Lesbians & Gays - Will you still support the Dem Party if they allow FMA?

[LeftCoast]

I've been really torn on this issue. The FMA can only pass if Dems allow it to. If it does pass, we will officially be 2nd class citizens with our status enshrined in the Constitution.

One part of me feels that I should give up on the Party. If the Democratics, who claims to represent me, toss my 'group' to the wolves because it is politically convenient, why should I support them? Am I not throwing away my vote if the person/party I vote for doesn't represent me?

The other part of me says Gays & Lesbians should "take one for the team."

The problem is that this is more than just a minor issue for me. This goes to the heart of whether our society treats us as full citizens or not. This "wedge issue" is certainly effective in splitting me down the middle.

Oh, and for you hetero's who blithely argue that I *should* put on a stepford wives smile and vote for Dems even if they support the FMA - well, to paraphrase Tom Ammiano...why don't you walk a mile in my pumps before you do, ok? I still haven't made up my mind what I'm going to do, but if you can't see the pain and anguish this is causing my community...well, I just don't know what to tell you.

[meegbear]

1. Yes ...

I'm not gonna throw away my vote to help * win. This is an issue for me, but not enough to let that shithead win.

[LeftCoast]

2. Fair enough...but what about long-term?

In other words, after Buscho are turned out on their collective asses? This ammendment will still be there like some dark cancer at the heart of our nation...

[meegbear]

12. True ...

And I think that if we have a Dem prez, then he would veto it if it did pass. But then again, Clinton supported DOM.

[LeftCoast]

16. DOMA

Yeah, I just about came unglued when "ultra-liberal" Clinton signed that bill...I still look at it as a huge blemish on his record.

[ButterflyBlood]

38. presidents can't veto amendments

really, this is a problem we'll have even after * is unemployed.

[MsUnderstood]

6. Define support

Will I vote for the lesser of two evils? YES

Will I call my reps and say "Thanks for making me feel special? Here is another donation?" NO

Will I sit by quietly while my democratic friends say "It had to be done, to keep the country together, you know". HELL NO

This is not necessary. Any person with any sense of right and wrong understands the constitution is not where we take away RIGHTS, it is where we DEFINE them.

If the nut cases want to sanctify marriage then lets do it right. Lets fix marriage for the true purpose it has--to bring more of our kind into the world. Lets move on back to the dark ages (or is it the Victorian ages) and outlaw adultery, divorce, and sexual activity except for the need to procreate. Hell, lets adopt China's decision to limit the # of children per family. Even better, since those sorry little @#%^$ on welfare can't pay to raise their children themselves, lets add into the amendment a minimum wage necessary before marrying.

Okay, okay, rant off. I know it was a simple question. I really tried to be simple about it. . .

[LeftCoast]

8. It isn't a simple question, is it?

I've been wrestling with this for months hoping we wouldn't see an ammendment proposed by the Idiot in Chief. *grr* As if I needed more reasons to hate that SOB.

[Newsjock]

3. Pure and simple

If the Democratic nominee supports the Federal Marriage Amendment in its current wording, I will not vote for the Democratic nominee.

I refuse to support a candidate that refuses to recognize my basic human rights.

[Jawja]

22. Yes,

and this is why the GOP really, really wants to run on this issue. They think by proposing this hypocritical and ridiculous DEFENDING THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE amendment to the Constitution and throwing it out front and center (like Scottie did today) as a priority election issue, the Democratic Party will divide over it.

This is "divide and conquer" politics at it's best and playing up to their knuckle dragging religious freak base at the most.

Although this is an emotional issue with me, I will back the Democratic nominee all the way and give him my vote in November. I am not falling for this tactic because I want the Bush thugs out of office.

I'm trusting the American public to reject this amendment. I believe they will. I don't believe the Democratic party will back this admendment, either.

Let the folks who think Gays and Lesbians getting married is the greatest danger to their lives vote for Bush; let the rest of us - who know better - unite to kick his ASS OUT.

[RhodaGrits]

4. The ERA was never passed either.

I think the sacrament of marriage is religious. I agree w/ AP that the gov't should issue everyone civil union registrations and stay out of marriage entirely.

[Terwilliger]

5. I won't

again...not supporting the right of gays to be married is one thing...supporting and helping to change the constitution so that gays may be forever deprived...no...that will be the end of it for me

Edit: I should qualify that I'm not gay, so my response may be outside the scope of the question

[LeftCoast]

7. I think you nailed it!

That's exactly how I feel right now.

[cprise]

14. Even Jim Crow pales by comparison

The idea that gay people would automatically be defined as an "anti-marriage" problem to be dealt with by the federal government is chilling.

It is no coincidence they are pushing for "marriage promotion" at the same time. They are looking for a way to promote ex-gay brainwashing to "help people with their marriage problem."


(Edited subject.)

[Silverhair]

23. Tom Crow??? Did you mean "Jim Crow"? n/t

[Silverhair]

9. Excellent question.

Can the Democratic party survive this issue? At this point the gays can't "back off" because the SCOM has put the issue in play. The shot has been fired and can't be recalled.

If the Democrats roll over and play dead and let the FMA through, will the gays stay with the party?

If this issue is preceived to have cost the election and given W a filibuster proof senate, will the Democratic Party blame the gays?

Will this issue split the party?

[Joe Momma]

48. how many gays voted for bush

in 2k? i have heard and read that it was enough to give him the election; forget about nader. gays, like the middle class and ultra-rich, vote their wallets and pocketbooks first. comparing the assault on gay unions and the definition of marriage by the right wingers to the plight of minorities in this country throughout our history is laughable. if a person finds a partner and wishes to spend their life with them, will firehoses be turned on them?

should gays have the same recognition in our tax code as straights? yeah. should their healthcare coverage extend to their partner? yeah. is the definition of marriage important enough to stay home on election day? if it is to you, then stay home. we will win this election without you. unless, of course, the same number of gays vote for bush this time as last, (maybe more, those tax cuts are really kicking in). then maybe we won't.

[foreigncorrespondent]

53. What a load of crap!

Bush* got 25% of the gay vote. Certainly not enough to hand him the election!

And let us not forget that Bush* STOLE THE ELECTION IN 2000!

And how dare you say we vote with our pocket books, because we are all middle class. I will have you know that my American born partner and I are actually living in two separate countries because YOUR country will not allow gay and lesbian citizens to sponsor foreign partners for immigration.

If we were as rich as you are making out, then explain to me why in the last two years we have only seen each other for a TOTAL OF 56 days and that was only thanks to an annonymous benefactor who paid for my partners trip to Australia to see me.

Get your facts right before youy come here and begin making absurd accusations!

[Joe Momma]

57. have you seen the margin in florida and other states...

it was precisely more than enough. watch the episode of politically incorrect with the conservative gay columnist for the new republic(?). those and a million more like him HELPED put this jackass in office.

this is my country. and i am proud. i am sorry that you are not. why do you not organize marches? why is there not a gay or lesbian martin luther king or gandhi? denial does not change the fact that this issue will not be allowed to swing the country back over to the bigots and cowards currently in power.

fully 1/4 of this frightfully oppressed group of people vote for the men who define opression of minorities? i wonder of 1/4 of blacks would vote to reinstate slavery? or 1/4 of indians would vote to be massacred wholesale? just a rhetorical question of course.

