Gay People Have To Vote ALL THE TIME For Candidates Who Disappoint Them

[ruggerson]

Generalizing, of course, many, if not most, gay voters support full marriage equality.

But, there is not one leading candidate on the Democratic side who supports gay marriage.

Feingold does, but he isn't running. Kucinich and Sharpton do, but my dog has more of a chance of being elected President than they do.

So, realistically, if our choices are between Hillary, Edwards, Obama, Gore, Biden, Dodd and Kerry, there is not ONE of them that supports gay marriage. Without fact checking, I'd venture that more than a few of them supported the odious Defense of Marriage Act, which Hillary's husband signed into law. lGore was the Vice President of the administration that signed this into law, and I don't remember him objecting at the time.

But, you know what? Most gay voters know that politics is the art of compromise and that civil rights move incrementally and that eventually we will win this war, because we have right and goodness on our side.

One could make the case that nearly ALL the Democrats running for President privately support full marriage equality, but do not express those sentiments publicly because they do NOT FEEL THE COUNTRY IS THERE YET.

Are all the Democratic candidates hypocrites?

Are they just as wrong as those who voted for the IWR?

Since many, if not most, DUers support full gay marriage equality, why are they willing to give all their candidates a break on this issue, but whine constantly about candidates who were wrong on the Iraq war four years ago?

For many gay people and their families, these are life and death issues as well. Gay people are routinely killed in the Mid east and viciously oppressed in other parts of the world. For those of us who have a partner overseas, the fact that we cannot marry them and find safe harbor for them in the US is a very personal life and death issue.

Many gay voters, however, know and deal with the fact that they must compromise on issues they hold dear when they cast their ballots. They find candidates who they agree with on 70, 80% of the issues and they cast their vote, knowing full well that the most important issue to them personally is being opposed by the candidate for whom they vote.

Does this forced ability to make rational decisions and hard choices about leaders in this country perhaps give them a broader view about what politicians can and cannot do on some of the most divisive and pressing issues of the day?

As a gay man, I find it perplexing and sad to see all the candidates who voted for the IWR berated here time and again by people who question their "judgement" or people who are imposing an ideological test.


For those of you who support gay marriage, and most of DU does, why is it ok for you to overlook your candidates lack of support for gay marriage, a basic HUMAN RIGHTS concept, while bashing candidates who voted for the IWR?


Politics is the art of the possible. Maybe, just maybe, it's also the art of redemption.

I heartily welcome those who change their minds and support marriage equality.

I welcome those who make the journey and find the political courage to admit error and do what's right, whether it's concerning the war in Iraq or on issues of basic human rights.

Do you?

[Zuiderelle]

1. You make some very good points. Recommending.

[SteppingRazor]

2. You make a fine point...

though couching politics as the "art of redemption" makes the pessimist in me nearly fall off his chair laughing ;)

[wryter2000]

3. What you said!

:woohoo: I've never heard it put so eloquently.

:yourock: :applause:

K&R

On edit: Also bookmarked. "I only regret that I have but one recommendation to give to this post."

[Richardo]

4. Excellent points, nicely put. Recommended.

[wryter2000]

5. Darn

There you go being reasonable again. :evilgrin:

[pnwmom]

6. Excellent points, Ruggerson.

Most gay people -- and their families -- realize that an advocate who runs on a politically suicidal platform won't help the cause as much as someone who can actually manage to get elected.

Too bad everyone isn't as wise.

[Marnieworld]

7. Excellent point, well thought out and articulated.

As a straight woman I must say that the Dem candidates disappoint me as well over this issue. They transparently triangulate with euphemismistic compromises on semantics (civil unions)but they must know the lessons of separate but equal. But I accept and hope for change nonetheless. It's a good comparison to the IWR vote. We constantly adjust ourselves with candidates who aren't exactly in line with how we would say or do things.

So yes, I agree, that people should do what's practical and let some things go in hopes of a better bigger picture. You can do this without conceding anything like the concept of that they didn't have enough info at the time of the IWR vote. Most of us here had enough info so there is no excuse. But staying stuck in that helps no one.

