How historically & specifically have dems been better for gays than pukes?

[ladeuxiemevoiture]

Because sometimes it seems as though gays and lesbians don't have adequate representation.

When the question has been asked in the past, the response from some dems has been disdain, "those gays have no choice - where else are they going to go - ha, ha, ha - let them eat cake." And despite Kerry's generally excellent record w/r/t civil rights (which exists in contrast to his to-date unretracted comment about the MA dem platform supporting gay marriage being a "mistake"), gays and lesbians did not turn out in a substantially greater proportion to vote for Kerry than they did for Gore.

In campaigning for president, Clinton told gays that he was their friend and would get the military to drop its outright ban on gays. Instead, he compromised on that promise and fashioned the politically expedient "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. I never forgot that, and when 2000 rolled around, the fact that Gore was a dem didn't resonate with me. ("So what? Clinton was a dem, and look what he did.")

That said, this is not to say that voting puke is the "only alternative." Voting puke for that reason alone is biting off your nose to spite your face. But we still see too many dems floundering on civil rights due to concerns about "electability", "do-ability", even downright homophobia.

The risk dems run in not embracing civil rights is that at some point, gays and lesbians will stop caring about not just dems but the political process altogether, are going to give diddly-squat who wins because neither side actually delivers, and too many on both sides vote for things toxic to their well-being, like the DOMA.

Give us reasons why we should want dems to win.

[davidinalameda]

1. the first openly gay convention speaker

was at the 1972 Democratic Convention

[Lerkfish]

2. are you judging all democrats by the DLC?

that would be sad, if so. Every dem I know personally is full square behind gay rights, FWIW.
dunno what else to tell ya.

[Blank_stare]

A unpopular but principled stand

The vast majority on dems on the street argue with gay rights... but the vast majority of our political leaders such a senators are to busy sucking the bigot votes teat(which is increasing drying) to make a unpopular(And only slightly unpopular) but principled stance like the democrats in the 50s and 60s did on civil rights\

We don't need bigot votes the platform of the democratic NEEDS to be gay rights whether the majority of americans support it or not because its the right thing to do although doing the right thing is politically unpopular these days

[Ian David]

3. Clinton meant well with DADT.

Remember, even those of us who love Clinton understand that the man was a gifted and convincing liar.

Clinton managed to carry on at least one (and likely more) extra-marital affairs.

If Clinton were a gay man in the military, he would have taken to DADT like a fish to water.

For him, "not telling" would have been easy.

[kenny blankenship]

34. More ppl have been forced from the armed services under that abomination

than were being expelled from it previously. It was no improvement and in fact, by engaging in his characteristically half-assed measures, Bill CLinton set back the cause of equality. He allowed Colin Powell to defy him even though as President HE was Commander in Chief and didn't punish Powell for encouraging active disobedience to gays-in-the-military. So we got the wonderful compromise: DADT. WHat bullshit. More gay people are being drummed out than before.

It would have been better and more honest for Clinton to say I REALLY DON'T CARE!
I JUST WANT YOU BOTHERSOME GAY PEOPLE TO GO AWAY WHILE I SIGN THIS DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE BILL. We'd be in no worse situation than we were before and would at least be able to take a clean shot at improvement later on when A REAL DEMOCRAT was in the White House. As it is, we'll be attacked for never being satisfied, never "having enough special rights" accorded to us from the straight majority, never shutting up.

[Ian David]

35. Good point. n/t

[displacedtexan]

4. Wow! You sure know how to start a flame war.

I've been around here for years, and I've never seen a gay DUer asking why Dems are better for gays than Repukes. And the fact that Clinton and Gore weren't able to change the country overnight doesn't pass the smell test in the evidence department.

Did you really expect total success on the first try? Wow!

The way this post is framed, it smacks of flamebait to me.

I certainly hope I'm misinterpreting the intention of your post.

[ladeuxiemevoiture]

10. Sorry if it sounds like that.

My intention is to inquire as to specific reasons why gays should be motivated to work for dems. Pretend I'm a Martian. The reply, "oh, it's so obvious why," or "they are the lesser of two evils" is not acceptable.

In other words, if dems don't take gays for granted, there should be clear evidence that they don't. There should be some meat. What do we have? Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and a subsequent increase in discharge of gay soldiers. The Defense of Marriage Act, signed into law by Bill Clinton.

Flamebait is stuff intended to fan the flames of fights between dems by making claims based on lies or misrepresentations. These are cold, hard facts, not lies.

[blm]

17. Your FACTS are sorely lacking.

You claim that Clinton did what he did, while assuming that was ALL that any Dem did. That's your FIRST mistake.

It was Kerry battling Clinton on Don't Ask policy - Kerry testified for gays to serve OPENLY in the military and Gen. Wes Clark was one of the few who backed him up on that. Yet you only point to Clinton as if what he did was a major accomplishment and the ONLY position taken by Dems.

The fact that you ASSUMED that Gore and Kerry never did anything to deserve the gay vote, leads ME to assume that you haven't a clue what their actual records are. REAL gay activists - LONGTIME gay activists - are familiar with the records.

[ladeuxiemevoiture]

20. This translates as, if you don't know already, you don't deserve to know

right?

[blm]

21. No - what it means is you made claims in your original post that aren't

reality driven.

You could say you had no idea that what you claimed was so demontrably untrue since you are new to gay advocacy issues....but, instead, you maintain the posture that gays are being taken for granted by Dems even after your claim has been proven false.

[ladeuxiemevoiture]

24. The claim that some dems take gays for granted is true.

It was true of Clinton - I don't have PROOF, but it's pretty clear he made a calculated gamble that he could triangulate between fundies/pukes and gays early in his first term in order to look like he was doing something (which actually brought MORE real harm to gays than the status quo had), piss off gays, and recover somewhat by reelection time, since gays are considered a captive base anyway.

It is not true that all dems take gays for granted.

You don't have to face the facts, but they are there for everyone to see, and some of them are quite ugly. Denial of the facts is not constructive.

[blm]

29. Yet you gave Clinton credit in your OP when Kerry did so much more.

In fact, you seem determined to ignore Kerry's record in favor of making your point valid.

Doesn't make sense to lukewarm praise Clinton on gay issues and freeze out Kerry who opposed Clinton on DOMA and gays in the military.

That's not particularly honest for any level of debate.

[ladeuxiemevoiture]

31. I know you are a Kerry fan, but

he is against gay marriage, and in the criticism which followed the Mary Cheney reference, Kerry and/or his supporters claimed that Kerry's position on gay marriage was no different than Bush's.

Kerry's record is very pro-gay, yes. He is a good guy. He is also against gay marriage. How do you reconcile those two facts?

I am no Clinton fan, and if I came off that way, let me be clear: he fashioned the "don't ask, don't tell" policy which ended up harming gays in the military more than what the status quo had been. It may have been an unintentional side effect, but he is responsible for that policy. He also signed the Defense of Marriage Act which he could have declined to sign. So I hope that's clear.

[blm]

43. I was quite aware that your clap for Clinton was done with a back hand

And it was Colin Powell who fashioned the DADT policy.

[ladeuxiemevoiture]

26. When did Kerry retract his "gay marriage in MA is a mistake" comment?

and do you have a link?

[blm]

28. That doesn't change his CAREER record that is MARKEDLY pro-gay and which

makes his position NOWHERE near Bush who has NEVER advocated for gays on any issue - EVER.

And if you can PROVE that Bush advocated for gays equal to Kerry as you claim below when you said their positions are no different, then please cite examples.

[ladeuxiemevoiture]

30. Kerry's a good guy with a good pro-gay record. He's against gay marriage.

How do you reconcile those two facts?

[LittleClarkie]

40. In answer to a specific, and quite loaded, question from the Boston Globe

(as opposed to how it has been portrayed by some, as if he headed for Louisiana and piped up about gay marriage to pander to them) he said that Mass Dems addressing the issue in their platform was a mistake because the party hadn't decided as a whole how they were dealing with the issue of gay marriage.