[foreigncorrespondent]

61. Where did you get your facts from? FreeRepublic?

As I recall, it was the SCOTUS that put Bush* in office, not the LGBT community in the United States.

this is my country. and i am proud. i am sorry that you are not.

Good for you. Be proud of your country. Guess what bucko? I am very proud of my country and her origins too. My country, happens to be Australia.

However, I am very proud that my partner happens to be an American citizen by birth. What I am not proud of is knowing that her country would like to deem her a second class citizen. And NO, I am not in denial. I am sitting back watching people left right and centre denounce my partners right as a citizen of the United States to pursue her happiness.

I could organize marches but what is the point? Your biast media wouldn't show anything I could organize would they?

[Joe Momma]

103. not a factor...

if 1 in 4 gays had not voted for bush. why did they do that by the way? i cant get an answer on that one.

[Joe Momma]

105. see my links and paper sources...

actually, 1 in 4 gays is a regular on free republic

[John BigBootay]

118. Does australia allow gay marriage? n/t

[Sapphocrat]

119. Not yet, but close...

In fact, if I were now living with my other half in Australia, ours would be considered a de facto interdependent relationship -- a mouthful of a phrase that means the same basic thing as "common-law marriage" as recognized here and there throughout the U.S.

And, frankly, I'm not 1/100th as concerned about marriage rights in Australia as I am about them here -- even though Australia is where I'm going to end up.

Why not? Because Australia already offers most of the legal rights, protections, and recognition of marriage. I could migrate to Australia this afternoon on an interdependent-partner visa, because my lover lives there. (The U.S. doesn't recognize same-sex relationships for the purpose of immigration.) After a two-year waiting period (reasonable, compared to the open-ended waiting period for foreign-born spouses of American citizens immigrating to the U.S.), I'm eligible for most of the same benefits (save for the sticky wickets of superannuation and tax breaks) as any other spouse/partner.

In light of what gay Australians get, "marriage" is practically a moot point.

The bad news is that Bush* has opened a Pandora's box, and the resulting debate that's arisen in Australia because of the American Radical Right's anti-gay drive is beginning to follow the same ugly battle lines, with the maniacal Christians-in-name-only pushing to tighten up the law before the issue of gay marriage comes to a full head.

Australia is also experiencing the same waffling by the opposition party; the ALP's Latham, who has been historically and unequivocally pro-gay-rights, is now risking pissing off gay Aussies by wimping out on the marriage question in order to appease the anti-gay brigades.

It will be an interesting battle, especially now that one case is already headed for the courts: A Melbourne couple is now asking the courts to recognize their civil marriage performed in Canada, while a W.A. couple due to marry in Canada next month plans to follow suit.

My guess is that the issue will drag out for some time, but ultimately Australia will be forced to recognize same-sex marriage, whether performed in Oz, or elsewhere.

Until then, what they've got is nearly as good as marriage -- which, AFAIC, is light-years beyond anything the U.S. has to offer.

[John BigBootay]

128. I think it will happen here, sooner or later--

Bush seems to favor a civil union approach, and I think if that was how it was presented to the American people, it would fly. Not that Bush is the final arbiter of this matter, but even under a Bush administration, it seems reasonable to me that civl union is a viable option.

Most conservatives are hung-up with the word "marriage" being used in legal documents for gay unions. Whatever. That seems a small price to pay to obtain the same rights and benefits as "married" couples.

Do you agree?

[foreigncorrespondent]

129. No he doesn't.

He only says he does to try to win over moderates votes.

You do realize that the FMA, they way it is worded will in fact not allow civil unions at all, in any part of the United States, don't you? It isn't just an attack on marriage rights for queers, but also an attack on civil unions, which is an already won battle in Vermont.

And Bush* and ilk support the FMA, that doesn't sound like a man who supports civil unions, does it?

[Djinn]

60. don't know what I'd do

if I was an American citizen - btw don't think this just relates to gay people either - if my government wanted to make blondes, disabled people, hindu's or anyone else a designated second class citizen I'd be pissed off even though I'm an able bodied, agnostic brunette.

In Aust we have the option of giving a protest vote without having to effectively vote for the conservatives. Preferential voting means I could give up on the increasingly right wing ALP years ago and the hopeless Democrats yet still have my vote eventually going to the ALP, they still get in but if they can see their primary vote dropped it lets them know. If I was a US citizen and the Democrats passed this I really don't know if I could vote for them, but my feeling that * already has the election stoeln again may influence that.

On edit: i wonder of 1/4 of blacks would vote to reinstate slavery? or 1/4 of indians would vote to be massacred wholesale? just a rhetorical question of course.

it's actually a facetious question but the answer: "I doubt it" - but then again the FMA doesn't actually go as far as to say gay people will be massacred not yet anyway - if you broadened that up to accurately reflect the similarities and asked "would black amercians vote for a party that has tried at times to block their constitutional rights" then YES I'm sure you'd find them - because like gay people folks generally weigh up a bunch of issues and don't vote on one alone.

[Sapphocrat]

68. Hang on to your akubra, Djinn...

The U.S. did worse than merely attempt to turn presumably "disabled" people -- or rather, those of a less "desirable" genetic pedigree -- into second-class citizens.

Ever hear of the U.S. eugenics movement? If you haven't, Google it (or, here's just one eye-opening article: http://www.commondreams.org/views/072100-106.htm ) -- your jaw will hit the floor.

Btw, I much prefer the Aussie method of voting. Well, actually, I'd prefer direct democracy -- but in lieu of that, you guys have a much more equitable and sensible system. Here, we couldn't approach it even if we were to incorporate an instant run-off system on the federal level (which isn't going to happen anytime soon, if ever).

[Djinn]

73. ah the wonderful "science" of eugenics

I read a really good book once (and of course can't remember the title) about the origins of eugenics and related "sciences" of phrenology and how a couple of fuckwit "scientists" tried to claim white superiority because of skull size, apart from the irrelevance of head size to civility or intelligence their data was completely knackered anyway. A lot of basis for modern racism comes from this period - including the word "racism" the "scientists" tried to assert we were different races and some where moer developed hence the term "racism" to describe skin colour prejudice - we are not different races. V interesting, if anyone has an idea of the name of the book I'd love to know.

[Sapphocrat]

58. I was much too generous...

...in my earlier assessment of your grasp on the issue.

Not to mention your astounding and baseless conclusion that the gay vote put Bush* in office. That would be laughable if I didn't think you actually believed such nonsense.

I'd like to hear what the rest of DU thinks about the gay vote. You will win this election without us? Perhaps so. Why don't you put up a poll asking DUers at large if they care whether or not we stay home on election day?

vamil93, do you have a problem with gay people? That is a genuine question; with every post, you sound even more bound and determined to lay the blame for this whole mess at our feet.

