Don't fear a battle over Civil Unions

[KaraokeKarlton]

We should actually hope that this becomes an issue in 2004. If it does, it's a win-win situation for Democrats and a lose-lose situation for Bush. If this becomes an issue, this is what will happen...Bush will be put in a most precarious situation. The religious right will let loose a very nasty hate campaign. Bush will not be able to defuse things. He will have to choose between taking the side of the religious right and their offensive bigotry and hatred or go against them and face their ire and withdrawl of support. If he aligns himself with the hate mongers it will disgust voters and alienate swing voters. It will be a negatively charged Bush campaign that promotes discrimination and bigotry. This is exactly what happened here in Vermont. About 70% of the state opposed Civil Unions and were mad at Dean for signing the bill. Dean made his entire campaign about human dignity, equal rights and tolerance. He was brave, courageous and spoke convincingly in favor of Civil Unions. The Republicans brought in the likes of Pat Robertson to try to scare people and breed hate. It offended voters so badly that Dean was re-elected. There is absolutely no argument or criticism on this issue that he can't neutralize. He's already been through it and knows what works. Bush hasn't and him and Rove are thinking they can do what Republicans in Vermont tried to do...and it WILL backfire badly. Not only will this divide Bush's supporters, but it will put the whole national defense issue on the back burner and take Bush's winning issue out of play. In addition to these things, it will set the tone for gaining support and acceptance for gay rights. Anyone who is backing away from Dean over this issue should seriously reconsider and look to what transpired in Vermont and how Democrats can use that experience to not only blow Bush out of the water, but further a cause you believe in.

(typo edited)

[dsc]

1. I agree but for somewhat different reasons

I think most of the hard core vote on that issue is lost to us anyway. That does leave the muddy middle. If we can control the campaign then we will be OK if they can make it about corupting children or other such crap then we are in trouble.

[KaraokeKarlton]

2. They tried that here, too

They were trying to turn kids against gay people and parents were pissed BIG TIME. They went after schools, teachers...I can't even express how nasty it became.

Most people aren't bothered by gay people. I used to work with this guy who moved up here from Georgia. He's pro gun, pretty conservative overall and we talked about Civil Unions once. He said, and I quote, "I don't have any problems with gay people or civil unions. They aren't hurting me, so why should I care." Now, he had an awful lot to say about guns, but he wasn't at all influenced by civil unions. He was interested in Dean's health care plan, too, and very receptive. As a parent I have to say that the second any politician starts telling me how to raise my kids is the second they lose me. Most parents resent that. I don't foresee that being a problem. Everybody know someone who is gay and knows that they aren't evil incarnate. This is a "Can't Win" issue for Bush.

[JohnKleeb]

3. well I hope you are right

but the polls tell a different story about the public and gays.

[KaraokeKarlton]

4. They told the same different story here, too

Just about 70% of Vermont was against Civil Unions when the bill was first signed. Now just about 70% support them. That never would have been the case if it hadn't of been for the nasty battle during the 2000 election. The only way to overcome hatred and bigotry is to expose it in a way that no one can mistake. No one can do more for gay rights in this country than Howard Dean. I've never seen anyone succeed in challenging him on the issue. How often have you seen reporters try to make an issue of it? I've seen it only a few times and Dean fielded it so well they immediately changed the subject. His entire 2000 campaign ended up being about Civil Unions. Bush can't touch him. Just the fact that Republicans will bring it up will make people curious about what Dean says...so they will listen. When they hear his stories about gay patriotic heroes, and the way Dean frames the issue, they will view it entirely differently. I've seen it first hand.

[renie408]

5. Polls...

I dunno, I am always suspicious of polls. A lot depends on how the question was worded. In this case, I think the polls are falsely inflating the negative reaction. How many real gay bashers do you know? I don't know any. I know people who are not real comfortable with homosexality. Most straight people are a little scared of homosexuality and it makes them nervous, but they are increasingly seeing it as an individual situation that has little to do with them. If asked if they supported gay marriage, I am sure most people's knee jerk reaction would be 'No'. But if asked if gays should be able become legally responsible to and legal next of kin for their life partners (essentially a Civil Union) most people would say "Eh.".
The sticking point I think that would be latched upon would be gay adoption. I do think that most straight people still have some neanderthal leftover thinking about gays raising kids. If the psycho right can paint Civil Unions as a stepping stone to adoption, it might be a problem.

[KaraokeKarlton]

6. Gay couples can adopt here

And it hasn't caused an uproar. Children who are up for adoption don't have any parents to be offended or upset over it. Adoptions are also private. What's better for the child, no family at all or being adopted by a homosexual couple? Besides, gay people all over the country already adopt children as single parents and just don't tell anyone they're gay through the process. Civil Unions wouldn't make this anymore prevalent than it already is. I am someone who has some concerns about the emotional impact it could have on a child to be adopted by a gay couple, but it has nothing to do with the potential parents. It's society and mostly other kids. They can be brutal. I went to school with a kid whose father was gay and the kid was tormented over it by other kids. This was over 20 years ago, so I'm sure it wouldn't be quite as bad today. It left a lasting impression on me, though. This kid had a horrible time growing up and suffered a lot. Because of that, I would never recommend that gays adopt until society overcomes the fear on a very wide scale. It doesn't really matter how much you love a kid or how good a parent you are if the kid is getting tormented. But again...it wouldn't be happening any more frequently than it already does. And if society has to address this bigotry head on that acceptance is going to come a lot sooner than if it keeps getting avoided.

[renie408]

7. It seems like...

the Far Right don't need to be directly affected to get upset over things. They think it is their job to keep the rest of us in line.


I understand your opinion on gay adoption and why you hold it, but part of the problem is that the only way for society to overcome its prejudice is to see success stories of gay adoption. Also, there are more and less tolerant areas of the country. It would probably be smart if you were a gay couple looking to adopt to investigate which communities would be more open to your children.

[KaraokeKarlton]

9. Like I said...it has nothing to do with what kind of parents gays are

It's about the child's emotional well being and how cruel other kids and ignorant adults can be. It's really, really rough for kids if they're being tormented. When that ceases to be an issue, I wouldn't have any concerns about gay adoption whatsoever. I do think the overall attitude towards gays needs to improve before kids are brought into the picture. If a couple lives in an area where they face no discrimination or backlash and are openly gay, then by all means..adopt. I should probably add that I was one of the Vermonters who opposed Civil Unions in the beginning. So I'm looking at this from the perspective that most average Americans would look at it.

[ButterflyBlood]

8. If Bush does nothing but rant about civil unions

while Dean points out IraqNam, the economy, cutting overtime pay, ect. Bush will just look like a fool focusing on some bullshit non-issue while Dean points out things that actually effect people.

[KaraokeKarlton]

10. Exactly...

This is the one issue that will throw Bush entirely off and divide his would be supporters. It will also force Bush into making his campaign about family values instead of national security. Dean will counter the crap while still talking about the things everyone is worried about while Bush is stuck trying to defend bigotry and himself from Dean's hard hitting criticism.