The Democratic Party should call for equality for everybody in our '08 platform

[WI_DEM]

and that calls for equal rights including an endorsement of gay marriage. The Democratic party is the party of inclusion--or should be the party of inclusion. I know some of our DU friends believe that we must be more moderate on this issue so that we don't turn off some voters--or rouse the other sides narrow minded base, but I think a political party should stand for something and if it can't stand for equality for all--then what should it stand for? It's the same as the people who say regarding Obama "No, No the country isn't ready for a black president" or Hillary "No--the country will never vote for a woman." If not now, when?

[brentspeak]

1. The Democratic party is the party (or should be the party) of bread-and-butter issues

Not the party of gay marriage.

[Ian David]

3. Yes, because gay people don't need bread or butter, right?

If you're gay... being allowed access to the legal and civil protections of marriage is a bread and butter issue.

It's not about wedding cakes and holy water.

[brentspeak]

5. ???

What do you think "civil unions" are for?

[foreigncorrespondent]

28. Something designed...

...to let bigots know they are still on top of the shit pile.

[Ian David]

46. Civil Unions aren't recognized by the federal government.

Then that means you, of course, wouldn't mind getting a Civil Union, rather than a marriage yourself?

I hate to say it, but I agree with Bill O'Reilly on something (that is, if I correctly understood his position.)

The government should get out of the marriage business.

The government should conduct Civil Unions for everyone-- gay or straight-- and not marriage.

Marriage is for the church.

Civil Union is for the state.

For everyone.

[NMMNG]

10. Get to the back of the bus you homos

No equality for you here. :sarcasm:

[WI_DEM]

4. it should be the party of bread and butter issues and equality

we were in the forefront of the civil rights movement during the 60's and women's movement of the 70's--why shouldn't we continue to embrace equality now?

[brentspeak]

6. You're comparing the right of black people to vote and to drink at the same water fountain

as white people (among other things) with gays being able to get married?

Former leaders of the civil rights movement have never been happy to have gay marriage linked to the 60's movements.

[Maven]

7. Why don't you look up Coretta Scott King

and what she had to say about GLBT equality before she died. She, unlike you, had the character and the integrity to acknowledge the common purpose of all civil rights movements, whether based on race, gender or sexual orientation.

Or how about Julian Bond, who is likewise supportive of marriage equality?

And it isn't just about marriage either--in many states, we can still be FIRED from our jobs or REFUSED HOUSING based on sexual orientation. We are still the target of hate crimes and political persecution.

Ugly business, showing up on a positive thread like this and spouting your homophobic "I got mine so you don't fucking matter" nonsense.

Doesn't sound very Democratic to me. :grr:

[brentspeak]

11. Doesn't sound too intelligent, "I don't know what I'm talking about, but I'll call you a homophobe"

I've got my "what"?

Self-righteous, much?

[Maven]

12. What you've said here is indefensible and HOMOPHOBIC.

Not to mention totally un-called for.

Deal with it.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

13. I, personally, am comparing the right for black people...

to marry white people, with the right for gay people to marry each other.

You know, basic human rights.

[WI_DEM]

15. nevertheless it's an equality issue

[JackBeck]

16. Coretta Scott King would disagree.

"I still hear people say that I should not be talking about the rights of lesbian and gay people and I should stick to the issue of racial justice," she said. "But I hasten to remind them that Martin Luther King Jr. said, 'Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.'" "I appeal to everyone who believes in Martin Luther King Jr.'s dream to make room at the table of brother- and sisterhood for lesbian and gay people," she said. - Reuters, March 31, 1998.

[cboy4]

17. Tough shit about former civil rights leaders.

Doesn't mean that they're not homophobes with their stance in that regard.

That doesn't take away from my support and admiration for what they did which was fighting for human rights.

[mondo joe]

30. What is a more important right, to marry your spouse or drink from the same water

fountain?

[Ian David]

47. Tough shit for them. But Coretta Scott King disagrees. She saw them as the same. n/t

[Name removed]

14. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ruggerson]

20. Gay marriage IS a bread and butter issue

it's about economic equality. Right now, heterosexual taxpaying couples, with all the tax breaks and inheritance rights they have that are denied gay couples, are basically picking the pockets of gay taxpaying couples.

[brentspeak]

23. If it wasn't for civil unions, I'd agree with you

I could be wrong about how far civil unions go towards securing the things you've mentioned. If civil unions don't cover everything that you mentioned, then the laws should be changed to make sure they do. As for gay marriage: if you put a referendum in front of me that says "ban gay marriage", I wouldn't sign it; and if you put another that says "allow gay marriage", I'd sign it. But if civil unions could secure all the legal rights, why would the Democratic party have to make gay marriage part of its official platform? The Founders didn't intend the government to be involved in the marriage business - for or against anybody.