Why is that?

P.S. Firehoses? Oh, if that were the worst thing we could expect from all this ugliness, we would all sleep better at night.

[Joe Momma]

64. please, stay home so i can see

gays are not responsible for HELPING bush to office, but they sure as hell can make or break the dem nominee? OK.

take a poll of blacks or indians and see:

1. if they are as supportive of your cause as you seem to thing they may be.

2. if they believe that gays have been disriminated against on the same scale as themselves.

i have no problem with gay people. i would not care if they were allowed to marry and call it marriage. i would not care if they got extra money from the govt. for getting married. i would not care if they all went out and killed as many white people as they could (that last is a small bit facetious). what i do have a problem with is someone calling into question the values of the members of the very party that stands for minorities in this country. of course the vast majority of blacks (a hell of a lot more than a measley 75%) stand with my party. then again, you may think they are all just genetically less intelligent. i guess it is possible.

[LeftCoast]

66. That post is offensive!

Nothing Sapphocrat said, EVER implied a single negative thing about African Americans. You are bordering on Freeper tactics. Be warned.

[Joe Momma]

69. thanks for the warning...

i was not accusing anyone of saying negative things about blacks. i was pointing our the ridiculous assertion that the plight of blacks and indians in our country is comparable to the plight of gays. to which i was answered that firehouses were nothing compared to what gays are facing now. to which i answer what about ropes and torches and smallpox.

once again, thanks for the friendly warning, no jackboots needed at my door sir.

[LeahMira]

115. Yes, but it all feels exactly the same.

i was pointing our the ridiculous assertion that the plight of blacks and indians in our country is comparable to the plight of gays.


The circumstances and specifics and the manifestations of prejudice are different in each situation, but the end result is exactly the same.

I haven't heard any blacks or indians volunteering to change places with gays because gays have less suffering to endure.

I think that everybody has hard times, some more than others, and everybody deals with those hard times. A straight white guy can be oppressed too, y'know. Poverty, physical or mental disabilities... these things can touch people of any race.

The point is that all of it need not be, and all of it can destroy the spirit. I wonder how many human spirits the bigots can destroy before they start to realize that they are the ones who are the most limited of all.

[Sapphocrat]

120. How many human spirits can the bigots destroy?

Mine's just about destroyed, LeahMira.

I can take the hatred from the Radical Right -- I expect that. It's when our own party abandons us because they see us as both a liability and a necessarily evil -- instead of human beings -- that breaks me.

[Djinn]

71. why is it so??

take a poll of blacks or indians and see:

2. if they believe that gays have been disriminated against on the same scale as themselves

If someone's sexuality WAS as immediately identifiable as one's skin colour or ethnicity often is then anti gay discrimination would be every bit as bad. In fact given that discrimination against native americans could only have been around for 500 odd years and that it was 18th century pseudo science that really fuelled the idea that white skin was "civilised" you could argue that if sexuality were immediately identifiable, homophobia would have a longer and more repressive history as the prejudice dates back to biblical times whereas it was perfectly OK to be dark skinned back then...just ask Jesus...

The thing is right wing skin heads can't see you on the street and tell that you're gay, a boss can't tell if a prospective employee is gay, a landlord can't tell either. Why do you think so many people stay in the closet?? cause it's fun?

[Joe Momma]

74. interesting points

given the behavior of myself and many others as a child, i can definitely see the pain of hiding behavior that will lead to ridicule and worse. however, the gay movement is now very open and there are many individuals who openly challenge the bigotry. what i do not see are leaders that coalesce the group as all other oppressed group had at one time or another. is this inherent weakness in the group? or is it lack of belief in the opressive nature of the targeted characteristic?

i have noted that blacks vote for my party in a huge majority. 25% of gays voted for bush in the last election. how can i be expected to support this active revolution when 1 in 4 of gays do not?

incidentally, i argue until i am blue in the face for the full rights of gays with those on the other side. now, i have been confronted on the other side for being one of the oppressors? i wish i could walk into some places and blend in. for some of us that would make all the difference.

[foreigncorrespondent]

77. Now hang on a minute bucko!

We don't know what the LCR is actually going to do come this election yet, do we?

And for your information the majority of queers in your country do openly oppose the FMA, so unless you have actual statistics to say that 1 in 4 don't, then you shouldn't be making faulse claims.

[Joe Momma]

79. i am sorry...

you misunderstand. all i say is that 1 in 4 gays support fascists. at least they voted so in the last election.

[foreigncorrespondent]

81. Then back up your rediculous claims...

with links to viable resources! Otherwise don't make claiums which aren't factual.

[Joe Momma]

86. look...

you keep saying to back up the claims. will you finally face them.

bush received 25% of the gay vote, the highest for a fascist rep ever. 1.1 million votes.

http://www.commondreams.org/news2003/0804-03.htm

i cannot vouch for the accuracy of this website. i have checked others that say the same thing. do you want all of those sites too?

[foreigncorrespondent]

89. Oh I know how much of the gay vote...

...Bush* received in 2000. Being queer and being as how I have an interest in politics in both my own and my partners country, I do tend to check these things out.

But you also made the claim that 25% percent of the gay vote is what gave Bush the election. BACK IT UP WITH LINKS TO REPUTABLE SITES BUCKO, or don't make claims.

[Joe Momma]

96. ahh, i see..

so you are saying the difference of 500000 votes nationwide (just assuming gays may vote at the same clip as blacks for the party that supports their causes) would have made no difference? ok, the discussion is over and you do not have to give a logical reason why 1 in 4 of your group vote for fascists. and i am in denial.

washington blade exit polling reported nov. 10th, 2000:

59592 gay votes in florida for gw bush (the FASCIST candidate)

also see

http://www.stonewallaustin.org/library/2000/news/2000-1201-news-ElectionBlameGame.htm

i cannot yet find the orginal blade article, but i will. i did however find many many many repup sites that referenced the voting numbers proudly as the fruits of their long efforts.

[mondo joe]

92. Sell my rights out and expect me to care for yours?

I wouldn't vote for any candidate who would support a constututional amendment to impinge on the rights of any minority group.

Why you'd want to play "who suffered more: is beyond me --- are we only concerned with those who suffered the MOST?

[Joe Momma]

106. who is selling your rights out?

democrats support civil rights dude. is this why so many gays voted for bush in 2000? i cant get an answer. do they think democrats sold out their rights? please respond with an explanation.

[buck4freedom]

130. Nice lift

straight from Bill Maher's show on Tuesday.

[Plaid Adder]

10. I will vote for whoever gets the nomination, even Kerry. However,

I will not be able to say that I SUPPORT this friggin' party if it sells me out AGAIN.

At this point, we're not the Democrats' constituents, we're their hostages. It's not a good feeling.

Grr,

The Plaid Adder

[K-W]

29. Hostages?

I would love you to support that claim.

The key question is how much will the democrats suffer politically if they oppose this. If the answer is alot, than no one here should call on them to do so.

