A plea to end LGBT political co-dependency

[Lisaben2619]

http://www.washblade.com/2005/8-5/view/columns/dems.cfm

"So I have one clear resolution as we enter the upcoming campaign season: I am not supporting any candidates for office who do not support openly and unequivocally the right of lesbians and gay men to be married.

I AM TIRED of our “friends” in the Democratic Party talking about how they agree with us on 9 things, but not on the 10th.

Of the 9, they inevitably list employment non-discrimination and hate crimes and “et cetera,” which apparently includes the other 7. The 10th is marriage.

As one lesbian activist in Maryland remarked after Mfume spoke, “I can provide my child with health insurance and an education, but if I die, I can’t provide him with real security because I cannot legally marry his other mother.”

There you have it. I am tired of Democrats taking my money and my time for elections and then blaming me and my desire to be wedded lawfully for their loss at the polls. Yes, Democrats lost in November, but it wasn’t because they supported gay marriage; in fact most of them didn’t."

[David Dunham]

1. Poor Advice. Sadly, no pro-gay marriage candidates can win

The sad reality is that no pro-gay marriage candidate can win in virtually any state or city, except maybe in San Francisco and New York. New York's Democratic candidate for governor, Eliot Spitzer, is I believe the only major party gubernatorial candidate ever to openly support gay marriage. He can safely do that only because he has no viable opposition.

What Democratic candidates can do and win is to support civil unions that help give gay people equal rights but are also much more politically acceptable than gay marriage.

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

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

[davidinalameda]

29. bullshit

sorry about the use of such strong langugage but I've heard this argument way too many times

Spitzer can support gay marriage because the New York electorate is much more sophisticated and New York state has supported gay issues in the past and this is a natural progression of gay rights

Civil unions are great but they're very limited in scope--the rights granted under them do not travel from state to state

the party as a whole does need to support civil unions as the first step to legalizing gay marriage throughout this country

it needs to be a part of the platform and we need to have candidates who aren't afraid of the Repuke rhetoric on the issue

[The Traveler]

2. It is not a matter for compromise

It is a civil rights issue, pure and simple. We are either all equal before the law or we are not.

I am a straight male. However, I recognize that if your rights are denied then mine are in jeopardy. That is merely the lesson of history.

Then, of course, there is the simple matter what is right, and what is wrong. It is far past time to end this injustice.

[David Dunham]

3. Unlike gay marriage, a political loser, civil unions can get allowed

Supporting gay marriage is political death for Democrats in almost every state and city. Even Howard Dean supports civil unions but not gay marriage. Success in US politics requires compromise.

[The Traveler]

8. A sensible point

But ... marriage is specifically a religious rite, which government has no business regulating. "Marriage" is one of those slippery terms. In my view, a secular marriage before a judge is equivalent to a civil union, in that the state acknowledges the couple as a unit with certain rights under the law. Conversely, a good Wiccan priest or priestess will marry a same sex couple in a heart beat, acknowledging a spiritual union that in most places casts no legal reflection.

The civil union approach therefore addresses the bulk of the practical issues ... but leaves the state in the position of regulating (by not legally acknowledging) a religious rite performed by one faith while legally acknowledging a religious rite performed by another. So much for separating of church and state. Thus the slope is iced, even by this attractive compromise.

Strategic thinking nonetheless suggests we take what we can get, move forward, and then gather strength for the next step.

[justin899]

14. Bullshit!

Civil Unions are nothing but a new form of segregation under the law, and unlike racial segregation laws (which at least mandated that a separate fountain actually EXISTS) Civil Unions don't even do that!

[William769]

26. Please take my advise

Some people hear have no idea what we are going through. why argue with someone who doesn't know the effects. I would bet you though if it were there rights they would be screaming bloody murder.

[justin899]

28. Because

myths or lies ignored become facts in the minds of the people who mindlessly state them. It is necessary to correct erroneous statements. Otherwise people will keep repeating these myths, and nothing will ever change.

[MuseRider]

4. Very well said.

No compromise on this. Equality or not? Choose people, make that choice. What do we all stand for anyway? If we can't provide this for every person living in this country then we are not what we pretend to be.

[David Dunham]

5. Sadly, gay marriage is NOT an issue Dems can support and win

Democrats are a heck of a lot better for gay people than Repugs. But we live in a democracy, and the reality is that for the foreseeable future the US public heavily OPPOSES gay marriage, including many traditional Democrats. Civil unions are the only politically viable way to go.

