I have said this is a losing issue for Dems

[flyingfish]

Many did not believe me on this site when I said it.
This will prove it.
Emphasis on this issue will cost Dems votes.
The question you must ask is, "Do you really want Bush out of office?"
If so, you must pay attention to these polls.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/fc?cid=34&tmpl=fc&in=World&cat=Gays_and_Lesbians

[Alenne]

1. What should Dems do?

Democrats probably will not make this a big issue but Republicans will. Should the Democratic nominee not support equal rights for gays and lesbians?

[ComerPerro]

3. Here is what they should do

Dems need to combat the right wing slander.

We are not out to destroy the scanctity of marriage. We are not trying to further any type of "pro-homosexual, anti-heterosexual agenda".
What Dems are trying to do is see that gay couples may recieve benifits that are afforded to heterosexual couples.
Dems need to stress the human side of this. Such examples would be hospital visits, insurance, and legal protection.

[HFishbine]

2. Not Really

I don't know of a democratic candidate who supports gay marriage as part of his platform (correct me if I'm wrong). I know that several are in favor of legal recognition of gay uninions in order to provide equal protection under the law, and in that regard, they have the majority of the American people on their side.

Yes, a majority of Americans oppose gay marriage, but when asked:

"Do you favor or oppose allowing gay and lesbian couples to enter into legal agreements with each other that are not marriages, but that would give them many of the same legal and financial relationships as married couples?"

53% said they favor such agreements, while only 34% are opposed.

Support of civil unions is not an issue that will cost dems. It resonnates with their base and is favored by the public at large.

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

[MisterP]

4. generally if there is a "losing issue," we can do two things:

a) EDUCATE; shift public opinion.
a.1) PROPAGANDIZE; Republican variant of the former, relies on black-and-white views, soundbytes, apathy, and rhetorical gadgetry; not necessarily fact-based.
b) SURRENDER; adopt me-tooism, cause Truman's grave to shift as he turns in it.

[grytpype]

6. Wrong.

What we can do is postpone discussion of the issue until we get back into power. Because if we discuss it now, it will count against us, and may make the margin of defeat for us.

What we should not do under any circumstances is fall into Rove's trap.

[NashVegas]

8. That's Not an Option

As long as Dean is in the race.

[ldf]

20. this is THE wedge issue that the repubs are going to use

especially, and specifically, BECAUSE dean is in the race. they are extremely afraid of the response he is getting, and will pull out the "homosexual agenda" card. they think it will work.

and it will unless we do some serious educating, and responding with truth ads concerning civil unions vs. marriage. (as a gay, i don't care what you call it, as long as there is equality under the law.)

i'm sure dean can do it, but doubt that any of the other candidates could pull it off. they would probably go into denial mode concerning one of their main, core constituencies. sorta like judas.

[John_H]

5. It's a very marginal plus for dems

More than half may be against gay marriages, but 80 percent of the people in america don't care enough about this issue to base their votes upon it.

The ten percent who would never vote for a candidate who supports gay marriage, would never vote for a dem anyway.

The ten percent who would only vote for a candidate who supports it tend to vote dem anyway.

Here's why it's a marginl plus for dems--we'll probably take away some gay republicans than we will lose catholics.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

9. I Don't Think Catholics Are The Only Group

that opposes gay marriages.


I think we should finesse the issue while we build a consensus for civil unions.

[samsingh]

7. Dems stand on issues

which means that shrub must be voted out of office

[TheBigGuy]

10. I dont see how the Dems can avoid this issue

The GOP is goint to put it on the table...what are the Democrats going to do....not talk about it?

I hate to say this but the last time this came up, with DOMA, the Demcorats and Clinton adopted "me-tooism", and it did help Clinton get re-elected (or didnt hurt).

I have to say that the USA is just not ready for gay people as equals, and there is precious little the Demcorats can do about that. The best theycan do is make sure that any anti-gay-marriage stuff is just statutory and not a Constitutional amendement.