Now I am not so sure that the issue is terribly important to people, I dont think people will vote on this issue in anyway near the numbers the dems fear. But if I am wrong, and a large chunk of this country will go to the polls based on this issue, the party has no choice and no one would be doing themselves any favors by leaving the party over it.

That would amount to giving the republicans a 2 for the price of one deal. Not only do they pass thier legislation, they drive people out of the dem party to do it.

[Silverhair]

82. With wedge issues you don't need huge hunks of voters.

Wedge issues work on the margins. If they can slice away one in twenty of our base, that's enough. It is a "hot button" issue, meaning that people get very emotional about it, but not very logical. Much of our base still includes the traditional hard hat labor unions (I have worked hard hat - offshore oil rigs. I know the mentality.), and older people who learned their values many years ago. (Since I am one of those older people, I can talk about them. Most that I know aren't happy about the gay marriage idea.) While most will not jump ship over this issue, it only takes a small percentage to put us in deep trouble. Latinos are almost completely Roman Catholic and their famous machismo has little room for gays. Blacks are 75% opposed to gay marriage.

All of these groups are subject to have SOME (NOT ALL, JUST SOME) of their member sliced off by the wedge. One in twenty may not seem like many, but a 5% loss in our base is a huge hit.

[Sapphocrat]

121. Which means you also risk...

...a huge hit if the party disenfranchizes the gay bloc. Heavens no, I don't believe for a moment that queers are going to turn away in droves before election day; as Plaid Adder noted, we are not constituents; we are your hostages.

After election day, however, the party may be in for a very rude awakening indeed. I certainly can't predict what any group will do, and the LGBT community is far more diverse than any other oppressed minority -- but if the anti-gay vitriol I am seeing from within the party continues to increase (and with eight months to go before the election, I fear it is nowhere near peaking), you may not lose gay voters in November... but you could easily lose "one in twenty" loyalists from the party itself.

Nope, that's neither a threat nor a prediction -- but it is a possibility.

The sad thing is, we won't be missed until the 2006 elections.

[Sapphocrat]

122. 'Hostages' is the perfect word.

You tell me, K-W: What alternative do we have but the Democratic party? We have to vote for anybody with a "D" after his name right now, whether we support him or not. You could have the biggest anti-gay bigot on the ticket, and as long as he was a Dem, we would have to vote for him. What else can we do -- not vote at all? That would be akin to voting for Bush*, wouldn't it?

We don't get a voice in this, K-W. Oh, well, we get a voice, but in case you haven't noticed, we're getting shot down left and right. The debate has become academic, because in the end, the Dem party will do whatever it wants, and there's nothing any of us queers can do to change that.

That's why we're hostages.

As far as giving the Repukes a 2-for-1 deal, hell, man, they've already won this battle. Not the election -- I mean, they've split the Democratic party wide open on the gay-marriage issue, which is all they set out to do.

I guess the reason for that all depends on one's opinion of which side should capitulate to the other -- the gay folks or those who wish we'd just shut up.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

11. As a straight gal....

Left Coast, I would say I would not support the Democratic Party if it said "yes" to an amendment to the constitution on marriage, regardless of how it was worded.

The ONLY amendment of the constitution I would support is an ERA, calling for full civil rights for all Americans.

[cprise]

13. No. Flat out, no!!!

They might as well amend the Constitution to say that voting was intended for whites and males (and WASN'T IT???).

FMA would be a concession to outright fascism. It creates an underclass that must be brainwashed with ex-gay propaganda in order for the government to meet their "marriage promotion" targets. Legislated out of the definition of marriage, the very existence of gay people will then be considered an "anti-marriage" phenomenon.

[kayell]

15. Ask yourself

If I was a black person in the '60s, and the dems had supported AMENDING THE CONSTITUTION to make sure that segregation would remain legal in the US, would I continue to vote Dem?

I'm pretty sure you'll come up with the same answer I do.

[Q3JR4]

17. If the Dems. allow this to happen,

I will not be voting for anyone in the next election. In fact, since I will not be afforded the rights that everyone else has (and my government would be the culprit that caused that injustice), I would refuse to pay my taxes (state and federal) and I won't support any business that supported a candidate that voted for this amendment.

If this anti-gay hatred is enshrined in this nation's highest law, I will begin French classes. A Democratic society would get my support, but a totalitarian society (which seems to be the direction the U.S. is heading and this belief would be cemented by an amendment such as this) would be entitled to nothing from me.



And you know something else? The thing about this whole thing that pisses me off the most is the fact that the U.S. has already been through something of this sort. 50 years ago most of the same exact arguments were used against interracial marriage. These arguments were not correct then and they are not correct now.


I have more to say on this issue, but the whole thing makes me so angry that I cannot guarantee that the content of my message won't degenerate into something that I wouldn't be proud of saying.

[adriennel]

18. No.

If the Dem nominee supports the FMA, I have decided I cannot vote for him--this is too important of an issue for me to vote against my conscience. Since the Repug candidate also supports the FMA, it's clear I won't be voting for him either.

the point:
if I hear one more time that voting third party is akin to "throwing away" your vote, I'm going to scream. Not voting, or voting for a candidate you do not believe in, is what I would consider throwing your vote away. I fully intend to vote, and if it turns out that neither Dem nor Repug meet my qualifications, I will be voting independent. Not because I want Bush to win. Not because I want Kerry to lose. But because I have decided what I am willing to accept, and that which I am not. Everyone must decide this for themselves. If the Dems lose voters to third parties, there might be a reason why.

[outinforce]

19. Of Course

Geeeeze.

This, to me, is a real no brainer.

I am gay, and I enjoy more rights than a lot of American citizens did before 1964.

I do not have to ride in the back of the bus.

Except for one high school in NYC, I don't know of any educational institution that provides "separate but equal" space for gay kids.

In Washington, DC (where I work), it is a crime to discriminate against me because of my sexual orientation.

And, given all this, I should help Bush remain in the White House because Democrats might let the FMA pass?

Please.

Being given respect and dignity as a gay person is so much more than simply being "accepted" into a straight institution such as marriage.

And, speaking only for myself, I think the Democratic Party has done a great job in moving this country forward in terms of treating gay folks with dignity and respect.

[cprise]

24. And when you become defined as an impediment to the promotion of marriage

...say hello to federal ex-gay programs and electro-shock therapy. And that may pale compared to what we will see in the new religious prisons (another conservative program that Democrats don't care about).

Being gay will become considered, by Constitutional definition, anti-marriage. Conservatives will have new leverage at all levels of government to implement programs that "help" us with our "marriage impediment".

F*ck that!!!

The national Democratic party has done almost nothing for us, and now they are acting to smash our accomplishments at the state and local level.

[outinforce]

28. I Won"t Mind It At All ---

When I "become defined as an impediment to the promotion of marriage."

As a gay man, I am no more nor no less an "impediment to the promotion of marriage" (whatever that means) than a single mom, or a straight divorced man.