So what positions does you dog have? Since you say he's running/ ;)

[ruggerson]

42. His main platform is

Universal Eukanuba for all.

He opposes Lamb and Rice on religious grounds, but is fully in support of the Fish and Sweet Potato resolution.

[mzmolly]

8. Excellente'

:toast:

[xchrom]

9. actually marriage equality ISN'T my primary concern.

the safety, health and well being of gay people is.

i know that dems will stab gay folk in back on all kinds of issues -- i.e. large lgbt fund raising but lack of public support by candidates, doma -- so and so forth.

what i know is that dems will do the least harm to gay compared to the republick party.

and that's it.

as far as i'm concerned -- gay folk have to MOVE straight folk from the door way -- we have moved ourselves forward in spite of politics or anything else.

[terrya]

10. Excellent post. You make some great points. I've kicked and recommended.

Thank you very much, ruggerson. Some great points. :thumbsup:

[Morgana LaFey]

11. Why? Because this IS a democracy and WE get to choose,

individually, what floats our boat. And guess what -- those of us who are straight are always voting for people who disappoint us too. Ridiculous argument, frankly.

And AFAIC, their vote on IWR demonstrates either a level of incompetence that shows they don't have the basic qualifications, or spinelessness which shows they're not strong enough as human beings for that level of office in these challenging times, or political opportunism which is -- in my book a deadly sin for politicians when it comes to something like a war vote. Further, the resolution itself gave Bush too much power, like the power to go after Iran and Syria too.

I agree that gay marriage is a basic human rights concept -- but frahkly you can't get higher on the scale than the indiscriminate taking of life and treasure in massive numbers that goes with war. You just can't. So yes, for me IWR trumps gay rights. Sorry. I'm one of the strongest feminists that I've seen at DU and for me IWR trumps women's rights too. In fact, it trumps everything I can think of.

BUT, you see -- I offer the biggest and most generous out while still holding to my principles, and that is for the candidate to simply apologize in sincere and humble terms (IOW: demonstrate that they actually mean it), and renounce their vote. "I was wrong," is the minimum. And then it would be nice to see them working proactively to end the war.

Without having read your thread, I think most DUers who feel strongly about the IWR feel about the same way as I do about a sincere apology and then moving on, so I really don't think your argument is all that valid.

[dsc]

16. There are many people who oppose legal abortion

and this war (Congressman Ryan and Congresswoman Kaptur of Ohio for two). Would you vote for them for President or even Congress?

[Morgana LaFey]

38. I have no idea

That's completely insufficient information on which to base a decision, speaking for myself.

AND, esp. where President is concerned, there is much, much more than mere "policies" on which I base my decision. If policies were the only thing, I'd probably have been a Kucinich supporter in 2004.

[Blue-Jay]

49. "I'm one of the strongest feminists that I've seen at DU...'

What's that supposed to mean? Can you bench press a bus or something?

[election_2004]

53. Still, we appreciate your personal support... *hugs*

There are some so-called feminists who simply write off all LGBT issues as being "not important."

[mikelgb]

12. I am a gay man and I refuse to vote for a candidate

for such an important office as POTUS that does not agree with me on basic common sense human rights

I voted for Kucinich in 04 and I'll do it again in 08 and if you would all do the same instead of picking the ones the MSM says are the 'popular choices' who are 'electable'(those who aren't even officially running BTW) he could win

I don't appreciate DUers lowering themselves to the level of the MSM with "Kucinich and Sharpton do, but my dog has more of a chance of being elected President than they do."

unscrupulous

please if you are going to discount the chances of a Kucinich or Sharpton nomination, use the real reason:

the media and people like the OP actively smear them with labels like "dark horse" "long shot" every chance they get

[dsc]

13. Kucinich was opposed to abortion in most circumstances

until 2002 and stated publicly while campaigning for Congress that DOMA didn't need changed. His fisrt bill to prepeal DOMA was in 2002. You can't have it both ways. If he is allowed to change his mind on these issues then Edwards can on the war.