[MuseRider]

7. A democracy

that suppresses and denies equal rights and justice is not healthy. I am long past caring, this is simply wrong. It is time for our representatives to start educating the uneducated masses about issues that are important like equal rights. Fer Christs sakes, how long do people have to wait before they are recognized as equal citizens in this country that pretends to be something is certainly is not? As long as they are allowed to be stupid cows who do not think any further than their own plans for the weekend we will remain stuck here in this place. It is time to be vocal and to educate people. I know a lot of people who cringe at the thought of even knowing gay people but you know what? Many of them, when spoken to quietly and with respect, acknowledge that this kind of policy change is the right thing to do. That is step one. When do we start? When we are guaranteed a win?

[The Traveler]

10. Talk about something being well said!

yeah. That's what I'm talkin' about!

[MuseRider]

12. Thank you.

I am learning, trying to figure out how to reach people. This is to me one of the most important things we have to offer as a country and we will never ever be anything but pretenders unless we do this. I just do not understand why this is an issue so I have had to first try to figure that out. Since I could not ever figure it out I had to find out how to try to breach the misunderstanding. With most people their true selves come out if you speak to them about what it might mean to never be able to speak of your family when your co workers do for fear of being fired. Never being able to take your family or SO to the company picnic or Christmas party. Those small things touch people where they can't deny how wrong it is unless they have been brainwashed by the other big group of pretenders, the CHURCH. Those people are almost impossible to reach unless they have had a healthy dose of Jesus before they were taken in by the modern day Pharisees. Jesus, I don't know him well but I do know he would never have treated another human this way.

[justin899]

15. You base this on what exactly?

Democrats are a heck of a lot better for gay people than Repugs.

And that proves what exactly? Unlike Republicans, Democrats have benefited from over 3 decades of over 70% of GLBTQ support. Gays are the 3rd largest constituency in terms of donations to the Democratic party and we have exactly NOTHING to show for it!

No federal anti-discrimination laws

We're NOT included in federal hate crimes laws (despite the fact that we're now the second highest hate crimes category..the law covers the first category and then skips to the 3rd)

Hell, when they controlled both houses of congress and the presidency the only thing we got was the ANTI-GAY DADT policy which is still in effect today.

Democrats at the federal level have done exactly squat for gays and many people who aren't totally self-loathing are getting sick and tired of being taken 100% for granted by the Democratic party.

[Gay Green]

37. Here, here!!

I couldn't have said it better.

:applause: :bounce: :toast:

[mitchtv]

23. Not one red cent

for spineless Dems.

[David Dunham]

6. Here, majority rule governs, and sadly the majority's anti-gay marriage

[The Traveler]

9. Thus we must continue

to strive and think together. While I appreciate the strategic aspect of this, don't expect me to fall silently into line on the matter.

[justin899]

16. No, That's NOT True. Ever hear of RIGHTS?

"Here, majority rule governs, and sadly the majority's anti-gay marriage"

Ever hear of RIGHTS? Ever hear of equal rights under the law? Marriage is a human RIGHT (as the Supreme Court has ruled over and over again). It therefore can't be a heterosexual privilege. You don't put fundamental human rights to a vote of the majority. That's why they're called RIGHTS.

[MuseRider]

19. Exactly. n/t

[Democrats_win]

24. It begins with good leadership: Kucinich supports gay marriage.

If the candidate doesn't support gay marriage, maybe they aren't the principled candidate the Democrats should have.

Kucinich was a mayor so he knows how to lead. Wesley Clark might be good, but I can't recall his stance on this.

Lets forget about Senators although DK is currently a representative, most don't have the ability to lead. Kerry was caught unprepared to fight the swift boat liars while Governor Clinton during his campaign fought the smear tactics. The only thing Kerry flip-flopped on was gay marriage, and I liked Kerry.

Dean doesn't fully support marriage, although I like him, so unless he changes, he won't win anyway because he's too weak on this principle and he's Still not that good in public.

[David Dunham]

11. I support gay marriage, but sadly most voters do not

[justin899]

17. So?

It wasn't until the early 90s that a majority of people polled actually supported interracial marriage rights. If interracial couples back in the 60s (before Loving) had to wait until the public supported their RIGHT to marry many of them would have been dead before they could legally marry.

[Irreverend IX]

18. Why fight for a word?

Idealism and politics don't mix very well.

The moment a politician mentions "gay marriage," fundies come swarming out of the woodwork to the polls. You guys remember the 2004 elections, don't you? The anti-gay-marriage backlash we saw back then was small in comparison to what we'll see if the national Democratic party takes a serious pro=gay-marriage stance. And why is "marriage" so vital if we can make it possible for same-sex couples to get civil unions that offer every single benefit marriage currently does? That issue is a political winner and had the potential to educate voters about sexual minorities' rights. But when you mention "gay marriage," many voters' minds instantly snap shut.