Most of our former candidates went the "civil union" route, with Kerry and esp. Edwards specifying that they understood that one of the main issues was partner rights. That wasn't good enough for some. But I was quite proud of Kerry when I heard that Clinton wanted him to come out in favor of DOMA somehow, and he said it was just something he could NEVER do.

Kerry deals with being a Catholic who is against gay marriage in the same way he deals with being a pro-life Catholic. He doesn't let his personal views interfere with how he represents his constituents. And he doesn't believe in legislating his beliefs.

[GracieM]

115. Complete tangent

"he doesn't believe in legislating his beliefs."

Never thought about it before, but could that be part of our recent election problems? We need candidates who actually believe in their own position and are willing to say so.

A person who believes in what they say and AND represents his constituents will be much more popular than someone who merely represents his constituents.

Bush has 'won' elections without even representing his constituents...

[blm]

116. No. Lawmakers shouldn't put their religious beliefs into a country's laws.

That would see all Catholic legislators campaigning against abortion, Muslims campaigning against pork, Jews campaigning against Saturday work hours....etc...


Noone should campaign on their religious beliefs that run contrary to the law of the land.

Honest politicians wouldn't do it.

[GracieM]

117. Not sure we completely disagree

I agree with everything you just said. My point isn't that politicians shouldn't represent their constituents.

My main point is that leaders are most popular when their personal beliefs, religious or otherwise, coincide with their political stances. Popular candidates would not be in a position where they have to choose between personal views and the views of their constituents.

A politician, once elected, should represent his constituents and fulfill his duties according to the law of the land. I'm arguing that we're better served if the politicians believed in these things to begin with and didn't have to say "Well, as a Christian I don't believe this, but I'll do it for the people." We're best off when the politician can do things for their consituents because of their beliefs not despite them.

[blm]

118. True. But the plurality of beliefs and NONbeliefs really prevents that.

.

[GracieM]

119. Sure...

that candidate whose beliefs line up with the majority on every issue is a dream.

Bringing this tangent back around hopefully, some issues are easier to bend on than others. Abortion and gay rights are pretty major issues. It is difficult for the public to accept someone who says "personally i believe abortion is murder but I'll legalize it because my constituents want it."

It is one of the difficulties of a representative government...

Side note...I'm not religious, but I don't trust people who go against their own religion for the sake of anything. If you believe in God and the teachings of the Bible, then you should not compromise those beliefs for a government.

Hmmm...maybe my problem is with religion in general. I don't trust religious people who aren't fundamentalists, but fundamentalists frighten me.

I think our country/humanity (depends how nationalistic you are) should come first, not a religion. But most religions are not conducive to playing second fiddle.

[blm]

120. I don't trust religious who ARE fundamentalists. Especially in this era

where most of the modern day fundamentalism was fomented to provide a political base.

Back in the early 70s Catholics and others were urged to separate from the Pope because he was too liberal. Catholic bishops and priests were murdered regularly in South and Central America and replaced by rightwing bishops and priests who just happened to show up.

The rightwing evangelicals and the fundie Catholic movement were funded by groups initiated by RevMoon in the 70s and 80s.

Check into the longtime alliance between Bush1, RevMoon and the likes of Time LaHaye and you'll understand better.

[LandOLincoln]

121. Actually, in an interview with GMA's Charlie Gibson not long before the

2004 election, Bush said he supported civil unions, which is also Kerry's position, so if Kerry said his position was the same as Bush's, that's what he meant.

In fact, AFAIK most leading Democrats favor civil unions. leaving the marriage thing, i.e. the religious angle, up to the churches. You know, that pesky separation of church and state thing...

http://www.365gay.com/newscon04/10/102604bushMarr.htm

[LittleClarkie]

44. He didn't say gay marriage in MA was a mistake

he said that putting it on their Dem platform was a mistake when the party as a whole hadn't agreed on how they were going to handle the issue.

As for how Kerry compares to Bush and what he said, something tells me if I look it up I will find your representation of what he said is oversimplifed in that instance as well.

Bush 2000 was for civil unions. Bush 2004 was DOMA Boy. Kerry was told by Clinton he had to come out in favor of DOMA. Kerry flat refused, said he could NEVER do that.

Kerry believes in civil unions with partner benefits. He also believes in not legislating his personal beliefs.

[blm]

68. Yeah, something tells me the talking point sheet editted Kerry's actual

words to fit their attack on him.

In fact, I noticed a similar line of attack on another forum by an openly Republican poster -

Compare talking points:

>>>

I have joined the fight. That's why I refuse to allow myself to be taken for granted by the Democratic party. They need to earn my support--not just expect it. But instead they do right the opposite. I've lost count at the number of times heterosexual Democrats told me after the last election that gay rights in general should be completely removed from the Democratic party platform. The same people blamed gay marriage for last fall's outcome (despite the fact that Kerry bragged over and over again that he and Bush held *identical* stances on the matter). Then they turned around and said outright that GLBTQ voters "have no where else to go so it won't matter if we drop them." And yet these same brain-dead idiots can't figure out why Bush got almost as much support (23% vs 25%) in the last election that he got in the first.
>>>>

Could it be the script is the same or slightly altered to "fit" better at DU?

[ladeuxiemevoiture]

74. That was, in part, the inspiration for the topic.

Additionally, at the request of another member here (who shall remain nameless), I added my own thoughts, and posted this thread here in GDP for discussion purposes.

[libnnc]

32. I think it's a valid question.

Given the climate these days, we're (LGBT community) feeling kinda picked on right now. This question is not flame bait at all. It is an honest reaction to an issue. Clinton did indeed betray us. DOMA and DADT were hurtful to the LGBT community. And furthermore, every time Lesbian/Gay/Bi/Trans issues are mentioned in a major political arena, the DLC has ALWAYS found a way to either not address the issue at all or flat out appease the "family values" crowd.

It isn't flamebait for the lesbian and gay community to ask the question of the Dems, "What have you done for me lately?"

It is, however, flamebait to dismiss and refuse to answer the question altogether.

[beyurslf]

5. The question shouldn't be "why did Clinton comprimise?" but rather

"Would Republicans have even brought it up in the first place?"

Sure, Clinton gave in and COMPRIMISED. The policy DID CHANGE just not as much as we would have liked. Had it been GHWB instead of Clinton, we would never have had the comprimise in the first place. They liked the outright ban.

Why do we have to have the idea that not getting what we fully want means that we got nothing at all. Civil unions? Not the best answer but better than no rights at all. Hate crimes legislation? It may not ban discrimination but it is better than nothing at all.

baby steps...

[election_2004]

48. The problem is...

Too many Democrats simply want to take civil unions off the table.

[beyurslf]

106. Exactly. Civil Unions may not be the best possible answer but they

are better than nothing. We have to start somewhere. Hell, it took 30 years of the gay rights movement to make gay sex legal in many states. And now just a few years later we think we will win the right to marry?

[election_2004]

134. Civil unions would be a step in the right direction....

In the long run, it will have to change to full marriage. But civil unions would be a significant step toward progress.

However, Democrats who want to deny us the rights that would come with a civil union are essentially asking us to support them for keeping us second-class citizens.

[Ian David]

6. In 2000 and 2004, about 25% of gay people voted for Bush, 1% for Buchanan

BLADE BLOG
Bush wins same portion of gay vote as '00
Washington Blade

Perhaps the most surprising news for gay observers of the presidential election is that exit polls show President Bush received the exact same percentage of gay votes — 23 percent — as he did four years ago. This despite the president's vocal support for a federal constitutional amendment banning gay marraige.

<snip>

Democrat John Kerry did pick up a slightly higher tally of gay voters, however. Kerry received 77 percent of gay votes according to the NEP poll; Gore received 70 percent in 2000 according to ABC.

<snip>

Some of that pickup in support for Kerry came from dwindling support for Ralph Nader, who picked up 3 percent of gay votes in 2000 according to ABC, and 0 percent in 2004 according to the NEP.

