; I truly believe more Americans know what is RIGHT and will not allow civil marriage to be a deciding issue, let alone THE "wedge" issue.

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

45. You have more faith in the American public than I do.

Lazy Americans can only take their cues from the lazy press. This is not a good combination.

From a practical position (certainly in no way a moral or ideal position), I'd rather see someone avoid the issue, get elected, and then do what we all KNOW is right.

Again, that means one has to have faith in the democratic party and the nominee, which I'm beginning to see that almost no one does (and for very good reason--yes, I'm very aware of Clinton's DoMA).

[Bush loves Jiang]

49. Why is Clinton supporting Clark?

Clark is far more pro-gay than Clinton.

[Raymond]

46. ..

pretty much yep, but will we be suckered into it

[Bertha Venation]

51. Raymond, would you care to elaborate?

Please do.

[Pobeka]

52. How many gay/lesbian voters and supporters will the Repubs lose?

A bunch. They don't know how many, but they know it's a lot. The hate filled moral majority are a minority in the Republican tent, and they (repubs) can't afford to lose any votes this time round. This can't gain them any votes, it will only lose votes.

[Kenneth ken]

53. you may be right

in saying it is a disaster waiting to happen. I'm no psychic.

However, the TRUTH is civil marriage SHOULD be allowed for any two consenting adults not already contractually married to any one else. I for one don't care what how any one else tries to frame it, the issue is CIVIL RIGHTS - one is either for them or against them.

The Republican party is clearly against them. Much like the Nazis of 1930s Germany.

To be honest, I am not willing to trust the Democratic party to do what is right once it gets power. I was born at night, but it wasn't last night. All progressive minded epople need to stand up, speak out, and push for the future we want. That is the ONLY way it will ever happen.

[BeFree]

54. Glad you asked the question

If everyone will simply say: It is a matter of getting government off of individauls backs, it is a rights issue.

Do that and it'll take the wind outta the blowhards.

Good luck.

[anakie]

55. how can the constitution be amended?

Is there a referendum or plebiscite or do the politicians decide. If the issue goes to a plebiscite and it follows general voting patterns in America you would have to think, given the organisational skills of the fundies, that the amendment would pass.

What really gets me over this whole issue is why the right wing is so afraid of gays.

[ButterflyBlood]

62. it needs to be passed by 2/3 of each house of congress

and ratified by the legislatures of 3/4 of the states (so it'd be 38). that'd be very difficult to do. the reason for the FMA is basically them throwing the fundies a bone to keep them voting.

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

63. "the reason for the FMA is basically them throwing the fundies a bone . .

to keep them voting." Yep, you got it. And to peel off Latino, African-American, and southern democratic voters. I've seen the polling and the electoral college demographics from both sides. The silence tonight in our debate was telling.

[ButterflyBlood]

64. hardly an effect

if they want to use a wedge issue for minorities, the most effective would be school vouchers, since they, you know, actually effect other people. but the school vouchers issues hasn't cracked the base, so i don't see how something this minor could. the southern "democrats" who aren't black or liberal have been voting for republicans for president since Raygun anyway. You think Zell Miller endorsed Bush on this issue alone?

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

65. No, no, I've seen the polling on the gay marriage issue.

This is polling not released to the public at large. I've seen the dems. and the repubs. numbers, and the dems. numbers show a worse disparity (perhaps because they ask the question in a more loaded format than even the repubs. would--to get a worse case scenario). I is a huge gap, especially in the African-American community. But the Latino community has a major gap as well. Both groups voice their objections on religious grounds--Latinos from a Catholic perspective; African-Americans from an American Protestant one (mostly Baptist and Southern Bpatist).

You are right, however, about the voucher issue being a wedge issue. Perhaps I'll start a thread and allow myself to be flamed for stating our party's dilemma on that issue later.

[foreigncorrespondent]

67. The only reason it is a "dlimemma"...

...to the party is because of those who see it one.

If the dems truly know how to play politics, then they could play this to their best interest and win big in November.