Do you seriously think that the US Government (especially one in which the President is a Democrat -- like John Kerry) will enact federal "ex-gay programs" involving "electro-shock therapy"?

If you do, let me commend you for your very active imagination.

You might just as well suggest that "they" will disallow divorce -- because it too is "anti-marriage".

Besides, the 2004 election has far more issues that I care about (and which affect me) than whether or not I can marry.

[Terwilliger]

34. you dont think its important that Dems would support a constitutional...

amendment against the notion of gays being able to marry?

I mean....really?

[outinforce]

37. Look, I'm Gay and Old Enough

to remember when being gay meant real persecution. Gay love was once "the love that dare not whisper its name".

So I am really not too concerned about a constitutional amendment denying me the right to marry. I am of the belief, by the way, that many of the things that the HRC and other groups seem to be clamoring for when they mention gay marriage could just as easily be accomplished even with an FMA amendment to the Constitution.

So, yes. Really.

[Terwilliger]

40. I dont want fascist-moralists changing the Constitution

You should be against it as an American, not as just a gay person.

What amendment comes next? The "Janet Jackson cant flash her tit at the Super Bowl" amendment?

[outinforce]

41. Exactly

I think the Constitution is just fine as it is.

Thanks, Terwilliger.

[kenny blankenship]

35. hang on a second

the government is now in the business of handing public money to religious organizations doing "social work" and some of these organizations both proselytize the beneficiaries of their aid and also discriminate against gays internally.

The step to the Federal Government giving money to a church which among other things, proselytizes and conducts an "ex-gay" recovery program for homosexuals is not nearly as far out as you might think.

With an FMA amendment of some sort creating marriage as a man-woman only institution connected to the cause of childbearing, the Church could easily defend its internal practices of discriminating against gay employees and also trying to convert gays from their sinful ways. Change sinful to non-reproductive. All they have to do is point to the FMA, and say they TOO are trying to free warped minds from their non-reproductive ways.

If some of that money given by the government to help churches feed and clothe the poor and counsel the pregnant washed over the same facilities used to "cure" gays of their same-sex compulsions, why couldn't these churches claim to be operating within the spirit of the Constitution with its new article expressing the separate and more desireable estate of heterosexual union? Bringing gays around to the genitals of the opposite sex is surely consonant with the values expressed in a Federal Marriage Amendment. Now they have a leg to stand on. Try to knock them off and you're now battling both popular prejudices AND the bully-precedent of the US Constitution.

No the government won't be conducting "Gay Re-education" directly in that case, but public money would be helping the Church in question carry on its "Ex-gay" ministry by relieving the drain on its general operating funds. If you know anything about Churches you know they have to do pretty much everything out of one place. Once you give them money you're helping them do everything that they do (most of it is good work in my opinion, but "curing" gays is not one of the things I want to be taxed for)

[outinforce]

39. A Second Has Passed....

"the government is now in the business of handing public money to religious organizations doing "social work" and some of these organizations both proselytize the beneficiaries of their aid and also against gays internally."

If any organization that the government is handing public money to is proselytizing the beneficiaries of their aid, then that is already against the law. Passage or non-passage of the FMA would have no effect on that. And if a particular religious organization says that gay people are "living in sin" and cannot become full members of that religious organization, then that is, as far as I am concerned, the business of that religious organzation. If that same religious organization (the one which "discriminates" against gay people internally) takes government funds and uses it to feed the hungry or clothe the poor, then I say "great".

"The step to the Federal Government giving money to a church which among other things, proselytizes and conducts an "ex-gay" recovery program for homosexuals is not nearly as far out as you might think. With an FMA amendment of some sort creating marriage as a man-woman only institution connected to the cause of childbearing, the Church could easily defend its internal practices of discriminating against gay employees and also trying to convert gays from their sinful ways."

I suppose you are correct. Just about anything could happen. Churches could easily defend their internal practices of "discriminating" against divorced people who remarry and try to convert people who "live in sin" from their sinful ways.

And do you really think that a church will be less inclined to try to set gay people straight if FMA does not become law?

[Djinn]

76. Bushists also happy

to throw "Faith Based INitiative" cash (YOUR CASH) at Lou Sheldon, a man who called gay people to be banned from teaching, suggested quarantining AIDS patients, said gay people shouldn't have access to 9/11 compensation comes up with fabbo quotes like "gays and lesbians live perverted, twisted lives that feed upon the unsuspecting and the innocent." and has no problem picketing funerals! Having a connection with this freak should be political suicide - your tax dollars support fundie freaks like this to alter the constitution to effect private lives...not very conservative I must say

[noiretextatique]

20. what is the alternative?

i do not support the democratic party any longer...i joined the green party some time ago. but will vote for the democratic nominee, and i do support those working against instutionalized homo-hatred.

[kenny blankenship]

21. If our Presidential nominee is a Quisling on this issue

If for example we get as the nominee, John Kerry, who's on record as supporting an Amendment to the Constitution that would force separate and UNEQUAL status on gays, then many Democrats will go along with FMA because they deep down don't give a damn about people unlike themselves and they won't want to make waves for Kerry.

In that case, I will definitely regard the Democratic Party as no longer my trusted ally. I won't leave it, but I won't be supporting a "legalized discrimination" candidate in the November election that's for damn sure. Not with money not with time not with my vote. And I will be considering my OTHER options.

The citizenship of 20 million people is not a bargaining chip that you may trade away for possession of the Whitehouse just so your worthless party whore can squat there instead of Bush. Citizenship is fundamental and non-negotiable.

The point, in my opinion, is to head this shit off at the pass right now:
Make John Kerry PROMISE to oppose discriminatory amendments to the Constiution.

Edwards HAS DONE IT ALREADY, and he made it look easy too:-

Senator EDWARDS: "I'm completely opposed to the constitutional amendment. I think it's wrong and unnecessary."
---------

C'mon Kerry, you supposedly big brave man, where are your principles? Where is your courage now ?

[mondo joe]

25. If they allow FMA they don't need me

Any party that would allow this sort of attack on the civil rights of any minority group doesn't need me as a supporter.

And gays have been "taking one for the team" on this for decades. Enough is enough.

[cprise]

27. But Democrats make for very good PR

...when the powers-that-be push things too far.

They smile a lot.

[Walt Starr]

26. Become a five percenter like me

Most people live in states where their vote won't amount to a hill of beans. Just use my simple five percent methodology and you can't go wrong!

If the nominee is polling 5% or more above or below Bush in your state on November 1st, the race is a forgone conclusion in your state. No matter how you vote, you will have no effect upon the outcome so at this point, you can safely vote for the third party candidate most representative of your views.

[xxqqqzme]

30. if the democratic party allows

or supports the FMA in any way...it is no longer The Democratic Party. It will B dead and I'm looking 4 a political party 2 take its place.

[DU GrovelBot]

31. ## Support Democratic Underground! ##

RUN C:\GROVELBOT.EXE
 
This week is our first quarter 2004 fund drive.
Please take a moment to donate to DU. Thank you
for your support.
 