<snip>

In 1996, 23 percent voted for Republican Bob Dole, the same percentage as went for Bush in 2000 and this year. Some 66 percent of gays voted in '96 for Bill Clinton, whose enthusiasm among gay voters waned some after he signed the Defense of Marriage Act and agreed to the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy on gays in the military.

More:
http://www.washblade.com/blog/index.cfm?blog_id=155

[motely36]

7. As a gay man, I agree to a certain exstent

But I also think a similar argument could be made for any minirity group. For the most part it seems that many (not all) Democrats take minorities for granted.

I know there are a lot of Democrats out there who are fighting for equal rights. It just gets discouraging when I hear people say that they would gladly give up gay issues in order to win an election. To me, that is not winning, it is compromising.

[Blank_stare]

8. Gay and proud here

If democrats are going to fight for my right... who is?
Yeah i get to choose between people who want me put in "camps" and people who are to cowardly to stand up for what they KNOW is right

Yeah this is so going to motivate me to the polls

[motely36]

11. Don't get me wrong

I have and always will vote Democrat. I just feel that at times it is taken for granted that the gay vote will always be there. I know a lot of gay people who do not vote because they do not see a benefit.

[ladeuxiemevoiture]

13. That's what I was getting at, too.

That gays get exasperated, and just say, "eff it. We work hard, get out the vote, give our money and time, and we get the Defense of Marriage Act in return. :mad: I'm not going to vote until there's a real choice."

[DURHAM D]

9. Carter appointed Midge Constanza to his White House staff

to work on issues related to gays, etc. Clinton also had that staff position. Don't think any repugs have done the same. Clinton appointed gays to Cabinet and Sub-Cabinet and State Department positions.

Dems have a plank in the party platform - as far as I know the repugs don't. Jean O'Leary was important member of the DNC for many, many years. She, and dozens if not hundreds of other openly gay people have served the DNC and DSCs. Repugs only allowed gays to be involved if they are somewhat closted.

Your take on what happened with Clinton's desire to allow openly gay individuals to serve in the military is wrong. True he did not succeed in getting his policy past Senator Sam Nunn and Colin Powell but not because he did not try. Clinton's problem was that it was the first thing he tried to do and Sam and Colin had to give him a slapdown because he had not served in the military. Clinton was naive but I still admire him for trying. Clinton himself has said many times that he hates Don't Ask Don't Tell and considers it a gigantic failure.

[blm]

12. That's your ENTIRE observation? Kerry submitted the FIRST gay-protection

legislation EVER in the Senate when he first arrived there.

Kerry also advocated for gays to serve OPENLY in the military and even testified to congress on it - precious few lawmakers backed him, while Gen Wes Clark did.

Kerry also helped craft the Hate Crime bill.

Most gay activists are aware of Kerry's record. I'm really surprised that you're not - and I'm also surprised that anyone ever responded to you about gays in the Dem party with the callous attitude you described as commonplace - I certainly never heard anyone say anything resembling what you describe.

[ladeuxiemevoiture]

14. To be fair, these were comments posted in threads here in the aftermath

of last November's election. To some extent, such callous comments could have been just some post-election anger hyperventilation. It's easy to get emotional about such a loss.

But it's important (I feel) to look at such comments during times of stability and assess whether they reflect an underlying callousness/homophobia, or not. The Democratic Party will achieve perfection without some honest reflection on itself.

[blm]

16. Success is based on OPPORTUNITY not perfection.

I'm still shocked that you had so little actual knowledge about the lawmakers you chose to mention and their actual records regarding gay issues.

[ladeuxiemevoiture]

19. I know what the average voter knows, probably more.

And I know that Kerry claims his position on equal rights for gays is the same as Bush's - no difference. I know what the Defense of Marriage Act is and who signed it into law instead of vetoing it. What more do I need to know?

Don't get me wrong - Kerry is a good guy, and a friend of gays and lesibans, not perfect. It's useful to examine his flaws, however, as a means of self-improvement.

[blm]

23. That's a crock. You are implying that YOUR gay advocacy position REQUIRES

that Kerry have better record than Clinton, yet when it's PROVEN that Kerry has been a longtime advocate, you claim his position is the same as Bush's, nothing more.

Can't you see that when someone CLAIMS to be an advocate then proves they have no clue what a Dem's actual positions are and have been, then you have left YOURSELF open for countering?

Anyone who was serious enough about gay advocacy issues to declare they will vote ONLY based on those issues would likely KNOW the facts about candidates regarding those issues and not have to be informed of them at this point.

[ladeuxiemevoiture]

25. That's not true, and for someone who claims to know Kerry, you should know

that. Kerry (or his campaign managers - same thing, in my book) claimed that his position on gay rights did not differ from Bush's, that they both believe that marriage was between a man and a woman and that they both opposed gay marriage. That's a fact. Yes?

You are in denial.

EDIT: you and I are oceans apart on the importance of disseminating information about a candidate's position on current events.

[blm]

27. That's only ONE aspect of ONE issue - specifically on marriage, and for

differing reasons.

To present THAT one point as equal stances on gay rights is absurd.

You seem more interested in claiming that Kerry and Bush are no different on gay issues when Bush has NEVER taken an advocacy position EVER on gays.

[ladeuxiemevoiture]

33. Marriage is a big issue, not like a position on jaywalking.

From marriage flows all kinds of other rights and privileges not enjoyed by the unmarried. So it's a big deal.

Kerry and Bush - apples and oranges. Kerry and/or his team claimed they were no different on gay marriage. That's a fact.

In fairness, the only thing Bush has done is to preach "tolerance" for gays on a rare occasion, such as when he announced his support for the FEderal Marriage Amendment.

Does that mean they are at the same level? No, absolutely not. Does that mean it's okay if Kerry opposes gay marriage? Absolutely not.

But back to the original topic, saying Kerry is the lesser of two evils does nothing to excite gays about an election between the two of them.

[blm]

37. That's UNBELIEVABLE. Your claim was that though Clinton did SOME, Dems

like Gore and Kerry never distinguished themselves on gay issues and merely took them for granted.

It's a FACT that Kerry submitted the FIRST legislation EVER in the Senate to protect gay rights. LONG before there was any trend in the Dem party to do so.

Kerry took the antiDOMA position and debated those looking to pass it on the Senate floor.

Kerry advocated FOR gays to serve openly in the military with NO restrictions on them or their rights.

Kerry crafted the Hate Crimes bill.

Kerry is for civil unions - he has said that marriage is complicated by the historic RELIGIOUS sacrament of marriage that complicates the entire issue. However he is not FOR an amendment against gay marriage while Bush is. They are nowhere near motivated by the same reason.

When you can only find words like Kerry is the lesser of two evils regarding gay issues, then expect your judgement to be judged in return with a cynical eye, because the person you are tearing down has been one of the LEADING advocates for gays since he took office in 1985. And most longtime gay activists know this.

Why don't you?

[sandnsea]

36. OMG, that was pure politics

What does it benefit you to manipulate that statement? Bush was trying to say he was against gay marriage but supported legal rights for gays. Kerry was simply trying to point out there was no reason to support Bush on gay marriage based on Bush's words, an attempt to shake some swing voters loose. Everybody knows it. The gay community has had few people who have been a better friend than John Kerry. I would think people would be mature enough to put that statement in persepctive instead of manipulating it into something hateful.

[ladeuxiemevoiture]

38. No, it's obviously a fact, given his rejection of the MA dem platform

supporting gay marriage, a totally unnecessary statement he made for whatever reason he made it, whether he was laying the groundwork for a future run, or whatever.

John Kerry is a good guy who is indeed a friend of the gay community. There. :hi:

He is also against gay marriage, and has actively discouraged (with statements like the "mistake" one) dem followers from trying to work for marriage equality.

There was undoubtedly some political calculation, but if what you are saying is that he was just saying that entirely for the cameras ... I mean, is that what you're suggesting? He said it just because it would look good? I would really like to know if that's what you mean.