[JackBeck]

24. Regardless of what the Founders wanted

The government HAS made marriage their business. On both a State and Federal level. Which is why this community is fighting so hard for social equality.

[ruggerson]

25. Civil unions do absolutely nothing

as far as any federal ramifications go.

Federal tax breaks.
Federal inheritance rights.
SOcial security survivorship rights.

Etc, etc.

There are over 400 federal rights and privileges handed out automatically with a marriage license.

The only thing that could accomplish it would be a FEDERAL civil union bill, which would be tantamount to marriage anyway, so why not just stand for marriage?

[NMMNG]

26. Actually there are 1,138 federal rights & privileges

married spouses automatically receive. http://www.nclrights.org/publications/1500reasons-0304.htm

Civil Unions give 0.

[brentspeak]

27. I'm not opposed to it

just don't feel it's appropriate for the government to be involved, provided there could be federally-recognized civil unions. If I had my way, I would make it so that "marriage" of any kind grants no kind of legal recognition, for anybody. Couples would have to be registered under civil unions, and if they want to conduct a "marriage" ceremony and say that they're "married", and call themselves "husband" and "wife" or "husband" and "husband", they're free to do so -- but the "marriage" part would mean absolutely nothing in any official way. It would be no more legally binding than being called "boyfriend" or "girlfriend".

[ruggerson]

31. The defense of marriage act would also have to be overturned

as rightwing lawyers in various states would claim that a federal civil union bill would be in violation of the spirit of the statute.

I wish, when people spoke of civil unions, they understood that only a FEDERAL civil unions bill would accomplish some parity, and it would have to pass both houses of Congress and be signed into law by the President.

And even then, it would be a "separate but equal" piece of legislation. Granted, it would be far better than we have now, but as far as the Democratic platform goes, it seems to me that we're far better off as a party having the courage to stand for full justice and equality, which is why so many of us are Democrats in the first place.

[brentspeak]

33. What would be the difference between a federally-recognized "civil union" and a "marriage"?

In NJ, there's now a law which grants gay couples who have registered as a "civil union" all the legal benefits of "married" couples. There's no law which says that the gay couple can't call themselves "spouses" or whatever.

[ruggerson]

37. It would depend on how the federal law was written

It would have to say, essentially, we hereby grant all the rights and privileges normally attached to "marriage," without exception, to same sex couples who enter into civil unions at the state level.

The problem arises, however, in the 46 states where there are no state civil unions bills. A federal civil unions bill could theoretically confer federal benefits, but what would happen in all those states where gays could not get civil unions, because no law exists to permit it?

This will, imho, eventually be settled in the courts. A future Supreme Court overturning the Defense Of Marriage Act and at the same time, in one fell swoop, striking down all the individual state DOMA's and state constitutional amendments as being unconstitutional.

In other words, a gay and lesbian Loving V Virgina.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

51. What part of separate but equal is NEVER equal don't you understand?

If straight people can be married, but gay people can only get civil unions, then they are still relegated to the status of second-class citizens.

I don't know about YOU, but *I* believe in equality of all people.

[brentspeak]

34. I agree that the DOMA was a stupid piece of legislation

and Clinton should never have signed it.

[Ian David]

48. I think you've redeemed yourself with that last post as being ill-informed but well-meaning. n/t

[mondo joe]

29. When was legal equality not a bread and butter issue? I think you're in the wrong party,

frankly.

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

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

[Ian David]

2. I whole heartedly agree

"Who you gonna vote for, grandma? You want your heart medication, or do you want to keep gays from getting married?"

[Maven]

8. K/R

[TechBear_Seattle]

9. Calling for equality is not enough

The Democratic Party has been calling for equality for gay people for a long time. What the bloody Hell has that gotten us? "Don't Ask; Don't Tell" and the "Defense" of Marriage Act, both signed by a Democratic president.

Calling for equality is nowhere near enough when the party obstinantly refuses to back up those calls with action.

[Greyhound]

18. How about this? The Party makes it a plank to support the governments

withdrawal from the support of religious ceremonies altogether. If all "marriages" are civil unions, all civil unions become equal.

Can we accept that?

[Maven]

19. ?

Marriage is a civil commitment FIRST.

The IRS doesn't really care what your church does--they care what your status is according to one of the 50 state governments.

And few couples in this country will want to downgrade their marriages to civil unions.

[Greyhound]

44. Perhaps we need to face the fact that the majority of Americans are

ignorant bigots. They only become concerned about injustice when it impacts their tiny little lives, and couldn't care less about it until then.

Personally, I don't think this is an area that the government has any business being involved in at all, and I think that is the goal we should be working toward. It is not the business of government to decide whose love of whom is to be sanctioned or not, nor is it its business to provide incentives or to subsidize any lifestyle.

Like women, minorities, and the working class, the GLBT communities and individuals are going to have to figure out that the Democratic Party is not their friend or ally, and that their issues will only ever receive lip service every other year in exchange for their votes, then it's stfu and go sit at the back of the bus until you're needed again.

Too blunt? Sorry, but that's all I've ever seen in my life.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

21. But..but...Rush and James Dobson will say bad things about us!!! And, it's "too liberal"!

Don't you realize that politicians endanger themselves by standing for anything other than getting elected??

[porphyrian]

22. Equality should've been their platform for years now.

Didn't Clinton make promises to get elected and then abandon them?

[mmonk]

32. We should but all Democrats don't believe in equality.

The DLC won't support equality for everyone.

[manic expression]

35. Economic equality?

like workers control over the means of production? Like the abolishment of private property?

Any takers?

[dapper]

36. There are other issues more important to me.

I *am* quite tired of people telling me how I should think or what I should stand for.
I'm tired of people calling someone else a bigot because they don't neccesarily agree with the message or have a different opinion.

I am also quite surprised at how people are being called bigots here when you probably have several Conservative/Republican websites/message boards where that word can be put to better use.

Make no mistake, I can see the surge in messages in regards to gay and lesbian issues in the past month or two, it may be a high priority issue for you but don't tell me it should be a high priority political issue to me.

Good Luck, I hope you get there.

Dapper

[Maven]

38. You're pretty insignificant to us, too!

Have a nice day.

[Zenlitened]

39. "... I *am* quite tired of people telling me how I should think or what I should stand for."

Um, maybe a political discussion board wasn't your best choice, then?

You know... a place where people advance causes, promote policy, and debate party platforms...

Just possibly not the best option for someone so, er, fatigued? :shrug:

Maybe there's a board out there more suited to your relaxed style. Antique Crockery, perhaps? Fossil-hunting? Musty Odor Elimination and Other Household How-To's?

In any event... do get some rest. Take a load off, so to speak. We -- y'know... crazy folks uppity enough to insist that America's bedrock ideals are worth fighting for -- will get there just fine without you.

:hi:

[cboy4]

40. Pehaps a less progressive party might even be a better choice

for that poster.

I just hate seeing he/she so distressed.

[dapper]

Thanks for proving my point...

I don't agree so you come back with snide remarks.
Welcome to ignore.

Dapper

[dapper]

53. Thanks for proving my point...

I don't agree so you come back with snide remarks.
Welcome to ignore.

Dapper

[Zenlitened]

54. Guess that means I'm on double-ignore. But just in case...

Just in case the "ignoring you!" proclamation was empty talk, and you're still reading... let me respond with a "you're proving my point" reply of my own.

The willingness of seemingly progressive people to bury their heads in the sand on GLBT equality issues, or clap their hands over their ears and go "la-la-la-la"... that's exactly why so many GLBT DUers and their supporters are pressing the fight.

GLBT civil rights issues have been very much in the news ever since the Republicons decided to adopt christofascim as their party platform. And many DUers, it seems to me, expected there to be an almost de facto support for GLBT equality here on a Democratic discussion board in the year 2007.

But that's not been the case at all. There've been enough "shut up about the gay stuff!" threads and comments, that a lot of people have been led to some troubling realizations about folks they assumed were their allies in this fight.

Your post exemplifies that, unfortunately. It "proves the point."

When a poster appears so dismissive of that Treasured American Ideal, neatly summed up in the words "Liberty and Justice for All"... well, yeah. Snide marks are bound to follow. Join us here in the 21st century, would you? And if not, if kvetching about it is the best you can do, then pipe down and get out of the way.

Sounds harsh, but that's the way it is. We've got work to do. GLBT equality is an important part of that work, and progressive discussion boards are one of the means we employ to get that work done.


(edit spelling)

[NMMNG]

41. .

:popcorn:

[Wetzelbill]

43. yes, pass that bag over

:evilgrin:

[NMMNG]

55. Gladly

I have a feeling I'm going to be needing lots of it around here. :popcorn:

[Duncan Grant]

42. Allow me to let you in on a little secret.

You're complicit in a system that denigrates the lives of GLBT people. It's a pity that your antipathy has blinded you to it.

[foreigncorrespondent]

45. Don't you think...

...LGBTIQQ people get tired of having total strangers telling them they are worthless, wrong, immoral?

Don't you think we get tired of having total strangers tell us our relationships aren't as worthy as theirs?

Don't you think we get tired of having total strangers tell us we can't marry because it is against their religious beliefs.

So the next time you seek the support of LGTIQQ people for something that is important to you, be prepared to be told you do not matter to us.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

49. No, they should call for equal rights, and if possible for equality of opportunity.

Enforced equality is tyranny, plain and simple.

What the Democrats should be supporting is a) equal rights, and b) more controversially, equality of opportunity, which basically consists of massively better education for the poor.

[Laughing Mirror]

52. Party should but Party won't

The general trend in US policy seems to be not about expanding rights but about contracting them.