- An automated message from the DU GrovelBot

Click here to donate.

[Terwilliger]

32. Go for Grovelbot!

[mitchtv]

33. as a long time union/D party/ gay person

I'm outta here if they go with this . Take a stand, please

[Joe Momma]

49. as a long time supporter of gay rights

i am glad to see you go if that is your attitude.

[foreigncorrespondent]

54. Ha!!!!

"as a long time supporter of gay rights"

Could have fooled me!

[Joe Momma]

55. believe what you want..

whining and threatening to stay home on election day really motivates people to join the tidal wave of support for this issue.

[foreigncorrespondent]

63. Are you even reading what myself...

...and others are replying to you?

I AM NOT AN AMERICAN CITIZEN! I AM NOT LIVING IN THE UNITED STATES! I DO NOT VOTE IN YOUR ELECTIONS! AND I WOULD NEVER MISS VOTING IN ANY ELECTION IN MY COUNTRY!

Do you understand now?

BTW I will believe what I want. You claim to be on our side, yet you are blaming the LGBT community for Bush* being able to steal the 2000 election?

[Joe Momma]

65. not blaming...

i also do not blame a small potatoes guy like himmler for the entire holocaust. but he did have a little something to do with it, no?

1 million gays. what was the margin in the natl. race? what was the margin in FL?

no, not blaming. we minorities did not vote for the fascists at a 25% clip.

[foreigncorrespondent]

67. Well if you aren't blaming...

...then you had better go back and begin editing your posts:

how many gays voted for bush in 2k? i have heard and read that it was enough to give him the election

Oh no, that doesn't sound like blaming does it?

[Joe Momma]

70. no, the million gay votes he received

were definitely not enough to swing an election decided by such a wide margin.

why don't blacks vote for fascists at such a high rate? could it be their lack of wallets and pocketbooks?

[mitchtv]

114. I go, and i begin to work on my

constituents.There comes a point when you don't have anymore time to waste. You will miss my vote , and all i can convince to stay home. the party deserves defeat if they backtrack on this issue.

[lcooksey]

36. I don't support the party now

I'm a liberal Independent. I support individual candidates, if I agree with enough of their positions. But Democrats need to stick with what has been working well so far -- nobody needs to mess with the Constitution.

It irks me when they say "nobody needs to mess with the Constitution, YET". But as long as they don't go any further than that, I'll still vote for them.

Any Dem who backs any version of an FMA will really be giving new scope to the concept of voting for the lesser of two evils.

[LeftCoast]

42. A Kick for the Evening Crowd!

:kick:

[greekspeak]

43. If a democrat is nominated who is in favor of the FMA

I will not vote for that candidate. This ammendment is not about gay marriage. This is a referendum on whether gay people are equal to straight people. So I will not be voting for any candidate who supports the notion that I am not equal to a heterosexual person.

Such "referenda," pivotal points where a group becomes legally margainized, occur frequently in history. Christian against pagans, pagans against Christians, whites against blacks, whites against native Americans, the Japanese against Koreans, rich against poor....

[foreigncorrespondent]

44. Oh LC...

The other part of me says Gays & Lesbians should "take one for the team."

...I have no read any of the other replies, yet I had to reply to what I have copied in above.

Taking one for the team is all fine and dandy, but the queer community has taken more than its fair share for the team. To stand by and let someone legally deem you a second class citizen isn't taking one for the team, but rather destroying yourself for the sake of bigotry.

If the dems support this, then they are nothing more than a bunch of bigoted fools as well.

[Joe Momma]

50. i cannot believe what i am seeing here

take your vote and go home? please try the other side, they have so much more to offer. i seem to sense a strange feeling of pleasure in deluding yourself that a constitutional amendment defining marriage will actually be ratified. let the revolution begin.

[LeftCoast]

51. Um, you do realize that there are more than TWO parties in the US?

Right? Besides, I think you've utterly missed the point. If the Democrats do not represent us in this most basic civil rights issue then voting for them in many ways is no better than voting for Repukes. That having been said, this whole damned thread is about the anguish many of us feel at being told "Well the Dems will screw you slightly less than the Repukes..."

[Joe Momma]

52. i respectfully disagree

i do realize there are more than 2 parties. what were their names again? if you have such a problem with our form of representative democracy, then why do you even threaten not to vote? don' vote at all. or move to change the system.

i completely agree that gays should have all the rights of straights. a large percentage do not. and i think that large percentage may be a majority.

which part of the struggle of homosexuals makes it comparable to the treatment of minorities (religious and racial) throughout history? i am not overly concerned that gays may stay home and cost us the election. i am more concerned that they will turn out and vote for bush in huge numbers again. but then again, this whole right wing bigoted thing is new isn't it?

[Sapphocrat]

62. I challenge your accusation.

Give me the numbers. Give me the "huge numbers" of lesbians and gay men who voted for Bush*.

I want numbers, percentages, and reliable links.

As for your question, "which part of the struggle of homosexuals makes it comparable to the treatment of minorities (religious and racial) throughout history?" let's start with the word "faggot." Know the origin of that word? Come on, it's a fascinating piece of etymology.

Let's see, then we have pink triangles for gay men and black triangles for lesbians during the Nazi era -- you know about that, right? The Jews, of course, got yellow stars.

Something else we share with WWII Jews -- gay men were gassed. Look it up.

You want a comparison to African-Americans? The same stupid arguments used against gay marriage today are the same stupid arguments used against interracial marriage a generation ago.

How many examples do you need, exactly?

And what do you mean, "a large percentage" of gay people do not "have all the rights of straights"? NONE of us does! Not ONE.

Name one gay American who can claim all the rights and privileges of any law-abiding straight person? 'Cause if such a queer exists, I want to know what kind of magic wand s/he owns.

[Joe Momma]

78. some numbers...

i must admit, i had only heard these numbers on tv until now. bush got the highest gay vote in history for fascists. 25%, 1.1 million votes. almost 7x the gay votes that nader got. this is voter news service exit polling. i will not post the margin in florida or nationally. it makes me sick still.

i have several times said f*ck nader. i believe gays should have full rights. maybe i am wrong on this issue.

[foreigncorrespondent]

84. Links...

...so we can varify your claims.

[Joe Momma]

87. here..

http://www.commondreams.org/news2003/0804-03.htm

i have checked various sources and they agree.

[foreigncorrespondent]

91. And where in that article...

...does it claim that the 25% of the gay vote is what gave Bush* the 2000 election?

[Joe Momma]

97. look mr press secretary

where in those papers does it show that bush served on the dates in question...oops wrong question

washington blade exit polling say over 50k voted for bush in florida. which jibes with the little bit of stats you can apply to the overall numbers, or at least in the same area code. what was that margin in florida again? do a search on the topic and see how many fascists brag about how the gays won florida for them. ha ha ha, how ironic for the lefties, blah blah blah.

blacks don't vote with their pocketbooks because they can't. whats the gay excuse? yeah. right.