[sandnsea]

42. This

Despite your attempt to change what you said.

"Kerry claims his position on equal rights for gays is the same as Bush's."

Pure garbage and I've got no use for anybody who would try to distort the words of their friends the way you did.

[ladeuxiemevoiture]

53. I have high expectations of my representatives.

I think I've said what I need to about this whole Kerry/Clinton business, and I think the discussion is obviously not going to move forward at this point.

I also think, in a general sense, some people seem comfortable playing football with the various civil rights of groups of which they do not belong, which in some respects makes sense, but for those of us who's constitutional rights are in actual jeopardy, it's not much fun being passed around like a rag doll, so just for perspective, I wanted to note that. Thanks.

[blm]

78. Horsepoo. Kerry said he didn't think Dem party in general was READY to

put gay marriage into the PLATFORM.

That's Kerry looking at the Dem party in Mass. as a WHOLE and judging that the general CONSENSUS for gay marriage wasn't there YET.

YOU cherry-picked WORDS to fit your need to attack Kerry, the way movie studios cherry-pick words from reviews to promote THEIR product.

It's called SPIN.

And I'm still baffled how you cling to the notion that Kerry and Bush hold the same positions on gay issues.

Bush OBJECTIFIES gays so he can better use them as a WEDGE - that's it. He doesn't care one whit about their well-being.

When did Kerry ever USE gays as OBJECTS?

[ladeuxiemevoiture]

80. Wrong. Most MA dems were ready to put the platform in. Try again.

eom

[blm]

85. Wrong. Kerry was talking about ALL Dems not just those party Dems working

on the platform.

And the greater point was that Kerry said he did not THINK that Democrats in GENERAL were ready YET to put gay marriage into the PLATFORM. That's an OBSERVATION of a general population.

That's it. To spin it into anything more is disingenuous. Or a deliberate lie.

[ladeuxiemevoiture]

88. It's a recitation of the fact that MA Dems polled as favoring such a plank

So, that was a demonstrable fact backed by data.

[ladeuxiemevoiture]

91. BostonGlobe: "71% of dems statewide believe gay marriage s.be allowed"

from http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2005/05/04/democrats_expected_to_back_gay_marriage/

[blm]

113. That poll came out AFTER Kerry made his remarks. Your claim is that

Kerry was issuing a position, when he was NOT - he was issuing an observation based on feedback he had received in earlier months.

Anyone can choose words from any statement and twist them to make a point. You certainly like to do it with Kerry's while at the same time downplaying the REAL effect that Republicans have when they turn gay humans into OBJECTS to be used as a wedge for their supporters.

Pure shamelessness. And Giuliani supports those objectifiers wholeheartedly.

[bvar22]

15. The Democrats should not even need to take a stand on "Gay Rights",

The Democratic Party AS A PARTY should fight for and Speak out at EVERY opportunity For Full & Equal Constitutional Rights and privileges for ALL AMERICANS. The Democrats (AS A PARTY) are missing a HUGE opportunity by ignoring the voter fraud issues in Fla. and Ohio. This was a coordinated Republican attack on the Civil Rights of Minorities.

There is NO GAY RIGHTS ISSUE (including marriage).

There is a HUGE issue in the US with Equal Protection under the Law.
THAT should be the Democratic Issue.

ALL MINORITIES, LABOR, Working Americans, and the POOR should be asking the Democratic Party, "Why have you abandonned us?"

[ladeuxiemevoiture]

18. I think you mean, gays shouldn't need to ask them to take a stand

That's what dems are supposed to do - fight for all minorities, and they've abandoned their base for campaign $$$. If so, I agree.

[davidinalameda]

22. Clinton tried, and as for others

I'll give him that much

face it, he was elected with a plurality of the vote, not a majority

he was facing revolt from within his own party--Sam Nunn, etc--on the issue and he didn't have the political capital to expend on the issue

but Clinton did also sign the DOMA bill and then ran ads on Christian radio stations bragging about it

there are plenty of good Democrats out there on gay rights

the party isn't perfect but at least we're at the table, whereas in the Repukes, I don't even think they're letting us in the room

[JHBowden]

39. JUDGES

That's where the difference is. A politician can even gay bash and still put pro-gay individuals on the bench.

The GOP base usually keeps quiet to help the party look like the middle. Our base wants to alienate the middle and lose everything for futile symbolic gestures. I don't get it.

:shrug:

[Vinca]

41. Howard Dean signed the first civil union law while Vermont Governor.

Personally, I don't know a Democrat who gives a rat's ass whether a person is gay, straight or in between. We've got enough sense to know that whatever happens among consenting adults isn't any of our business. What was it Hackett said in Ohio? Who the hell cares? That's my philosophy. And you all ought to get married, too, and suffer like the rest of us.:rofl:

[WI_DEM]

45. both parties have gone slow--the GOP the most and the reason

why is most people in the US aren't sympathetic to gay rights--it's getting better, but it still isn't a popular issue for most politicians. But then for many years championing the civil rights of African Americans wasn't popular either.

[election_2004]

47. The reason is actually because....

Certain string-pullers in the Democratic Party establishment want LGBT people to remain dependent on the Democratic Party for support. For as long as possible.

Most regular people who identify as Democrats support gay marriage, or at minimum, civil unions.

[AJH032]

46. Clinton was not King, he was President

The "don't ask, don't tell" policy was a compromise with Gingrich and the Republicans. See, in the United States, the President shares power with congress, so if the congress and President disagree on something, they have to compromise. That's just how it works. Don't be angry at Clinton for it.

[ladeuxiemevoiture]

54. Well, it was a democratic congress, wasn't it?

eom

[election_2004]

49. Dean, Kerry, Boxer, Feingold.....

...and a myriad of others (i.e. Pelosi and Leahy) are at least publicly taking strong positions on LGBT issues.

Hell, even the much-maligned Feinstein voted AGAINST DoMA, despite DiFi's badly-worded "too much, too fast, too soon" comment.

[election_2004]

50. Also, the judiciary

Even the whorish sellout Democrats refrain from putting right-wing obstructionists on the bench.

We can't allow a bunch of Edith Jones clones who will write theocratic biases into their own opinions, and then pass them off as "intelligent moral and judicial discourse."

[LittleClarkie]

51. I suppose each constituency could form their own party

one that would represent them the way they want to be represented. A Labor Party, a Person of Color Party, a GLBT Party, etc. Because no party will represent everyone in their base completely. But which comes closest.

If you say Green, then by all means go Green. Otherwise, work with the Dem Party.

All I know is there was a GLBT Kerry/Edwards banner that the GLBT campaign coordinators used to bring out to scare the DeadBabyMobile out of our parking lot. Apparently the pro-lifers behind the wheel were afraid of catching queer cooties. Worked every time, said the GLBTers.

I know we had a table set up with GLBT specific literature, buttons, banners etc.

Don't know if that matters much, except y'all were a constituency that the Kerry campaign cared enough about to create stuff for.