[snippy]

11. Democrats need to stress Cheney's support of civil unions.

And then publicize the ugliest behavior by the Reich Wing Fundamentalist portion of the republican base. This will force Bush into taking one of three positions.

1. Repudiate Cheney's position. This will please the Reich Wing Fundamentalists but cause unease among moderate republicans and independents who will not want to be associated with the vitriolic hatred of the Reich Wing.

2. Agree with Cheney's position. This will cause many of the Reich Wing Fundamentalists to turn visciosly on Bush while others may simply stay home on election day. Bush can not win without their support (unless the economy is doing better.)

3. Try to take a position somewhere in between. This will please no one and make it easy for people to mock him. Ridicule would weaken Bush among independents.

[WyomingDemocrat]

12. I don't support gay marriage

but I am not so against it that I am willing to not vote for a candidate based on that reason. If gay marriage becomes legal, I won't really care, but for now I am against it, I probaly would of voted no on that poll. It is kind of like colors, you don't like a certain color but you don't really care if you a shirt of that color. I don't know, it's really hard to clarify my position.

[JI7]

22. why do you oppose it ?

also, if you don't mind, can you tell me if you consider yourself a liberal, moderate, or conservative democrat ?

[Julien Sorel]

13. I'm not even gay,

and I'm all about winning, but at some point you have to draw the line on principle. I think this is one of those issues. It doesn't have to be a centerpiece of the Democratic platform, but somebody has to stand up for the concept of equal rights for all, and the Republicans historically won't. Besides, caving on every controversial issue runs the risk of making Dems look wimpy, as the person who mentioned Truman implied. There's a lot to this issue, and it can be spun into a positive. If I remember correctly, a few months ago the majority of people supported civil unions.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

14. The Democratic candidate should take his stand

and stick to it. If it's for "gay marriage", "civil union", or whatever the name, he shouldn't try to weasel his way around it. He should, instead back it boldly, and explain his reasons for supporting it clearly. There are plenty of good ones. "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Has a nice ring to it.

Besides, it's the right thing to do.

[Iluvleiberman]

15. But what if it's unpopular?

Just wait and see what the Rove spin machine does with his stance.

I DO support gay marriage but if that hurts our nominee, then we should drop it for awhile.

[flyingfish]

16. Why does nobody talk about single people(heterosexual)?

Many complaints of gays are based on the fact they do not have the same rights as married heterosexuals.
But what about single heterosexuals?
Hospital visits, wills, insurance, etc..., are all issues that gays complain about but also affect single heterosexuals.
Why can't the laws be changed to not punish single people, heterosexual or homosexual?

Gays can win a lot more friends if they pushed for the rights of single people, not just gays.
Think about it.

Why should a married person with a spouse and 10 kids have health insurance but a single person cannot get it for a relative, roommate, best friend, whomever, that does not have insurance?
Why can't a single person have a boyfriend/girlfriend/best friend in hospitals under some cirumstances?
I could go on, but you get my point.
Don't punish single people of either sexual identity.
Our society does just that in many ways.

[Iluvleiberman]

18. Excelllent point!

Many people shack up for years but do not get married. My neighbors did that but eventually got married and had kids.

[LoverOfLiberty]

19. You can't just not talk about it

because some perceive that it might hurt the Democratic party. What's a Democrat to do? STAND UP FOR WHAT HE/SHE BELIEVES IN.

Democrats have had the perfect opportunity to use this as a wedge issue against conservatives but have been too afraid of pissing off those who wouldn't vote for them anyway.

Democratic candidates need to stand up for what they believe in, frame this issue as a fairness issue to protect all of America's famlies, and then move on. Running away from it makes them look a lot like they did in the fall of 2002.

God Damn don't concede this issue to Rove.

[donco6]

21. I agree.

It's the only choice for someone with any integrity at all.

[w4rma]

17. Cheney and Lieberman in the vice presidential debates. Dean on LKL.

…
MR. SHAW: Senator, sexual orientation. Should a male who loves a male and a female who loves a female have all -- all! the constitutional rights enjoyed by every American citizen?