[mikelgb]

20. I agree

I have no problems with John Edwards

just won't vote for him (again)

[lojasmo]

14. Do thousands die when politicians oppose gay marriage?

I think not.

[dsc]

18. thousands no, several possibly even hundreds, yes

One example was given in the OP (that of gays in repressive countries who can't be brought here as spouses). A more common example, which I would be willing to bet rises to hundreds, would be people who otherwise would have health insurance through their spouses but don't due to the marriage not being recognized.

[mitchtv]

48. it depends upon how far you want to go back,

and who is included in the tally. The gaybashings, suicides, seniors denied coverage, nursing , evictions, refused housing when infirm, or partnered. It would take much to rack up an impressive tally. Almost every Gay I know has some kind of horror story or six.

[dsc]

50. I was just addressing marriage

clearly if you put in hate crimes etc. the tally would skyrocket. You do put in some things I forgot though and thanks.

[terrya]

19. Why does it have to be either/or?

Yes, the war in Iraq is extremely important. No one disputes that.

But goddammit, why can't I, as a gay man, hold Democrats accountable because they basically vote to deny me basic human rights? I'm getting more than a little fucking tired and angry watching Democrats such as John Kerry, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, etc, etc, trying to portray themselves as "Republican Lite" on the same-sex marriage issues. And hell, there are Democrats, such as Harold Ford, who have vociferously, enthustiastically voted for bigotry via the "Federal Marriage Amendment".

[lojasmo]

24. well, I'm sick of it too, but it's an inapropriate analogy. EOM

[Pithy Cherub]

15. An Aye on IWR was the biggest failure of Human Rights

by politicians in this country because it endangered ALL of us, straight and gay alike. It is specious to equate dead people to married people. As a straight believer in full gay rights in all aspects of life, it is most important to see if Life itself is held in high esteem by not backing a lying president to send off gay and straight alike to a war without merit. The IWR was the most pristine vote as to whether a politician would have Courage and Character to stand for all of the people. Gay Marriage is not an equivalent human rights issue where one pre-emptively agrees to a war that kills and maims hundreds of thousands of the world's citizens in another country. Those who admitted they were full of crap when voting for the IWR have two strikes against them. According to the logic in the OP as long as a politician says they are sorry for not voting for gay marriage its okay as well. That demostrates the small trivial value of an apology that is not backed with consistent meaningful actions (not blathering speeches admitting the wrongdoing)over a period of time.

For me, the IWR vote defines whether a person merits consideration for higher office. If they have to apologize their way to president, that is not a person who champions my values because they have already proven they can not be trusted to make the best decisions when lives are on the line. Forgiving them is very easy, voting for the presidential aspirant apologists is another matter.

[AtomicKitten]

41. spot on

as usual, I agree on all counts, and thank you

[Bjorn Against]

17. My candidate supports equal marriage rights...

People may tell me he doesn't have a chance in hell of winning, but there are a lot of people who won in the past who people said did not have a chance.

You do have a point however, while it is better if a candidate is right on the issue from the beginning we should respect their decision to move in the right direction later if they were wrong originally. I don't particularly like Hillary, but if she does come around and becomes a strong opponent of the war I will praise her for it rather than accusing her of holding her finger in the wind.

The same goes with gay marriage, any candidate who is able to admit they were wrong in the past and decides to support gay marriage deserves our support on their conversion. It doesn't mean we have to vote for them in the primary, it just means we should not attack them for taking the right position even if they came to that position late.

[TechBear_Seattle]

21. Not gay marriage, but EQUAL marriage

"Gay marriage" sounds like something special and unique. The issue is not and never has been about special and unique rights, but about equal. When we speak of "gay marriage," we only hand more fuel to the enemies of equality.

It's all how you frame the debate. :hi:

[ruggerson]

39. I think I reference equal marriage rights

in the OP. But you're correct, we should refer to it solely as equal civil marriage rights.

[Clark2008]

22. Vote for Wes Clark

And don't let the media tell you who is electable. I think if more people knew about Clark, he'd be highly electable as a populist. Heck, he's way more populist than anyone you named, save Kucinich.