[noamnety]

52. Let the voting records speak for themselves.

Scorecard from the Human Rights Campaign (edited to put them in order by rank):


Santorum, Rick (R) 0
Graham, Lindsey (R) 0
Thomas, Craig (R) 0
Hutchison, Kay Bailey (R) 0
Frist, Bill (R) 0
Cornyn, John (R) 0
Hatch, Orrin (R) 0
Enzi, Michael (R) 0
Dole, Elizabeth (R) 0
Kyl, Jon (R) 0
Allard, Wayne (R) 0
Chambliss, Saxby (R) 0
Grassley, Charles (R) 0
Roberts, Pat (R) 0
Brownback, Sam (R) 0
McConnell, Mitch (R) 0
Bunning, Jim (R) 0
Domenici, Pete (R) 0
Crapo, Mike (R) 0
Craig, Larry (R) 0
Nickles, Don (R) 0
Inhofe, James (R) 0
Fitzgerald, Peter (R) 0
Lott, Trent (R) 0
Hagel, Chuck (R) 0
Cochran, Th ad (R) 0
Bond, Kit (R) 0
Talent, Jim (R) 0
Burns, Conrad (R) 0
Stevens, Ted (R) 13
Murkowski, Lisa (R) 13
Voinovich, George (R) 13
Alexander, Lamar (R) 13
Bennett, Robert (R) 13
Warner, John (R) 13
Allen, George (R) 13
Byrd, Robert (D) 13
Gregg, Judd (R) 13
Lugar, Richard (R) 13
McCain, John (R) 25
Ensign, John (R) 25
DeWine, Mike (R) 25
Nelson, Ben (D) 25
Sununu, John (R) 25
Campbell, Ben Nighthorse (R) 38
Miller, Zell (D) 38
Hollings, Ernest (D) 38
Coleman, Norm (R) 38
Conrad, Kent (D) 38
Rockefeller IV, John (D) 50
Kohl, Herbert (D) 50
Specter, Arlen (R) 50
Snowe, Olympia (R) 50
Baucus, Max (D) 50
Biden Jr., Joseph (D) 63
Levin, Carl (D) 63
Lincoln, Blanche (D) 63
Carper, Th omas (D) 63
Graham, Bob (D) 63
Pryor, Mark (D) 63
Reid, Harry (D) 63
Johnson, Tim (D) 63
Dorgan, Byron (D) 63
Daschle, Th omas (D) 63
Smith, Gordon (R) 63
Edwards, John (D) 66
Nelson, Bill (D) 75
Akaka, Daniel (D) 75
Bayh, Evan (D) 75
Harkin, Tom (D) 75
Breaux, John (D) 75
Sarbanes, Paul (D) 75
Mikulski, Barbara (D) 75
Feinstein, Dianne (D) 75
Bingaman, Jeff (D) 75
Dodd, Christopher (D) 75
Jeff ords, James (I) 86
Boxer, Barbara (D) 88
Lieberman, Joseph (D) 88
Collins, Susan (R) 88
Landrieu, Mary (D) 88
Inouye, Daniel (D) 88
Stabenow, Debbie (D) 88
Schumer, Charles (D) 88
Clinton, Hillary (D) 88
Reed, Jack (D) 88
Chafee, Lincoln (R) 88
Feingold, Russ (D) 88
Murray, Patty (D) 88
Cantwell, Maria (D) 88
Leahy, Patrick (D) 100
Durbin, Richard (D) 100
Dayton, Mark (D) 100
Kennedy, Edward (D) 100
Kerry, John (D) 100
Lautenberg, Frank (D) 100
Corzine, Jon (D) 100
Wyden, Ron (D) 100



You can see the representatives, as well as an explanation of the scored votes here: http://www.hrc.org/Template.cfm?Section=Home&Template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=23412

[Inland]

57. Huh, look at all that blue at one end of the scale.

And Byrd, well, he'll just have to come around.

[noamnety]

61. 1/4 of the senate is republicans with a score of 0.

It's hard to grasp how anyone can't see a difference.

[Inland]

73. Zero because they can't be seen as having ANY tolerance for gays

Their fundie consituency sees a slippery slope between not-criminalizing and the whole world being forced to be gay.

The slightest bit of reasonableness is deemed a betrayal.

Yet there's an issue that the dems are better than those guys? Really? When just stopping those guys is a service?

[Inland]

55. So fucking sick of the no-difference crowd. Go ask repugs what they'll do

for gays, and you'll have your answer. Nothing, of course, and they'll say it nice and loud so that every fundie knows they are on board.

Fact is, the only thing standing between the repugs and making your brand of sex a criminal act, again, in much of the country is the democratic party. We hets may lose our right to use contraception and have abortions, but at least the first act will still be legal. That enough of a difference for you?

[ladeuxiemevoiture]

56. Good answer.

But seriously, with all due respect, no, it's not enough of a difference.

I want marriage equality. I don't want to have to testify in court against my honey. If he's in the hospital (God forbid), I want no hospital to stand between me and him because "you're not family." I want to leave my possessions to him, all those thing we bought together, and the memories. They are not really mine, they're OURS. The photos and mementos. And if he's from another country, I want him given the same immigration rights as heterosexuals are given.

That's not asking too much, and it's Dems responsibility to stand the frick up for civil rights for gays and every other minority, not to triangulate and what-the-frick-ever with my rights.

[Name removed]

60. Deleted message

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

[election_2004]

63. You can't selectively decide who gets equality...

It just doesn't work that way.

I agree that civil unions is a reasonable compromise when people are uncomfortable with the idea of gay marriage...but a scenario with absolutely zero domestic equity for same-sex couples simply isn't a compromise in the first place. Period.

[Inland]

65. I can prioritize in a political struggle, when all are at risk.

Somebody tell me, specifically and historically, what the gays have offered to the struggle the rights of the other minorities, racial, religious, disabled, age, and the rights of the poor and middle class.

What's in it for you? What's in it for America? What do gays bring to the table.

I mean, this thread is a demand for a quid pro quo, but nobody is showing me any quid.

Somebody tell me how having gay and lesbian rights would ever help dems win an election it wouldn't win anyway.

Somebody prove to me that elections aren't lost by the republicans whipping up support with gay bashing across 95% of America.

Somebody prove to me that support isn't lost in other minority communities.

Because if it comes down to having to choose between protecting the rights of all other minorities vs. waiting on gay rights

If it comes down to putting a lot of time and energy into proving to gays and lesbians that the party that doesn't want to criminalize sodomy is better for them

If it comes down to having to use the term "marriage" vs. "civil unions" when both have the exact same legal effect but one seems nicer than the other

I want to know what good it does for the party and by extension everyone else.

You show me the quid, and I'll think about the quo.

[ladeuxiemevoiture]

72. Giuliani is pro-gay.

As are other pukes considering a run in 2008.

I think it's interesting to see you threatening the civil rights of gays who criticize the inadequacy of Dem representation. It demonstrates that there are too many people who consider civil rights a bargaining chip or a football that they can lob around arbitrarily.

[Inland]

76. You are the one bartering to support minority rights.

You are threatening to give up on all the other minorities and other good things the dems do because of the failure to kowtow on really specific agenda items.

You are threatening the struggle for racial equality, religious equality, not to mention fair treatment of the poor, disabled, and what have you, to get every jot and tittle of your agenda.

Well, problem is, since you don't tell me what gays and lesbians do for the dems, it's not much of a threat.

I'm not willing to trade democratic victories to appease your demands. So you had better tell me that your support is worth having. I've only asked a few times, so I'm figuring you can't tell me why I should bother risking the struggle for everybody else in the country in order to make you happy about things that don't really seem critical at this point in time. People are dying, you know, so I'm in a hurry.

Tell me what you bring to the table and I'll tell you if I care that you vote for that deadend Giuliani. Right now, I'm thinking that there isn't any point.

[ladeuxiemevoiture]

79. Well, it was really you who started it with "calling your bluff" bizness.

As I say above/below (can't remember exactly), if you are a married heterosexual demanding that gays, whose marriage rights are under attack, sit down and shut up, then I also don't see the point in continuing this back-and-forth with you.

[Name removed]

83. Deleted message

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

[election_2004]

105. Calling YOUR bluff

All minorities (of different categories) have mutually enlightening life perspectives and discourse to offer and share with one another. That includes LGBT people. That's what "we" have to offer.

We may not be able to get full marriage equality right now, but we do need SOMETHING in order to alter the oppressive status quo. Even the smallest bit of progress is still progress.

[Inland]

112. Sounds like exactly the thing the OP said was insufficient.

Sounds like exactly what I would say.

I don't have any problem with that. That isn't a demand and a pretense that the repugs aren't any different and a threat to leave. I'm not all that interested in the first, infuriated at the second, and actually open to the third if the first two are adhered to.

[renaissanceguy]

123. I'll listen to your talking points

when you have:

1) been harrassed or physically assaulted for what you are.