[foreigncorrespondent]

101. I happen to be a woman!

Again, get your facts right, bucko!

[Joe Momma]

104. huh?

is bucko gender specific. i must brush up on my archaic/no longer used insults. maybe its in the davinci code somewhere?

still no answer on the 1 out of 4 thing huh? i understand.

[Djinn]

95. Guess what the majority of Germans in 1939 wanted

i completely agree that gays should have all the rights of straights. a large percentage do not. and i think that large percentage may be a majority.


might isn't and never has been right

[Sapphocrat]

56. Hello, vamil93...

You're obviously quite new here, aren't you? That would explain your complete ignorance of the fact that you just told an Australian citizen to join the GOP -- a suggestion which is not only pointless, but extremely insulting.

I would venture to guess you have spent precious little, if any, time reading the lengthy gay-marriage threads prior to your arrival. That may be a mistaken impression on my part; it is clear, however, that the intense division of DUers on this issue has somehow eluded you, as well as the reasons for this division -- as well as the names of the most active DUers participating in nearly all such threads.

By the way, if you don't think there is any chance of the FMA passing -- well, I would never lower myself to calling you delusional, as you have just called foreigncorrespondent, but there is certainly no question that you are in complete denial.

There were plenty of Europeans in denial about the Nazi threat, too. Many of them are not here to tell the tale today.

Enjoy your false sense of security -- but do us all a favor and snap out of it in a hurry. Refusing to recognize a very real threat incapacitates you to do anything about it -- until, of course, it's too late.

And by that time, they'll be all finished with us queers -- and then they'll come after you.

[Joe Momma]

59. i apologize for insulting you

i would like to thank you for comparing so many of us in this country with nazi sympathizers. the people that are not here to tell the tale of nazism knew exactly what was happening. it has happened for 2k years. i find it interesting that you compare your plight with their own. and i do believe it is a plight. one that should not burden members of your group. however, this will not be an issue that derails the democrats from victory. are you familiar with what it takes to amend the constitution. please ask the anti flag burners how they did.

incidentally, if gays were allowed to marry in st. peters cathedral tomorrow, i would not care at all. i will not, however, hide my vote in a bushel with the current embarassment in place.

[Sapphocrat]

72. Are you having fun twisting my words?

You know perfectly well I never compared you or anyone else to "Nazi sympathizers." I compared you to the Europeans in complete denial about the Nazi threat. Big difference, buddy-boy.

Obviously, you are here for some reason I cannot fathom. One thing I do understand is that trying to hold a conversation with you is a complete waste of my time. If nothing else, I hope you're enjoying the attention you've received -- for you've received the last of mine.

I'll still wait, however, for you to back up your baseless accusation that the gay vote put Bush* in the White House.

Just a little reminder: Numbers, percentages, and reliable links.

Somehow, I think I'll be waiting a long, long time.

[Joe Momma]

75. for your clarification...

most europeans had been oppressing jews for thousands of years. in other words they did not care. many european-americans in this country did not or do not care. so you were actually comparing me to a bigoted european that turned a blind eye to the slaughter of 6+ million people.

ask a jew that survived the death camps (better hurry, fewer every day) what they think of the harshness of the gay plight today. i am sure many will think the bigotry is wrong. i am thinking it will not go beyond that.

tell them what you think of the party thats trying to get the fascists out of office too.

[foreigncorrespondent]

80. STOP!

tell them what you think of the party thats trying to get the fascists out of office too.

Now I have just about enough, and yes, I will come in defense of my partner, when she is under attack and has already stated that she will not be replying to you again.

I will have you know that Sappho happens to come from a very liberal imediate family. Both her parents have been life long dems, as one of her sisters.

Sapphocrat has also been a life long democrat. As her partner I have seen her go through inner turmoil because the democrats have been letting down the queer community as well as the larger leftist base since Bush* stole election in 2000.

As a life long democrat she is hurt that there is even a remote chance that the FMA will pass and people with in the democratic party couldn't give a shit.

She will give you and people like you exactly what you want come November, she will vote for the democrat against MY wishes.

So if you want to argue with someone bucko then go ahead argue with me. And stop putting words into Sappho's mouth that are simply not there.

[Joe Momma]

83. you stop

my party has championed the rights of minorities for decades. you are insulting a huge block of people that support your cause, while meanwhile, i find out that 1 in 4 in your own group voted to support these fascists. i have yet to hear a viable defense of this. 90% of blacks voted for bush. the heat of that revolution has been burning for decades, and it has not lowered to 25% for the opressors.

edited for math error.

[foreigncorrespondent]

88. NO BUCKO, YOU STOP!

And stop making wild accusations without the links to reputable sites to back them up.

You have been making wild accustions in this thread. You have basically told me a foreigner to join the GOP (and when Sappho pointed that fact out, you never even offered an apology to me), and you have been twisting Sapphocrats words around to suit your own hidden agenda what ever that may be.

Unless you begin showing links, then your credibility is shit around here.

[Joe Momma]

90. i will not apologize

to someone that keeps calling me bucko. that is such a taboo insult in my country that it is rarely even heard anymore.

http://www.commondreams.org/news2003/0804-03.htm

is that national gay and lesbian task force thing reputable? i didn't know.

[foreigncorrespondent]

93. Well you started this...

...by replying to me in the first place and telling me, an AUSTRALIAN CITIZEN TO JOIN THE GOP!

Then you have gone on to attack my partner, and tell her not to vote come election day.

And now you are quoting the same link all over the place, but that link doesn't back up your rediculous claims.

Well you lose bucko! You haven't been able to back anything up. You have attacked long time posters, and you have just managed to blow your credibility out the water, before you even reached 40 posts. Well done!

[Joe Momma]

98. why wont you address the question...

gays voted for bush at a 25% rate. 50k + gays voted for him in FL according to the Nov. 10 issue of the wash. blade. i lose? ok. 1 out of 4 of your group votes fascist in my country. i vote democrat. i lose. i know i lose bucko. my president is the fascist.

please encourage all the gays in my country to do the same thing they did in 2000. i will lose again. meanwhile, me and my group will vote 90% against the oppressors.

[Djinn]

99. isn't your country

Little Rock???

[Joe Momma]

100. yeah...

bucko is very taboo here.

[Sapphocrat]

45. NO.

As you pose the question, my answer is NO. Unequivocally, NO.

"Take one for the team"? One? DoMA, Don't Ask, Don't Tell, state ban after state ban after state ban, spineless Dems repeatedly wimping out in an effort to please everyone except the one group gay rights actually affects...

Just how many hits are we supposed to "take for the team" before we refuse to be everyone's favorite whipping post?

This isn't a political issue. It's my goddamned life. And anyone who can't put politicking aside long enough to understand that supporting any party willing to shackle us in the hull of the ship and still have the temerity to demand our votes and our donations, then that person is no better than our overt oppressors -- and a hell of a lot less honest about their own motives.

That said, the Dem nominee will still get my vote in November. The following day, however, I will register as a Green, and never vote for another Democrat who does not live up to the bar set by Dennis Kucinich. Period.

Flame away, people.

[LeftCoast]

46. I'm gravitating toward the same decision myself, Sapph.

"That said, the Dem nominee will still get my vote in November. The following day, however, I will register as a Green, and never vote for another Democrat who does not live up to the bar set by Dennis Kucinich. Period."

I will also add, that IF the anti-marriage ammendment does pass, I will most likely NEVER again vote for any polititian who is not publicly opposed to it (and seeking to repeal).

[roughsatori]

47. I will leave the party and fight them as MY enemy

I have even found myself thinking of the possibility of using property destruction and hard-core civil disobedience to fight for my rights. I would rather be shot with dignity then be a sniveling fool voting for a party that may give me a crumb when the polls say it is ok.

This may do more to fire up the transgressive GLBT outcast movement that Jean Genet dreaded ending due to upper-class white men leading the fight.

Note I am not advocating violence YET.

[Silverhair]

85. Violence would be a REALLY bad idea.

You don't have the numbers to win, and losing a violent confrontation hurts real bad.

[Djinn]

102. assuming only gay people would be annoyed by this

You don't get much straighter than me - I don't even really have any friends of the same gender as me let alone lovers but if I was a US citizen, I'd be thinking along the same lines, if any Australian government even gave a vague hint of doing something like this I'd fight it - that way maybe one day when the powers that be decide I'm a threat to the nation some nice gay folks might protest for me

[Sapphocrat]

124. I think that's because...

...Aussies in general refuse to take 1/10th as much crap as Americans.

That's not bias talking -- that's simple observation. Aside from the occasional demo in Sydney that gets a bit ugly -- I've seen your parliament in session! :D

But, seriously...

The idea that support is reciprocal (that someday some nice gay folks might stand up for you) is lost on a lot of people here. Oh, definitely, we have very devoted straight supporters -- but a small, angry minority seems to think that while we should continue to support the party line on everything from abortion to gun control to education funding and beyond, they're under no obligation to return the favor in any way, shape or form.

The first time I ever cried at a pride parade was when I saw a young man and woman, dressed very conservatively, him in a suit and her in a dress, marching in the parade, carrying a sign that said WE'RE STRAIGHT, WE'RE MARRIED, AND WE SUPPORT YOU.

That was one of the most touching things I ever witnessed.

[Djinn]

126. we do have a finely attuned bullshit radar

but then again we keep voting for one of the most reactionary men to have darkened parliament's door step in decades, some of us seem happy to be crapped on!

[mondo joe]

94. Any Dem Candidate Who Does Sends My Vote to the Libertarian

And I'd feel the same way about an Amendment that limited marriage to 2 people of the same race.

[Joe Momma]

107. serious question

why do i see so much criticism of democrats here? why did gays vote in such large numbers for bush in 2000 (in comparison to other minority groups)? men who work their entire adult lives to further civil and minority rights are hypocrites and villians while 1 in 4 gays vote for the opposite side of the spectrum? forgive me, i dont understand

[LeftCoast]

108. I expect more of Democrats

You've asked these questions about a dozen times on this thread and they've been answered/rebutted ad nauseum, but here goes my take.

You ask why there is so much criticism of Dems here. Well, I expect more of Dems. Repukes are generally a lost cause as far as I'm concerned.

Additionally, you seem to say that since Gays and Lesbians didn't vote Democratic enough for you that we don't have a right to criticize "men who work their entire adult lives to further civil and minority rights..." Well, these brave men seem to be getting ready to sell my civil rights down the river. Gee, I wonder...if we'd gotten 100% of all Gays & Lesbians to vote Dem do ya suppose they'd still be screwing us?

[Laughing Mirror]

109. FMA would be final nail in coffin of the Constitution

The Bill of Rights is now nothing more than a cadaver, Patriot Act I delivering the final coup de grace.

Either the Democratic Party upholds the Constitution as it is written or it weeps as it throws dirt on the coffin descending down the hole, the grave closing over.

From Latest Breaking News:

Senate committee approves amendment banning gay marriage

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=359402

The only dissenting voice was Sen. Nadine Thomas (D-Decatur), who not only voted against the amendment but also blasted speakers for trying to "justify discrimination."

[cboy4]

110. That's a tough call, but the F'ing

GOP would like nothing more than to see
gays stray from the Democratic Party.

We account for A LOT of votes, and considering
how close the election was in 2000, we could
"Ralph Nader" Bush or other Repukes into
office in the future if we don't stick with the party.

So, while I'd be insulted and pissed, there's
really no question I'd continue voting Democratic. :kick:

[LeftCoast]

111. Ok...one last kick

:kick:

[David__77]

112. Democratic Party is truly worthless if it cannot stop this.

It will only take 146 house or 34 senators to stop it. There are at least 146 very safe Democratic seats in the house. If the leadership cannot muster the opposition to this, then the party is truly not committed to civil rights generally.

[LeahMira]

113. I don't know, but...

... who else would you vote for?

I don't know you well enough to know if you do more, i.e. work with the campaigns. But far as voting, I totally respect your feelings and your commitment. Nonetheless, you surely wouldn't vote Republican! Would you vote Green? Or would you just stay home.

OTOH, if you are involved with campaigns or with the Democratic party at some level other than as a voter, you and your friends could make a difference at least in your home neighborhood. I've heard that all politics is local.

[kenny blankenship]

116. Now is not the time to talk about giving up

I feel your anger believe me, but right now we should be focussing on how to make the Democratic Party stand with us.

We have to figure out a strategy for WINNING here. (I don't mean winning 2004 for the Dems) And we need to put forward the best leaders of the Gay & Lesbian community to make the Democrats do what's right instead of sell us out.

Who are OUR leaders and what are they doing this minute instead of being in the DNC's face and the frontrunner's face? What do they need to hear from us now to get going on this problem?


Later on, if the Democratic Party weasels on us, like Kerry and Zell Miller are doing, we'll have plenty of time to talk about where we go from there.

Make John Kerry PROMISE!

[damnyankee2601]

117. Sorry dude...

I don't want you to "take one for the team." But in a choice between RW looneys and Democrats, I'm going to vote Democrat every time. On the other hand, if I get to choose between a real progressive and a sellout like Lieberman, the real progressive gets my vote.

[Politicub]

123. I'm well aware that Dems will control this issue

And no, I will never support the Dems again if they are responsible for the FMA passing. In fact, I will make plans to get myself and my partner of ten years out of this country.

There couldn't be a bigger fuck you to the gay community.

This brings to mind when Clinton signed DOMA -- in the dead of night. I lost a lot of respect for him when he did that.

[ibegurpard]

125. No

I'm not asking them to champion "gay marriage" or even say they don't disapprove of it. But supporting a constitutional amendment banning it is way over the line.

[buck4freedom]

127. Nope

I refuse to be a "good German"....

If they won't support me, I won't support them. It's that simple.

It's like asking a black person if they'll vote Democratic if they all come out and decide segregation was a really cool idea!

Get real!