What difference would there be between marriage and hypothetical civil unions? Just the name. It doesn't seem rational that "gay marriage" should be so vilified while "gay civil unions" aren't, but our opponents are not rational people. The fundies are willing to go to their graves fighting over that word, and as a minority party we need to pick our battles wisely. If civil unions are passed, pretty soon same-sex couples will start referring to them as what they really are -- marriage -- and soon everyone else will be following suit. Thus we can change the cultural climate subtly, without resorting to aggressive measures that will turn voters against us.

[zat]

20. Re:Why fight for a word?

I'm so damn tired of fighting with the wingnuts over gay marriage. They scream special rights. I tell them no, it's equal rights. I therefore no longer use gay marriage. It's marriage plain and simple. Besides, the damn church doesn't grant the marriage license, it's the state and the state allows the church to marry people.

No special rights, equal rights. No gay marriage, just marriage. Screw the fundies. What I flush down the toilet has more moral values than they ever thought of. They are nothing more than tax-exempt:puke: hate groups.

[Dark]

36. Right. Separate but equal worked so well for the blacks in the 60s.

Separate but equal doesn't work with humanity. We've tried. It doesn't work in Islam (burqas), Christianity (Gays, as of recently at least) or any other sect of humanity.

Making it all under the same term is the best way to ensure the security.

[Siyahamba]

21. I'd be happier if they all agreed on the 9 out of 10

It wouldn't be perfect, but it would be a lot better than the current situation. If you look at the HRC scorecard for recent Congresses, you can see that many Dems only supported about half or even fewer on LGBT equality positions.

[TechBear_Seattle]

22. This has been my policy since 1998

... and a very, VERY disappointing statement at the Washington State Democratic Convention that an equal marriage plank in the state platform could be freely ignored by our elected officials.

My stand is simple: The one and only absolute I ask of anyone who wants my vote is that they unashamedly support my fundamental rights as a human being and as an American citizen. That includes my right to be married to my partner and my right not to be harassed or discriminated against. Everything else is negotiable; this is not.

[Meldread]

25. This is why the Democratic Party will eventually falter.

The Democratic Party will eventually falter because they do not think like Republicans. Republicans see the political process and they think of long term strategies. They realize that there will be casualties along the way, but all in all if you happen to be a casualty of the process then you are a "hero" for the cause. A patriot. Someone to be remembered and admired.

Democrats think in terms of election cycles. "What will get me back into office this time?" A Democrat will ask himself. Then he'll go out and do that thing. And because of that we find ourselves in the situation we are in now. We are dancing to the Republicans beat. They have been planning a major surge of conservatism since the 1970's, and while they plotted and set the pieces on the board Democrats just kept on playing the same old game. They don't even realize that the rules have changed, and because of that they will keep on losing until either they wake up or are completely obliterated.

The Culture Wars are just ONE War being fought by the two ideologies in this country. It's a war that Conservatives are destined to lose no matter how hard they try to fight against it. Time is on our (LGBT peoples) side. We will see equal rights within the next 20 to 30 years one way or another. It is inevitable.

However, the Democrats aren't thinking about the future they are thinking about the present. They'd prefer to shun us, toss us aside, and hope that we donate and vote (knowing the alternative is worse) than reap the rewards of a long and morally just war. Our hetero "friends" here are prime examples and I don't need to speak for them. They don't realize that if they support LGBT rights now that later, in the future when the war is over, they can build upon its foundations helping to spread more progressive ideals. It's not just about gay rights. Winning the culture war can and will lay the foundations of the future. How much or how little Democrats contribute to the process will determine how relevant or irrelevant Democrats become in the future, especially ensuring future constituencies.

The Democrats are afraid of casualties and would rather stagnate into non-existence and irrelevance than stand up and either win or die fighting.

The battle here isn't JUST about Gay Rights. It's about *WHO* and *WHAT* the Democratic Party is, and what it will grow to become in the future. Will it be a party of progress, of freedom, of personal integrity, and a champion of civil rights? Or will it simply be a party of cowards who are doomed to irrelevance and eventual extinction?

I unfortunately believe that the party as a whole has chosen the latter. So I, as a LGBT person, am simply going to wait on the sidelines until it is finally dead. Then I am going to look over its remnants and strive to build something from its ashes. A political party more inline with my ideals, beliefs, and philosophy. As far as I am concerned the Democratic Party is already dead, it's just a matter of time before it realizes it.

I think some Democrats want to see LGBT people grovel, beg, and plead for what should have been rightfully ours the moment we drew our first breath in this country. If anyone who thinks I should have to ask or bargain for something that is rightfully mine reads this... as far as I am concerned you can go straight to hell. You aren't getting that from me.

[justin899]

27. Very well stated

and you're absolutely correct.

[One_Life_To_Give]

30. Difficult in some locations

If you want to raise awareness of the issue. Then supporting a Pro-LGBT-Marriage candidate in the Bible Belt can work. But if you want to elect someone, you need to consider the makeup of the electorate.
If 90% of the voters think Pat Buchanen is going to hell for being a left wing radical. Then trying to elect a pro gay representative is probably pointless.