[sandnsea]

23. Some opposed DOMA

Some wrote the first gay equality legislation introduced to Congress. Some were key fighters in AIDS and Ryan White legislation. Some refused to come out against gay marriage amendments in order to win votes.

None of that matters to the gay community. Which is why some other politicians aren't willing to go to the mat on some of these issues.

[dsc]

25. Gays were the third most loyal group of Democratic voters

despite Kerry supporting restrictive amendments in both MA and MO. We were more loyal than pro choicers and union members.

[sandnsea]

32. He didn't support those amendments

That's the exact kind of bullshit I'm talking about. He didn't support any of the gay discrimination amendments, despite Clinton urging him to oppose gay marriage. It doesn't do him any good at all, people are still ready to jump on the Hillary bandwagon despite her being increasingly wishy-washy on social issues.

[dsc]

33. yes he did

He still supports the MA amendment even while the people of his state don't while he did back off the MO amendment. But he did support both amendments publicly. He didn't support the federal one, and he didn't support any of the ones on the ballot in November but he did support the one that was on the ballot in MO in March. As to Hillary, to my knowledge, no major gay groups have endorsed her.

On edit

Here is the Boston Globe on this

TOLEDO, Ohio -- Presidential candidate John F. Kerry said yesterday that he supports amending the Massachusetts Constitution to ban gay marriage and provide for civil unions for gay couples.

Article Tools
Printer friendly
E-mail to a friend
Nation RSS feed
Available RSS feeds
Most e-mailed
Reprints & Licensing
Save this article
powered by Del.icio.us
More:
Globe Nation stories |
Latest national news |
Globe front page |
Boston.com
Sign up for: Globe Headlines e-mail | Breaking News Alerts In his most explicit remarks on the subject yet, Kerry told the Globe that he would support a proposed amendment to the state Constitution that would prohibit gay marrriage so long as, while outlawing gay marriage, it also ensured that same-sex couples have access to all legal rights that married couples receive.

"If the Massachusetts Legislature crafts an appropriate amendment that provides for partnership and civil unions, then I would support it, and it would advance the goal of equal protection," the senator said yesterday, stressing that he was referring only to the state, and not the federal, Constitution. He has said he would oppose any amendment that did not include a provision for civil unions. "I think that you need to have civil union. That's my position," he said Tuesday.

Kerry's remarks angered supporters of gay marriage in Massachusetts, but could help stalled efforts by state legislative leaders to win support for their amendment. The amendment written by Senate President Robert E. Travaglini and Senate minority leader Brian Lees would restrict marriage to heterosexuals but create a same-sex civil union system that would provide all the benefits and protections of marriage.


end of quote

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/02/26/kerry_backs_state_ban_on_gay_marriage/

[sandnsea]

34. Distorting again

If he supports letting states decide, then he can't hardly turn around and say he wouldn't support the state deciding on civil unions if that's what the state chose. That's what he was saying there. Yes he thinks civil unions was the way to go provided the rights were equal. That isn't to say he supported what some states have done, banning gay marriage outright and offering no protection in its place. He didn't support that, has actively spoken against it. And what does he get in return? His position distorted. How delightful.

I told you I'm not going to argue with you this primary season and I'm not. So that's all I'm going to say.

[dsc]

35. It is not a distortion

He has repeatedly supported MA banning gay marriage and replacing it with civil unions via constitutional amendment. Maybe me messed up with the MO amendment since he backed off so fast, I don't know one way or the other, but his position on MA is clear and to his credit he hasn't flip floped on it.

[sandnsea]

37. Hi!!!

So are you ready for the cold snap that's headed towards the east coast? We still have snow crystals on the ground and it hit here last Thursday. My son's water froze. Be sure and leave yours drip if your house isn't really well insulated. Get warm socks and gloves and hat if you need to be outdoors much. My grandson did get his first snow day though, he's 1. He liked the crunching, but that was about it.

:hi:

[dsc]

47. We bury pipes here (unlike when I was in MS) so I don't have to worry

on that regard. We still have hard freezes in a normal winter as far as I can tell down here. I still have my winter clothes from Ohio so I will be plenty warm (though I don't do much outside). I am glad your grandson enjoyed the snow. I have to actually drive to work if we get snow but we won't have kids. I am actually looking forward to a little cold weather.

[ruggerson]

43. Kerry does not support equal marriage rights

Period. End of story. Yes, he was brave to vote against DOMA, but he straddles the marriage question by the usual response: he opposes marriage, but supports civil unions, which is essentially the same position as Hillary and even GW Bush. And it's a cowardly position.

But, I voted for him. And if he were nominated I would vote for him again.

But a courageous, inspiring leader on gay and lesbian issues he ain't.

[AtomicKitten]

44. word

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2005/05/06/democrats_platform_shouldnt_back_gay_marriage_kerry_says/

[sandnsea]

46. He does not support gay marriage bans

I'm sorry you don't get the difference between advocating gay marriage bans and opposing them. It's a huge difference. Hillary has never spoken out against gay marriage amendments, she has never called them the discriminatory gamesmanship that they are. Bush supports gay marriage bans. It's a clear difference and Kerry has absolutely gone down a different road than either Hillary or Bush. It's sickening to see people want to lump it all in together because they couldn't have been more different over the years.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

59. Huh? I think that's impossible - you must mean something else.

I don't see how that can be a meaningful claim - surely any trio of people who all voted Democrat is a more loyal group of Democratic voters than gays.

"Extremely loyal" yes, but "third most loyal" *must* be a misconception, I think.

"Third most loyal from a particular list"? If so, what list?

[dsc]

65. Various demographic groups

Only blacks and Jews were more loyal. We were more loyal than pro choicers, union members, and every other major demographic group.

[tbyg52]

26. Excellent points, food for thought. Thank you. nt

[SanFranciscoValues]

27. I agree

with the general sentiment of your posting. As a gay man, I would obviously prefer to see equal marriage rights as a reality. However, I also realize that our civil rights struggle has come farther and faster than most people would have believed possible just 30 years ago. In fact, when I first came out, in the late 90s, gay marriage was not even considered a possibility anywhere in the mainstream of politics. Now gay marriage is a reality in Mass. and the possibility is there in my own state (Cal.) and several others. I can only imagine how far we might be 10-20 years from now. So it really does not bother me when Presidential candidates are not ready to fully endorse gay marriage.Honestly, I do not think that our nation, as a whole, is ready for gay marriage...yet. Let's change the things we can now, the issues that have broad public support. Let's work on repealing DODT, passing a federal hate crimes bill that covers GLBT people. The further we come, the more support from the general public we gain. To push marriage equality too hard and too soon could mean losing ground, not only on marriage equality, but on everything. We need to be realistic. I would feel much better with an Obama, Clinton, Kerry, etc. as President that with a McCain or Romney.

And as for the situation in Iraq. I have always been against the war, and it remains one of the most important issues for me politically (Global warming/environmental issues are up there too). And while I would not support any candidate who supports anything but a reduction of our presence in Iraq now, I could easily support a candidate who has, as you put it, "had a change of heart." Why not? We (and I am speaking very generally for progressives) criticize Bush for his stubbornness, for his unwavering belief that he is always right. We are liberals. Our political views are flexible and founded on facts and inquiry, rather than blind obedience and faith. As facts change, so should our stances on issues. Our ability to adapt, to move forward, and to call for change are the very reasons that I was first drawn to the democratic party. When we start calling for litmus tests, and unwavering loyalty, then we become too much like them (the conservatives). We move too far away from our own values.

[Unvanguard]

28. I'm not willing to give them a break on either.

:shrug:

[Maraya1969]

29. Growing and changing in a positive way is a GOOD thing. I don't understand

why people are held responsible for opinions or decisions they made years ago if they admit that they have turned over a new leaf because of new evidence or a new outlook.

My opinions have changed throughout my life and I like to think that is a reflection of my willingness to learn and to grow.

Also, what happens if a person gets a sex reassignment and you end up with two people of the same sex in a marriage? Is the marriage nulled?