2) been denied a job because of what you are.

3) been told that your personal relationships mean nothing.

4) had your property taken away because of what you are.

5) not been able to visit your partner in the hospital because of what you are.

Don't give me this bullshit about gays doing nothing for the party. They have been loyal supporters--giving their time, energy, and money for years and years.

It's people like you who are willing to drop anyone like a hat just to "win," that are the problem with this party.

We are the big tent party--the republicans are the closed minded, egocentric ones.

And by the way, if you deny rights to one minority, you stand against ALL minorities. As a gay man, I know what it's like to be discriminated against and harrassed, and I would NEVER wish unjust treatment on ANYONE. And I have contributed time and money to minority (race and ethnic) over the years. So don't give me this bullshit about not caring about minorities. It seems like YOU are the one who has the problem.

[Inland]

129. You must think you're talking to a republican, not a democrat.

Who the fuck is denying rights to anyone? All this crap began because of the frankly idiotic statement that there aren't any differences between republicans and democrats on gay rights and a demand to do more or they'll walk.

As a person who actually believes in gay rights and watches the dem party pay a price for it out in the countryside, it is infuriating and offense to have someone come in and ask what has been done and why they shouldn't stay home and what have you done for me lately. It's infuriating to watch democrats pay the price for doing the right thing and then get a threat to follow all the way down the itemized list or the gays will stay home.

Anyone who wants to argue the right thing is welcome. Anyone who wants to play hardball and make demands had better come to the table with something to offer.

HERE'S A NEWS FLASH. DEMOCRATS DON'T DO WHAT THEY DO FOR GAY RIGHTS FOR THE VOTES. We do it because it's right. Frankly, there just aren't that many gays and lesbians in swing areas to make me and about 99% of dem office holders give a shit about a threat about leaving the party and some such. We all know the gay rights thing is probably a net negative, politically.

But the OP didn't bother to put gay rights in terms of right and wrong, doable vs. not doable, let's talk about it. It was do as I say or I walk.

Put gay rights in those terms, you get a response back in those terms, namely, Why don't you just walk since all you have is a list of demands and not much to offer. Goodbye, auf weidersen, seeyas, don't write, and don't pretend that you give a shit about any other issues besides your own, like the rights of other minorities. You don't. We'll work on doing the right thing without the additional hassle of placating people who don't know who their friends are and don't care about anyone else's problems are. End of story.

[blm]

81. Horsepoo. It's Rove-Bush-Mehlman who have turned gays into OBJECTS.

They developed these OBJECTS to be used as WEDGES.

Giluaini supports the OBJECTIFIERS of gays, so he supports the OBJECTIFYING of gays.

[election_2004]

104. Read carefully....

I agree with you that using "civil unions" rather than "marriage" is a necessary compromise in the short term.

What I'm saying is that Democratic candidates aren't worth my time when they tell LGBT people that we can't have ANY form whatsoever of protection for our domestic relationships.

This is not about LGBT people "earning their keep" with the Democratic Party. It's about doing what's right and decent.

[ladeuxiemevoiture]

64. When I say "me" or "my", I'm saying "me as a gay person"

Of course I'm committed to civil rights for everyone, but most especially committed to gay rights because I'm gay, a disadvantaged class of people in society of which I'm a member. Remember, "the political is personal."

I don't think you'll be successful moving dems further to the right on equal rights for gays, because the general tide of opinion seems to be moving in favor of gays and lesbians. But it's a free country.

Peace.

[Inland]

66. No, you aren't committed.

Because you are demanding to know what WE will do for GAYS or you will walk.

You didn't ask what we are doing for blacks or religious minorities, because you won't stick around to help THEM unless YOU get what YOU want for YOUR group.

Having put a really blatant quid pro quo on your joining up for the struggle for OTHER minorities' rights, not to mention the majority, I'm following your lead. You didn't ask about what was right, or what was possible. You asked what was in it for you.

I'm telling you that I want specific and historical proof that having gays and lesbians in the democratic party furthers the interests of other minorities, not to mention the minorites.

I want to know what gays and lesbians have done for us. I want to know what elections have been won that wouldnt' have been won anyway.

Because there are more people suffering from dem losses than just gays and lesbians, and they have more votes, and they seem a little easier to place than you, who can't see the obvious differences. I'm not going to throw them overboard and tell them that they have to continue to live under republcan rule if we can win some elections by, for example, using the term "civil union" as opposed to "marriage" for the exact same legal institution.

It's a hard time. People are dying, if you haven't noticed, and not everything good is going to happen at once. And I'm prioritizing.

Maybe the rest of the dems should just wait for you gays to swing the that tide to the point where dem candidates don't lose any votes in red areas from gay bashing. If the tide is going as you say, it'll be a short wait. If not, then....

Show me the quid before you start walking around demanding the quo.

[ladeuxiemevoiture]

69. Are you gay or hetero?

eom

[Inland]

71. Het, as I said. I see you don't ask me if i'm any other minority

or offer me any help with my struggles.

Where's MY quid pro quo?

Where's the quid pro quo for ANY OF THE OTHER minorities?

What do the gays bring to the table?

Maybe it's time for the dem party and its coaltion of minorities to start prioritizing. Tell me why it shouldn't, with specific historical references.

[ladeuxiemevoiture]

77. Are you married?

Because if you've got your rights already, then I don't see much point in continuing this back-and-forth with an entitled individual telling those whose entitlements are under attack that they should sit down and shut up, wait their turn, yadda, yadda, yadda.

[Inland]

82. Am I black? Am I muslim? Am I disabled? I have my rights already?

Wow, you really DON'T give a shit about anybody else's rights.

You know, you really don't belong in the dem party. There are parties with people who have nothing to offer but lists of demands for themselves, but this isn't one of them.

It's not a question of telling you to shut up and wait your turn. It's just that you keep talking without providing any hint that you've got anything to offer except a sense of entitlement and a lack of interest in anything else.

Let us know when you have something worthwhile to offer.

[ladeuxiemevoiture]

86. So you're married You've got yours. Pull up the drawbridge.

eom

[Inland]

87. See, there really isn't any other issue besides yours

and everyone else can bite it.

You don't offer those other minorities anything.

Because you don't care.]

See you. No room for people who have nothing but demands for themselves. Come back when you give a shit about everybody's rights.

[ladeuxiemevoiture]

89. A bit rich considering the over 1000 rights you get that gays are denied.

Civil rights for all may be low on your priority list, and that's fine.

It's at the top of my list.

[Inland]

90. It's your only list. All you care about and all you offer is demand

Otherwise, you wouldn't be threatening to walk away unles we meet all your list.

Fact is, if you thought "civil rights" included anyone else but your own rights, you wouldn't make that threat. You wouldn't throw blacks and muslims and the disabled, not to mention the poor, under the bus for the really specific differences you have.

Just go, already. The dems have a job to do.

[ladeuxiemevoiture]

94. No, thanks. I'll go when I'm ready.

You are definitely in the minority of dems who would give up equal rights for gays if it would translate into more votes.

[Inland]

97. Oh, I thought you were going to shop around.

Go ahead, shop around. You are clearly not convinced that the dems have done enough, and nobody is offering to make any more of an effort than before.

And now you can't even tell me that there would be MORE VOTES FOR DEMS if we gave in to each an every one of your demands.

In fact, you imply that you know full well we would lose votes.

And that's okay with you, I guess. Everyone else's rights, interests, and a life of a GI here and there, is at risk as the dems lose votes just to appease you.

Well, that's your interest, narrow and selfish. I'll stand with the rights and good of everybody. You can join whenever you feel like it. But stop wasting everyone's time.

[ladeuxiemevoiture]

98. LOL I'll go when I'm ready, thanks.

:hi: :D

[Inland]

99. You're ready to give up on everyone else's rights. Carry out the threat

Ready to focus solely on what you want and nobody else. Ready to show up with nothing but demands.

You are SO ready for the republicans.