SEN. LIEBERMAN: A very current and difficult question, and I've been thinking about it, and I want to explain what my thoughts have been. Maybe I should begin this answer by going back to the beginning of the country and the Declaration of Independence, which says right there at the outset that all of us are created equal and that we're endowed not by any bunch of politicians or philosophers but by our creator with those inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

At the beginning of our history, that promise, that ideal was not realized or experienced by all Americans. But over time since then, we have extended the orbit of that promise. And in our time, at the frontier of that effort is extending those kinds of rights to gay and lesbian Americans who are citizens of this country and children of the same awesome God just as much as any of the rest of us are. That's why I have been an original cosponsor of the Employment Nondiscrimination Act, which aims to prevent gay and lesbian Americans who are otherwise qualified from being discriminated against in the workplace. And I've sponsored other pieces of legislation and other -- taken other action that carry out that ideal.

The question you pose is a difficult one for this reason: It confronts or challenges the traditional notion of marriage as being limited to a heterosexual couple, which I support.

But I must say I'm thinking about this because I have friends who are in gay and lesbian partnerships who have said to me, "Isn't it unfair that we don't have similar legal rights to inheritance, to visitation when one of the partners is ill, to health care benefits?" And that's why I'm thinking about it, and my mind is open to taking some action that will address those elements of unfairness, while respecting the traditional religious and civil institution of marriage.

MR. SHAW: Mr. Secretary?

MR. CHENEY: This is a tough one, Bernie. The fact of the matter is we live in a free society, and freedom means freedom for everybody. We don't get to choose, and shouldn't be able to choose and say, "You get to live free, but you don't." And I think that means that people should be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to enter into. It's really no one else's business in terms of trying to regulate or prohibit behavior in that regard.

The next step, then, of course, is the question you ask of whether or not there ought to be some kind of official sanction, if you will, of the relationship, or if these relationships should be treated the same way a conventional marriage is. That's a tougher problem. That's not a slam dunk.

I think the fact of the matter, of course, is that matter is regulated by the states. I think different states are likely to come to different conclusions, and that's appropriate. I don't think there should necessarily be a federal policy in this area.

I try to be open-minded about it as much as I can, and tolerant of those relationships. And like Joe, I also wrestle with the extent to which there ought to be legal sanction of those relationships. I think we ought to do everything we can to tolerate and accommodate whatever kind of relationships people want to enter into.
…
http://www.c-span.org/campaign2000/transcript/debate_100500.asp

…
DEAN: We have civil unions, which gives equal rights -- doesn't give marriage, but it gives equal rights in terms of insurance, employment rights, inheritance rights, hospital visitation, to every single Vermonter, no matter who they are.

You know, interestingly enough, Dick Cheney took a position in 2000 in the debates that is not very different than mine. He said, this is not a federal issue. I really am inclined to leave this matter to the states, and I think we ought to let states figure out how to give equal rights to everybody in the way that they do it. So I think this is kind of a political issue at the federal level, but the power to decide these things really belongs to the state level.

KING: All right. On your own state level, if it were a referendum, would you vote for gay marriage?

DEAN: If what were -- we don't have a referendum in my state, and we have civil unions, and we deliberate chose civil unions, because we didn't think marriage was necessary in order to give equal rights to all people.

Marriage is a religious institution, the way I see it. And we're not in the business of telling churches who they can and cannot marry. But in terms of civil rights and equal rights under the law for all Americans, that is the state's business, and that's why we started civil unions.

KING: So you would be opposed to a gay marriage?

DEAN: If other states want to do it, that's their business. We didn't choose to do that in our state.
…
http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0308/04/lkl.00.html
http://www.howarddean.tv/

[maxanne]

23. I don't believe this poll

and I don't believe the Republicans are stupid enough to use this issue in a big way. They do not want to become known as the party of bigotry, hatred, and intolerance. They also don't want to lose funding sources. They can't afford to piss off the closeted gays in the Party, either.

:kick: