I'm taking a wait-and-see approach to giving money, time and my vote

[closeupready]

to any candidate who takes a wait-and-see approach to supporting marriage equality. :D

[sui generis]

1. The funny thing is it's so easy for a candidate to deal with it

A. all they have to do is say all American families deserve the same legal protections that civil marriage affords.

If someone presses the point or brings up religion just repeat A.

If they bring up morality, say this is not about religious dogma but about legally protecting our American families, all kinds.

"defending marriage"??? easy. You will still be able to get married just as you always have. Straight people will marry straight people and gay people will marry gay people. Nothing has changed, next topic.

How hard is that? Why can't they do that? If they lead, they can even say, "even though you may not personally agree with or like equal marriage, it's not your life, and we don't all have to agree or like everything. We do all have to get along, and interfering with somebody else's family is not nice or acceptable."

Now the sad part is that we have to give that speech to our own base.

[closeupready]

2. Yeah, that is sad.

eom

[pnwmom]

3. Which brings us to the issue of the day -- does "all" families include

polygamous families -- and, if so, where's the limit?

[Meldread]

4. Same question back to you.

Does support of interracial marriage equal support for polygamy?

A comment:
Involving yourself in interracial relationships and polygamy is a choice - something that you are not hardwired to do. Being gay is not a choice, and yet while interracial marriage is legal (because people cannot help the color of their skin) gay marriage is not. It's not only a double standard it's segregation, especially in states like mine which go so far as to claim all contracts entered into by gay couples are null and void. This discriminates against us in every part of our life in ways that you cannot imagine.

[pnwmom]

14. I think it is despicable that a state would nullify contracts entered

into by gay couples. Is this something new, or has it been true all along? Pardon my ignorance.

I'm afraid, though, that the Massachusetts decision, coming in the months before the election, resulted in a backlash that was enough to swing the election. Are you sure we're better off?

[kevinbgoode]

6. Oh...is the limit instead families with pedophile fathers?

or convicted murderers or adulterers or rapists? The Right seems to have no problem allowing these marriages to continue without interference of the state. I think we have a very valid argument that our worth to society is much more positive than a damned convicted child sexual abuser...yet the state gives the abuser all the marriage benefits just because it's with someone of the opposite sex.

[Maven]

12. .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=221&topic_id=30711#30801

:hi:

[xchrom]

5. lol -- i think we should wait to pay our taxes at the same time.

so we can wait for our full equal rights and pay our taxes then.

[pnwmom]

7. I don't think we should be single issue voters.

There are too many other important issues to let our voting or not hinge on this one issue.

[TechBear_Seattle]

8. As mentioned, our issues are easy to address

All I ask for is a candidate who is serious about addressing gay issues, particularly equal marriage. Candidates who refuse, or who have a proven track record of working against gay issues, will not get my support, period.

[pnwmom]

10. If I had to choose only one issue, it would be Iraq. Perhaps because

I'm the mother of teenagers.

[GodlessBiker]

9. This issue is a good barometer on what a candidate thinks about us.

[TechBear_Seattle]

11. And if a candidate thinks little of us...

Why should I think much of them?

[pnwmom]

13. Because our country can't survive another 8 years of neocons.

[closeupready]

15. Well, I'm not single issue, but why should I care?

That's what people are going to be thinking. Dems could win every time if they could just get dem voters to show up at the election booths, but they fail to do even that. A surefire way to turn off gays and lesbians is to tell them 1) your issues are less important than other issues; and 2) if we advocate for you, we'll lose, so we have to cave on your issues.

I will not be pushing/voting for any candidate (of any party) who fails to measure up in the leadership department. Period.

[pnwmom]

18. You're not speaking for all gays and lesbians. I know many who feel

the MA decision, timed as it was, caused an unfortunate backlash; and the better approach would have been to push for civil partnerships. And after that for marriage.

Maybe this is a generational thing?

[closeupready]

23. Yes, there are those who feel that way.

I don't, and I don't know if it's a generational thing - I suppose it's possible, maybe even likely.

The biggest problem with civil unions/partnerships is that it's inherently unequal - it's offered as an acceptable approximation of marriage without being marriage. The problem with that is that there are all kinds of loopholes in that distinction (minor though it is, superficially) which will make it easier for fundies to neuter civil unions.

I can appreciate those who say "this is something better than you've got now, and it can be sold, unlike marriage." But I feel that pushing for marriage is a better move, in that civil union becomes a compromise position, and not the radical one.

It's a tough question, but that's how I see it.

[TechBear_Seattle]

16. So yet again: Vote for the party that despises you, or else

At the Washington state convention in 1998, the Democratic Party added a plank calling for full, equal marriage. That plank is still within the 2004 state platform: We affirm... that the state should not interfere with couples who choose to marry and share fully and equally in the rights, responsibilities, and commitment of civil marriage, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity.

Likewise, the 2004 National Platform states: We support full inclusion of gay and lesbian families in the life of our nation and seek equal responsibilities, benefits, and protections for these families.

I expect any candidate elected at the state level to fully endorse the state platform, and to explicitly mention their support of equal marriage. I expect any candidate elected at the national level to fully endorse the national platform, and to explicitly mention their support of full, equal inclusion of gay and lesbian families, which means speaking against separate and inherently unequal proposals like "civil unions." Failure to do so means that the candidate is not, in my mind, a Democrat.

And I will only support Democrats. Will that satisfy you? Or am I being unreasonable in expecting candidates to endorse their party's platform?

[pnwmom]

17. Will that satisfy me? What do I have to do with it?

It hasn't changed my mind however. My sole aim is to win a majority in the House and Senate, because that will give us committee chairmanships (even if some of those individuals may have unfortunate records) and to win the Presidency, because the makeup of the Supreme Court may well depend on it.

[TechBear_Seattle]

19. My sole aim is to elect people who represent me and mine

When Democrats ignore their own platforms, and even go out of their way to rip planks out of the platform, that's not my problem. I am not willing to compromise on my fundamental civil rights, and if candidates refuse to even mention my issues -- you will note that I would be content for favorable words and actions, I know better than to expect immediate success -- I will not support them.

In other words, my vote must be courted and earned. If a candidate wants my vote, it is very easy to get; I'm a pretty cheap date.

It should not be a difficult concept to grasp, but for some people....

[pnwmom]

20. You can forget about any civil rights when the fundies and neocons finish

taking over.

[TechBear_Seattle]

21. When the Democrats remain silent, I will remain silent

If you don't like that, get the candidates to speak up.

[Duncan Grant]

22. How dare you threaten GLBT people with that argument.

I refuse to accept this argument anymore - it has no credibility. You either have the courage of your convictions or you don't. You either gain integrity by upholding your values or you don't. I won't support my own oppression -- I don't care who's asking me to do it.

Democrats should be arguing that freedom for GLBT people and recognition of their civil rights is a victory for everyone. We shouldn't be asking any American to settle for anything less than their birthright. Why should I be encouraged to accept second-class citizenship in order for you to win elections? The nerve.

If the Democratic party wants my money and my vote then they better well be my advocate and ally. End of story.

[gator_in_Ontario]

24. Right on!

If we have no rights, no-one does.

[closeupready]

25. Well, now that I know where Dean stands,

I think I know how to go forward.