Your questions have been answered, you're unhappy, and nobody is going to please you even if they wanted to try. There's nothing left to do except beg and plead, and you know what....since there never was any evidence that gays and lesbians bring anything to the table as far as dem victories, nobody is going to do that either.

Go ahead and carry out your threat. Stay home, don't vote, it won't matter.

[ladeuxiemevoiture]

101. Go ahead and triangulate away gays' civil rights at the altar of expedienc

That's what you want to do. Are you proud of that?

EDIT: And heck, why should you care anyway? You've GOT your rights associated with YOUR marital contract. Who cares about those sniveling gays?

What's the analogy I'm looking for here - the Uncle Tom analogy is not right, because you're not gay, but there's a fitting analogy out there to describe this situation - Marie Antoinette "Let Them Eat Cake - ha, ha, ha" is the best I can come up with.

[Inland]

103. We'll do what's right and what's possible, and without your "support".

We'll be proud of actually supporting civil rights for someone other than our own individual selves.

And, lastly, when it comes time to make choices about how far or how fast to go on any set of issues, and we see that being on the far cutting edge loses votes, doen't gain any, and endangers democratic candidates and thereby endangers civil rights for everybody else, we'll make the hard choices.

It'll be triage in a conservative time. We'll sacrifice the very few ingrates to save the many.

Of course, that's the way it's always been. Politics is the art of the possible, not a suicide pact.

That's the deal, and you know it's the deal, no matter what anyone says. Take it or leave it.

[election_2004]

108. Wow, so now we're "ingrates"....??

Wow...

You representative everything that is wrong with the Democratic Party establishment today. :(

[Inland]

111. Well, somebody sure is.

And is willing to abandon the party fighting for racial, religious, ability, civil rights if they don't get everything on their list.

When I ask what the gays and lesbians bring to the table in exchange for these issues, I'm lead to believe everyone understands there will be a NET LOSS of votes!

It's an invitation to a suicide pact.

I'm not going to sacrifice everyone else's goals for perfection on the issues of a very few people. That's the deal, that's ALWAYS been the deal. I live with it, and so do you, no matter WHAT anyone says.

I'm just delivering the wake up call. Don't come with nothing but a list of demands or you might find the bluff called.

[Name removed]

124. Deleted message

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

[Inland]

130. Wow, you don't belong in any party, you are so confused.

The guy who abandons the democratic party believes in minority rights.

The guy who says, do what I say for MY minority or I'll leave the blacks and disabled and religious minorities and the poor to fend for themselves believes in minority rights.

The guy who threatens to leave and see if the repubs will give him a better deal is a better democrat than I am.

The guy who abandons all the other minorities coalescing in the democratic party because his personal views on an issue aren't accepted is NOT the egocentric one.

I'm not allowed to disagree with 1% of HIS agenda, and it's all about me.

If that's your idea of a democratic party adherent, then there is no party because leaving is more admirable than staying.

So leave.

[renaissanceguy]

125. "I'll stand with the rights and good of everybody. "

Right...and just where have you proven this in your posts?

Give me a fucking break.

[Inland]

132. And back to my first post---fuck the "no difference" crowd and the

idiot horse it rode in on.

There are a million posts in this thread on what the dems have done. I'm a democrat.

If anyone wants to hear my specific views, they can ask. Frankly, nobody has cared to hear any disagreement, since the OP was, do as I say or I walk.

But the fact that you don't care what I think on any issue of gay or lesbian rights probably means YOU are the big tent guy and I am not, in the bizarro world of this crappy thread.

[Name removed]

107. Deleted message

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

[Inland]

131. Of course it is. It's a political party.

Real life is where somebody walks in with a demand and a threat that doesn't scare anybody.

When the OP put gay rights in those terms--do what I say or I walk--or in even more ridiculous terms--not much difference between democrats and republicans--I see someone with unsatisfiable demands who is going to cost votes in a futile attempt to please him, votes needed to elect democrats.

So. What would you have ME do? "Oh, don't worry, all your dreams will come true, I promise, please, please please......"

Or how about "you know, we've done a lot". Oh, wait, that's exactly what the OP said wouldn't satisfy him.

Or how about "republicans want to criminalize sodomy and do a bunch of bad things". That didn't satisfy him either.

Waste of time and energy dealing with it. Goodbye. Come back with something other than threats, or at least BETTER threats, and we'll talk.

[election_2004]

135. All I can say....

...is that if a candidate isn't at least open to some form of same-sex domestic parity resembling the civil unions concept, then he/she can kiss my potential vote goodbye. End of story.

[renaissanceguy]

126. And what struggles do you have

as a heterosexual male? Do you feel oppressed in our society?

The above poster's question about your sexual orientation is relevant to this thread.

All minority rights, IMO, are on an equal plane. If one truly supports equality (s)he would apply it across the board.

You, on the other hand, probably have no idea what it's like to be discriminated against, harassed, beaten, etc.

Your attitude is a cancer for the party and for the country.

[Inland]

128. All minority rights on an equal plane? How goofy. Goodbye.

Anyone what wants to tell me that racial discrimination, jim crow laws, bars to voting, color bars in officeholding, laws against miscengenation, laws barring blacks on juries, laws segregating neighborhoods and schools and such

are on an "equal plane" as whether gays get "civil unions" vs. "marriage"

must think the country is full of idiots. OF COURSE they aren't on an equal plane. There simply isn't any comparison to the race based discrimination coming from an era of slavery followed by an era of state enforced discrimination followed by an era of bigotry.

There isn't any question of priorities, except for those whose priority is their group.

My guess is that there are so many groups, gays included, that sit around trying so hard to equate their plight to that of racial or religious minorities that they actually believe the hype. But nobody's proven it to me, and you know what? Nobody is going to try. Instead it's just do what we say or we leave. Accept your fatwa or you run off and leave all the other minorities and oppressed groups to fend for themselves.

Goodbye. Have fun out there, abandoning racial and religious minorities to shop for a better deal from republicans. And I'm the cancer. Whatever. Goodbye, seeya, don't send a card.

Make sure you tell them your civil rights are on an equal plane with tax cuts, just for the fun of seeing the confusion. See ya.

[Name removed]

122. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

133. Deleted message

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

[blm]

67. Have you ever spent time at a Republican forum condemning THEIR stand?

Because you certainly seem pretty unaware of the actual differences between a manipulative cretin like Bush who ONLY used anti-gay sentiment to drive homophobes to the voting booths to retain power for the fascist agenda.

Bush only sees gays as a wedge. That's IT. Gays are OBJECTS to be used. And that's fine with you. You won't ARGUE that point against Republicans.

No...you come here and attack Democrats who have worked to COUINTER the consistent objectification of gays by Republicans.

You ADMIRE the GOPs TACTIC of objectifying gays to WIN, and conserve your real scorn for the Democrats.

That's whacked. Or intentional.

[ladeuxiemevoiture]

70. Oh, boy, you don't even know how much time I have spent doing that.

I've spent far, FAR more time among Republicans arguing in favor of gay rights, against social security dismantlement, against the Iraq War, in favor of Kerry, etc. than I have here on DU. You're just going to have to take my word for it, but yes, I've done a LOT of that. :)

Again, I'd ask you if you are gay or hetero?

[blm]

75. I'm bi - but it's not the reason I know Kerry's extensive advocacy for gay

issues. I'm a good governance advocate - an HONEST government advocate - an anti-corruption in government advocate.

And I do believe you have spent more time among Republicans than you have Democrats.

You certainly seem to accept and respect the GOP tactic of objectifying gays so they can be used as a WEDGE issue for campaigns, while you excoriate Dems who have been countering that tactic for years.

If you ARE gay, and you ARE a gay activist, why were you so unaware of Kerry's actual record over 20 years and his actual statements? And why would a gay activist edit Kerry's statements to make him out to be no different than Bush?

That sounds like a very odd approach for a gay activist on a Democratic board..