Focus efforts on those races where it will make a difference.

[Meldread]

32. You seem to be under the impression that it will make a big difference...

You seem to be under the impression that it will make a big difference one way or another. Right now there are three types of Democrats: Those who are genuinely opposed to gay rights (not just marriage), those who support them but try and "play to the middle" and those who support them openly.

The majority of our federally elected officials are either the first or the second type of Democrat. In my opinion the first type of Democrat isn't welcome within the party, and the second type will get screwed regardless. I don't need to point to anyone but John Kerry. Did his anti-marriage stance make a difference in the election? No. It did not. His opponents painted him as a gay marriage supporter anyway.

You have to think of the situation in terms of political black mail. The opponents KNOW that the majority of the people in this country do not support equal marriage rights, therefore they are holding it over the heads of Democrats who do not take their staunch positions.

It would be much easier for them to simply say, "Yes, I support gay marriage, I don't believe in bigotry. When I am elected I am here to represent all the people, and that includes gay people." Then they shrug their shoulders, and go on to other policy matters that are more important to everyone. What is their opponent going to do when they no longer have something to hold over the Democrats head? They are going to have to pick another issue, because the Democrat has effectively stated his or hers.

The only thing that can be done by the anti-marriage opponent of the Democrat is to constantly draw attention to the Democrats position, but every time that happens the Democrat only has to nod his head in agreement, saying that is his position on the matter, then begin talking about whatever he planned to talk about.

If the Democrat continues to flounder around and draw attention to himself then people are going to pay attention to him. They are going to be made curious, and they fall into the Republican trap. If the Democrat states his position as matter-of-fact and then moves on to something else, effectively shrugging, then other people will do the same thing.

HERE IS A FACT: GAY MARRIAGE DOES NOT ENRAGE THE MAJORITY OF AMERICANS. It doesn't motivate them. The only people it motivates are those who wouldn't vote for a Democrat anyway. It only motivates the Radical Right. People give them to much credit and too much power, and all of it is an illusion. They are a small minority of America and most of the time they end up offending the rest of it.

The whole "run away from gay marriage" is propaganda created by them to cause fear among Democrats. It plays right into Republican hands and anyone who believes it is a fool. Do you honestly think the majority of Americans go to bed at night in a cold sweat thinking about Mister and Mister Bob Jones down the street? No, if anything they go to bed at night in a cold sweat because they don't have healthcare and they are afraid one of their children will have to go to the hospital. They are afraid of losing their jobs. They are afraid of the things that effect their daily lives and despite what some people seem to believe, gay marriage doesn't effect anyone outside of those who are involved in the relationship.

[One_Life_To_Give]

33. Motivates those who long for FDR too.

The only people it motivates are those who wouldn't vote for a Democrat anyway.
If only that were true.

[Meldread]

34. Apparently you've never come into contact with actual mainstream voters.

I live in the south. I live right in the Bible Belt in an area that easily votes Republican 90% of the time. Easily. I know these folks, these "Southerners" who seem to be all up in arms about gay marriage. They aren't.

The majority of people are not like us. They don't listen to politics. They don't listen to issues. They don't dominate to political campaigns, let alone actually volunteer for one. Being any sort of activist is out of the question and would never even cross their minds. Yet, they believe gay marriage is wrong and they would rather not see gays get married.

The bigotry in that aside, the point of the matter is it doesn't consume them. It doesn't occupy their thoughts. More or less they don't care. When talking about Kerry do you think they were hysterical that he wasn't supporting a Constitutional Amendment to Ban Gay Marriage? No. That didn't even cross their minds. Their primary complaint about him was the fact that they didn't feel that they could trust him. That they felt that he couldn't stand strong on an issue.

For every bad thing there is about George Bush there is one thing you cannot say about him. That is the fact that when he takes a strong position on something, 95% of the time he is going to stick with it even when it goes against common sense. As stupid as that is, as moronic and idiotic as it may seem, it has a strange effect on people: It makes them feel safe. It makes them (mistakenly) see him as a leader. They feel when he says something they can trust that is his position on the matter, and even if they don't agree at least they know where he stands.

Kerry lost because he was too placating. He was trying to please everybody by saying a whole lot of nothing. He lost because he couldn't take a stand on an issue, state it in three sentences or less, and move on. That is why he lost.

Look no further than Paul Hackett for proof that the majority of people don't give two craps about Gay Marriage. Look where he almost won. Then look at the difference between him and Kerry and you will understand.

[renaissanceguy]

35. Actually, the majority of Americans do

support equal marriage RIGHTS. They're just hung up on the word.

Check this site, for instance:

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

[benburch]

31. We interrupt this thread...