Amending marriage should not have been brought up in the SOTU, nor should the constitution be used to give a group of people the status of second class citizen. If the dems play their cards right, then they will pick up all the disillusioned repukes, plus the majority of swing voters, and their regular voters.

All the dems have to do (to please us disheartened queers) is to turn around and say; "We do not support the FMA, because no citizen in this great country of ours deserves the status of second class." Then explain to the country that this isn't a religious issue, but rather an issue of civil marriage (which it is), and civil marriage is something they support.

Then carry on with the major issues affecting the country like the jobless rate, outsourcing, healthcare, etc.

But the dems do need to address this issue, rather than burying their head in the sand.

[Sapphocrat]

71. You wouldn't even have to go as far as mentioning civil rights...

If you want to hit true conservatives (and I have heard rumors that some still do exist), just keep hammering home to point that you don't fuck around with the Constitution at the whim of a political party -- any political party.

Ya, we know it's a civil-rights issue, but that won't fly with the troglodytes who are still steamed about black folks getting the vote.

Then carry on with the major issues affecting the country like the jobless rate, outsourcing, healthcare, etc.

Hopefully, the dingleberries will make the connection that same-sex marriage is a smokescreen to distract them from those very issues -- but as I don't have any faith left in the (cough!) intelligence of Joe "I Watch Faux News" American, that's got to be spelled out, very plainly.

In any case, you're absolutely right -- the Dems need to jump at every mention of same-sex marriage in order to contrast it, heavily, with the issues that do affect Mr. & Mrs. Suburbia.

But the dems do need to address this issue, rather than burying their head in the sand.

Amen to that.

[dsc]

56. my answer

We gays and lesbians know something of bullies. Mr. President, you sir are a bully. You showed your true nature when you said this:

A strong America must also value the institution of marriage. I believe we should respect individuals as we take a principled stand for one of the most fundamental, enduring institutions of our civilization. Congress has already taken a stand on this issue by passing the Defense of Marriage Act, signed in 1996 by President Clinton. That statute protects marriage under Federal law as the union of a man and a woman, and declares that one state may not redefine marriage for other states. Activist judges, however, have begun redefining marriage by court order, without regard for the will of the people and their elected representatives. On an issue of such great consequence, the people's voice must be heard. If judges insist on forcing their arbitrary will upon the people, the only alternative left to the people would be the constitutional process. Our nation must defend the sanctity of marriage.

The outcome of this debate is important -- and so is the way we conduct it. The same moral tradition that defines marriage also teaches that each individual has dignity and value in God's sight.

Mr. President, some of us were scared of bullies in school. We felt so bad about ourselves we somehow felt we deserved the second class treatment we were getting. Well no more Mr. President. We will fight you and we will win.

We will fight you in the House. We will fight you in the Senate. We will fight you in the state legislatures. We will fight you in the churches. We will fight you in the streets. We will fight you in the gutters where you chose to take us. We will fight you and we will win. When you wonder why we kicked your ass, it will have been this "If judges insist on forcing their arbitrary will upon the people, the only alternative left to the people would be the constitutional process."

We know what "judges forcing their arbitrary will on us" is like. That is why you were in the rostrum delivering your hateful speech. The Constitution handed down by our founders is not the arbitrary will of judges. It is not some paper written after one of your all night binges. It is the floor plan of the house that is our democracy. And squatters don't get to put additions on the house. We will fight you, and we will win.

Who are we? We teach your kids and fix your cars. We cook your food, and invest your money. We grace your screen and landscape your yards. We cut your hair and quarterback your team. We have organized the Continental Army, painted the Sistine Chapel, cracked the Enigma, represented you in the Texas House, and even defended the country in your absence without leave in Alabama.

But that is not why we have a right to marriage. One doesn't earn rights. They are bestowed upon us by our creator. And similarly the fact you are an unelected fraud isn't why you don't get to take them away. For a right to be a right, we shouldn't have to beg a potentate for them on bended knee. You are not our creator and you don't get to take away what he has bestowed.