[ladeuxiemevoiture]

84. Stop twisting my words, please. Thanks.

eom

[blm]

92. Haha...you find no problem twisting Kerry's words or his record.

And I believe I have been VERY accurate.

What you really object to is my ability to comprehend the purpose of your thread.

[ladeuxiemevoiture]

95. Well, it really wasn't about Kerry; you hijacked it.

Yes, I discussed Kerry, but I really wanted to discuss the Dem Party and its approach to gay rights.

[blm]

114. So YOU brought up Gore and Kerry as if they lagged behind Clinton's record

when your claim is DEMONSTRABLY FALSE.

Maybe YOU should be more careful in making conclusions that have no basis in reality.

[LittleClarkie]

127. Get one to talk to you and act like you don't have cooties

We used that to our advantage at Kerry HQ, and brought out the rainbow banner like it was a crucifix to get rid of the pro-lifer deadbabymobile.

[dsc]

58. Several things

First DADT was a defeat. Clinton was defeated on this issue. He couldn't change the policy without changing the law which required Congress. Nunn's chairmanship of the Senate Armed Services Committee coupled with several defections among Plains and Southern Democrats made that an impossibility. People keep citing Truman on this, but Truman had the power to desegregate the military, though he actually couldn't affect that change in vehicles in the South to name one example. My dad was in the military in the mid 1950's and when they embarked on trips they were assigned segregated vehicles to comply with Southern laws banning integrated vehicles. The soldiers would, after the first break, go back to their friends, but they were officially assigned and expected to be in, segregated vehicles. Clinton had no such power thanks to the UCMJ and its anti sodomy law.

As to your broader point. On the plus side, you can count on one hand the number of Democrats in the Senate opposed to the employment non discrimination act while you can count on one hand the number of Republicans in favor. A similar dynamic exists in regards to hate crimes.

No the Democrats aren't doing well in regards to marriage. I fail to see why they think civil unions even help them with supposedly moderate voters. The performance of the marriage bans should have ended that debate. But marriage is only one issue.

What my real problem with many Democrats is, is that they are telling straight American one thing and telling gay America another. The only way we are ever going to get our rights via legislation is if straight public leaders tell straight America that the time has come and those bills will pass. The main reason I supported Dean in the primaries was that he told straight audiences the very same thing he told gay ones when it came to gay rights.

Clinton was our Truman. The President who used his executive powers to the best of his ability to advance our agenda. He appointed gay friendly judges, gay officials, and gays in those all important but virtually unknown positions in the beauracracy.

We need our Johnson. I honestly felt Dean was it. I didn't think Dean would bring us civil unions nor marriage (interracial marriage was won in the courts) but I did think he would pass civil rights laws for us. He would have pressed the case for them in his usual forceful way.

Democrats are not perfect. But Republicans are downright awful. We currently have 14 states with gay rights laws. Well over half were signed by Democratic governors. In addition, nearly all were passed by legislatures with both houses in Democratic control. It isn't an accident that not a single red state has one of these laws while nearly 2/3 of blue ones do. New Hampshire is unique among states which voted for Bush in having such a law and they only voted for Bush the first time.

We can't let the party backslide on our issues. The lack of a gay presence during the convention this year was very disturbing. But the Democratic party is vastly better on our issues than the Republicans. It isn't even close.

[ladeuxiemevoiture]

59. Great post - thanks!

:hi: Very persuasive case - no offense, but you must be a lawyer? :D

[dsc]

62. Thanks

No offense taken. Not a lawyer though but a math teacher who also majored in poli sci.

[amjfv]

93. Unfortunately the Dems have to get elected...

In a country that isn't exactly friendly towards gays.

Look at how popular those Defense of Marraige Acts were last year? Dems don't want to scare off white, moderate, middle class, slightly homophobic Ohioans who might actually get us elected. The problem with being a party that supports minority rights is that it occasionally scares the majority that actually decides who has a seat in the legislature.

Now in situations where a Dem dosen't have to worry about what the electorate will think-- ie San Francisco-- you see what I consider pretty unambiguious support for gays.

[ladeuxiemevoiture]

96. I appreciate your honesty.

But they haven't been getting elected.

Could they start winning again if they withdrew support for civil rights for gays, I wonder?

[noamnety]

100. Again, let the votes speak for themselves

Since you specifically talk about dems not wanting to scare off homophobic Ohioans, let's look at the Ohio Representatives' record from last year:

Chabot, Steve (R) 0
Portman, Rob (R) 0
Ney, Bob (R) 0
Regula, Ralph (R) 0
LaTourette, Steven (R) 0
Turner, Michael (R) 0
Boehner, John (R) 0
Oxley, Michael (R) 0
Tiberi, Patrick (R) 0
Gillmor, Paul (R) 0
Hobson, David (R) 22
Pryce, Deborah (R) 44
Ryan, Tim (D) 55
Kaptur, Marcy (D) 55
Strickland, Ted (D) 77
Brown, Sherrod (D) 77
Kucinich, Dennis (D) 100
Tubbs Jones, Stephanie (D) 100


I really wish people would do research and present FACTS alongside their broad sweeping statements.

[ladeuxiemevoiture]

102. Excellent point, thanks.

eom

[amjfv]

109. Not to offend but...

Your state did support by a wide margine an anti DOMA law last year. Dems (such as Kerry) probably looked at the polling on that and were a bit reluctant to come out unapologetically for gay rights.

[noamnety]

110. Here's a comparison of Bush and Kerry on Gay Rights

Federal Marriage Amendment
Bush: Supports the FMA and publicly endorsed it in February 2004.
Kerry: Opposes the FMA. "I oppose this election-year effort to amend the Constitution in an area that each state can adequately address, and I will vote against such an amendment if it comes to the Senate floor."

Relationship Recognition
Bush: Supports changing the U.S. Constitution, which may, in addition to banning same-sex marriage, prohibit certain domestic partner benefits.
Kerry: Supports civil unions with federal benefits, domestic partner benefits for same-sex couples and the Permanent Partners Immigration Act, which would treat binational same-sex couples like opposite-sex couples.

Marriage Equality
Bush: Does not support extending full marriage equality to same-sex couples.
Kerry: Does not support extending full marriage equality to same-sex couples.

Employment Non-Discrimination Act
Bush: Has never supported ENDA.
Kerry: Co-sponsor of ENDA and voted for it in 1996. One of John Kerry's first acts as a U.S. senator, in 1985, was to introduce a bill prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

Hate Crimes
Bush: Opposes the Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act. Did not support adding sexual orientation to the Texas hate crimes law when he was governor.
Kerry: Voted for and is a current co-sponsor of the LLEEA, which would add sexual orientation, gender and disability to existing federal hate crimes law.

HIV/AIDS
Bush: Has failed to advocate for needed increases in federal spending for HIV prevention and the care and treatment of people with HIV/AIDS.
Kerry: Co-sponsor of the Early Treatment for HIV Act. Supports full funding for science-based HIV prevention programs and the Ryan White Comprehensive AIDS Resources Emergency Act.

Adoption
Bush: Opposes allowing same-sex couples to adopt children. "I'm against gay adoptions."
Kerry: Supports giving appropriate authorities the full authority to make decisions based on the best interest of the child, without bans based solely on sexual orientation.

http://www.hrc.org/Template.cfm?Section=Campaigns_and_Elections&Template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=23526

Out of the 8 gay Rights issues shown, Bush opposes all 8 of them, Kerry supports 7 of them. In 1996, Kerry won Time Magazine's "Honest Man in Politics Award" for being only Senator up for reelection to vote against Defense of Marriage Act.

I'm sorry the democrats do not all have a perfect record on every issue, including this one. I haven't yet found the politician I agree with 100% of the time. However, it's clear which politicians are pushing FOR gay rights, and which are fighting AGAINST them.

I would continue to pressure ALL politicians to support marriage rights for everyone, but to try to paint the democrats as being equivalent to the republicans in the area of gay rights is laughable if you take time to research their records.

[Moderator]

136. Locking

the OP is no longer among us.