[mitchtv]

30. Thanks for your input

I for one, will vote Dem either way. Donating ., and campaigning, is another story. They don't care about me? they may still get my vote, but little more. There is always an issue that trumps gay rights for many here. They can contribute my share. Doesn't kill thousands? Over the years it has.

[LittleClarkie]

31. Don't know about the rest, but Kerry does NOT support DOMA

And when told by Clinton before the last election that he should find a way to support it, he said it was something he couldn't ever do.

[PresidentObama]

36. I'm gay, and while this disappoints me....

If a candidate like say John Kerry comes along, I like John. I look at his record, his experience, and his leadership abilities. I DON'T look at purely if he supports gay marriage or not. Now if they are open and out about their strong feelings against gay marriages, I would probably question my support for them. But if they are against gay marriage and it's merely a personal and religious choice I'm disappointed in their view point but more then willing to listen to their platform and plans.

[MasterDarkNinja]

40. Unfortunately openly supporting gay marriage = Probably won't win a presidential election

I tend to look at things more realisticly when deciding what I'd like to see politicians doing, I'd rather see them doing practical things for us that make it easier for them to get elected/relected.

Unfortunately as much as I'd hate to say it, remember how they were saying that gay marriage could have helped cost Kerry the election in 04? The sad fact at the moment is that a majority of American voters are against gay marriage, and if you turn it into a major issue chances are you'll end up losing the election, especially in an election in which the majority of voters are against gay marriage (such as presidential elections).

Another thing that we've got to keep in mind, even if we can elect a president who's a very strong supporter of gay marriage, they can't make it into law by themselves. Congress would have to pass a bill making gay marriage legal first, and I really don't think that they would do that, even if we pick up a few more seats in 08.

I think the way to legalize gay marriage will unfortunately be slow and take a few years at least, other minorities didn't gain all the rights they have today and get viewed as equals by their fellow americans overnight. It wasn't overnight when people went from being willing to protest giving equal rights to blacks, to cringing at the very thought of being labeled a racist. Right now we're still at the phase where people against gay rights aren't afraid to speak out about it and say horrible things about gays.

The most realistic way I see legalizing gay marriage the quickest is to get someone into the whitehouse who will veto any antigay marriage or antigay bills, and also nominate liberal judges to the supreme court who will vote to legalize gay marriage when a case about marriage makes it to the supreme court.

The other way that would eventually work to legalize gay marriage is to change people's mind's, and make them support gay marriage. Support has been growing for gay marriage and other gay rights over the years, but we still need it to grow a lot more before a majority of americans support gay marriage. I'm not sure what the exact numbers are at the moment, but I think that something like 2/3's of Americans are against gay marriage and 1/3 are for it. If we could change those numbers to have nearly half or more people support gay marriage then it would be only a matter of time until gay marriage is legalized, and politicians would much less afraid to push for gay rights/marriage.

I think it would be best to do both of those things at the same time, because unless we change the public's opinion to support gay marriage the radical conservatives are still going to try overturn any supreme court ruling, or law, that says that gay marriage is legal.

I'm all for gay marriage, but I'll admit I'm not gay, so I can understand if you'll disagree with my "wait until later for getting an openly progay marriage presidential candidate" argument, because obviously this issue is more important to you then it is to me.

[KT2000]

45. MANY people vote for

candidates who disappoint them.
It is likely you do not know this - but there many many people who have been made permanently ill from exposure to chemicals. Powerful corporations and the government do not want it recognized or acknowledged that these products can be so dangerous. Therefore, it is not recognized - by Democrats or Republicans. (exception is Bernie Sanders)

Lack of recognition means there is no medical treatment, no medical insurance coverage, no accomodation for those still able to work, insurance companies are relieved of having to pay disability payments (and that includes state workers comp) etc. For those who are not independently wealthy it is a bleak existence. Suicide is not uncommon.

The worked at Ground Zero are the latest victims of this abuse.

Most of the people I know with this problem vote for Democrats because they have hope and concern for other issues. But in the last 20 years, Democrats have not helped at all.