There are many reasons that you deserve a one way ticket back to Crawford but first among them is this speech. You have used a pulpit that Franklin Roosevelt used to defeat Hitler, Truman used to save Europe, Kennedy used to reach for the stars, Johnson used to fight a war on racism and poverty, and Clinton used to try to bring health care to all to sow division. You are the first President since Wilson to use that pulpit to advocate an amendment restricting people's rights. For that you should be sent back to Crawford to ride an SUV on your fake ranch. And sir, we will send you there.

Mr. President, history will judge you harshly. We will be happy to hasten that day. We don't hate you Mr. President we hate what you have done. Your craven presence in the citadel of Democracy is more than we can bear. But it will almost be worth the joy of seeing you sent back to Texas and knowing we helped do it. We will fight you and we will win.

We are not angry we are outraged. You have turned us into gays and lesbians first and Americans second. We deserve better. The country deserves better. You are neither compassionate nor conservative. True compassion wouldn't permit a two tiered system of rights and true conservatism would honor our Constitution. Our constitution is not some laundry list on which you can spill white out at will. True conservatives leave things alone. They protect our rights they don't trample them. Real conservatives know what history is, sir. You are no conservative. We will fight you, and we will win.

Mr. President, our rights are not milk money to be taken to feed your steroid habit. We know how to deal with bullies like you, we stand up to you and kick your ass. We won't scurry in fear. We will fight you, and we will win. Count on it and remember it when you take that long ride back to Crawford.

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

58. Here, here!!! What an answer.

That is nice, very nice. Thank you, thank you for that response.

Unfortunately, our candidates RAN from it tonight when it was served up like a softball from the questioners. They turned it into a state's rights issue (Edwards), avoided it completely (Lieberman), spke of it abstractly (Sharpton--though I think his point was clear), didn't enagage the issue when his name and voting record was invoked (Kerry--and this was in reference to his vote AGAINST the DoMA), and, finally, defended the principled position of civil rights for gay couples (Dean), but then got back to my ORIGINAL POINT/DILEMMA OF THE ENTIRE POST: while this is a critical issue for our party, and OF COURSE, we're all for gay rights, we can't let this DISTRACT us from questions of education, health care, poverty, etc.

[FreakinDJ]

72. A lesson from Rush Limbaugh would serve them well right now

Rush (during the Clinton years) used to preach to his masses of ditto heads "Incrementally is the key"

Meaning do not expect to make huge sweeping changes but it is better served to make small subtle changes ever headed in the direction you want

Yes it has served them VERY WELL Look at the mess we are now in. 911, Black Box voting, ect,ect....

Those pushing the debate expecting a plank in the Dem plat form need to take notice. If you push this as a national issue you will surely LOOSE

Please don't interpet this as a bash on anyones sexual preferremce

Just my observation as many Dems tell me they well surely vote republicam if that is a plank. The right wing has out-manuvered us already on this issue - They are the one pushing it now

[Name removed]

69. Deleted message

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

[Solly Mack]

73. If we lived in a free country, such a question would never be asked.

As America is not free, -I guess asking people to shut up about their civil rights is SOP these days.

Course, it makes the great assumption that a Democrat would do the right thing...if people were to shut their mouths about their civil rights, that is...

Great campaign slogan though

"Shut up your whining about civil rights and vote for me-cause I'll do the right thing for you-if you would just shut up"

or the shorter version "Just Shut Up!" (and go away)

Oh well.....SSDD

[ElsewheresDaughter]

74. RW weapon of mass DISTRATION from the real issues!!!

RW has to steer all debate away from the facts of bush*s misreab;e FAILURES!!! that's why they ABRUPTLY cut the Debate last night 18 minutes short!...BECAUSE THE CANDIDATES SAID "WE ARE NOT GONNA TALK ABOUT GAYS, GUNS, VALUES...WE ARE GONNA TALK ABOUT THE REAL ISSUES...THE ECONOMY, HEALTHCARE, BUSH*S MISREPRESENTATION FOR WAR"...opps ....cut off and end the Faux televised debate!

[ElsewheresDaughter]

75. it is a Rove WMDistration....we are NOT gonna let them define false issue