Make no mistake - this is a life or death issue.


Life is unfair to many people. Sometimes the remedy for the pain of that is to learn about others who have and are suffering unfairness too. I often think of the men who gave their lives for the union movement. We are beneficiaries of their work.
I think of the children who will never be able to live up to their potential because we are ruled by corporations that find it just as profitable to poison them in the womb as any other sort of commerce.
And this is Martin Luther King's birthday.

[LWolf]

51. No they don't "have to." There are other choices. n/t

[election_2004]

52. As a gay male, here's how I look at it....

I realize that it isn't "safe" at this point in our history for most Democratic presidential contenders to support same-sex marriage. For me, the litmus test is that they must be receptive to the idea of civil unions. Even some moderate-to-liberal Republicans have taken the position: marriage should be between a man and a woman, but same-sex civil unions are an acceptable compromise.

Any Democrat who blatantly says "No civil unions, period"...will NEVER GET MY VOTE, period.

In this vein, John Edwards has disappointed me with his all-too-safe "leave it up to the states" position...but at the same time, Edwards is good on a lot of other issues, and I think his judgment as president would be a lot better than certain other unscrupulous Democrats.

Although Hillary Clinton's lip service and overhyped reputation in favor of gay rights might appear closer to my own views, her approach is disingenuous. For example, her statement to gay rights activists that she's "evolving" on gay marriage...what's that supposed to mean? That she's basically admitting that she won't support it unless it's politically convenient for her to do so!

[Jack Rabbit]

54. This proves that gay people are just like everyone else

Gay People Have To Vote ALL THE TIME For Candidates Who Disappoint Them.

[Clark2008]

55. Maybe they shouldn't.

I don't plan to vote for Edwards if he's the nominee because I don't consider him trustworthy.

I would hope people - gay or straight - would vote their conscious no matter what their specific issue(s) of concen is.

[BoneDaddy]

56. Great points but...

I think the political reality is that it has become such a hot potato for some they don't want to stand up and show some real backbone.

Whereas most people in America may not reject the civil union approach, they do on the "marriage" issue. America is still very homophobic and I think the dems are reluctant to make this the issue.

Damn shame if you ask me.

[election_2004]

58. Then why are some Dems so skittish about supporting civil unions...???

Unless they're from an ultra, ULTRA red congressional district, what's the risk?

[BoneDaddy]

64. Many of the Dems

are cowards.

[catgirl]

57. Equal Marriage Is Coming Soon

Progressive americans, smart americans, are finally understanding
the power of voting. Politicians see the trend too. We WILL elect
a progressive president, senators... Then equal marriage
will be a reality.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

61. I'm afraid I think you're wildly overoptimistic.

In many countries, including here in the UK, gays have either equal marriage or legally recognised unions substantially equivalent, or soon will have, but I don't expect to see it in America any time soon.

The battle at the moment isn't getting to gay marriage legalised at a federal level, it's to stop it being *banned* at a federal level, rolling back even what progress has been made in the few states that already have it.

I think America has a very long way to go indeed before it gets to the stage you're prediciting. "Progressive Americans" and "smart Americans" by your standards are, I fear, still heavily outnumbered.

[generaldemocrat]

60. Y'all should vote for General Wes Clark

He made the cover of "The Advocate".

[marmar]

62. This post makes me sad, because it's true....

To think that you, and all of our gay and lesbian friends, brothers, sisters, coworkers, mothers, fathers, etc etc, have to basically accept a measure of second-class citizenship because the other option is likely the removal of even more basic human rights, is tragic and sad, and I don't know why ANY OF US put up with it.
And you're right, we ought to shout down any Dem who supports the DOMA as much as we do those who support the IWR. Not to be a generationist, but as a GenXer, I can't wait until our generation assumes the reigns - hopefully the social landscape will change dramatically.

[Hollow Shells]

63. Drug users...

...are in the same boat as gays as far as voting goes. Legalized drugs seem more likely than gay marriage right now. Many people dislike drugs such as weed or acid, but they fucking hate gays.