Re. civil rights for GLBT citizens, what we, as Democrats, stand for.

[VMI Dem]

-Full civil unions. Not marriage...but identically the same thing. Marriage is sacred to some people, including many Democrats, so no need to stir that whole deal up.

-A sensible repeal of DADT. Sensible in the sense that we must be sure to survey the feelings of not only the military personnel, but their close and extended family. Key word: sensible. A rash repeal would not be sensible.

These strong positions will accomplish a couple of key goals. First, those that oppose gay marriage will not be alarmed. We can separate marriage from unions...yet they will be the same, or...equal. Second, we can get a good handle on how popular a repeal of DADT will be within our military. The appearance of a not sensible repeal of DADT and its possible effect on our national security would not be good. Perhaps the survey will reveal the need for some alternate facilities...identically equipped of course.

Please see what we stand for, as Democrats, in regards to civil rights for GLBT citizens here:

http://www.democrats.org/issues/civil_rights

[NJmaverick]

1. For comparison, what is the GOP's position on these issues?

[dsc]

3. actually the LCR is suing to end DADT

and Olson is suing to allow marriage.

[NJmaverick]

9. Your non-answer got me curious

So I went over to the RNC website. Turns out they offer nothing to the GLBT community, not to mention civil rights. Heck the GLBT community didn't even rate enough for a section on the website.

[Brickbat]

2. Well, of course it's sensible to ask "close and extended family" about how they would feel about

their family members serving with gay people. After all, that's what the DOD did when black people were integrated in the army, and when women were integrated, most notably in the past couple years, when women were allowed to serve on submarines. There were all sorts of surveys and studies done, and lots of sensible processing of feelings, and a total avoidance of any rash actions or sudden movements that might have startled people into overreacting.

[joeybee12]

4. Homophoboic bullshit...and you wonder why so many of us are pissed off when this crap

keeps getting posted and repeated.

[Kitsune]

5. We tried "separate but equal" before.

Equality will not be achieved by creating a new class of social relationship that is "just as good, we promise" as marriage, and a sensible repeal of DADT would be doing it immediately and offering anyone kicked out under it their job back immediately. This is not rocket science, it's basic human decency, and I really am disgusted that even the Democratic platform endorses this horseshit instead of being fully in favor of equality.

[uncommon]

6. +1 precisely

[mkultra]

7. It simply displays that the party is pandering to the middle more than some would like

I think most real dems know that separate is not equal and that DADT full repeal is needed. Its a stepwise progression meant to ease the fears of the fence sitters.

[Lyric]

8. Am I the only one reading this post as subtle sarcasm?

I didn't think that the OP was being serious. I thought he was poking at the fact that our "official" stance as a party now seems to advocate "separate but (un)equal".

:shrug:

[zipplewrath]

10. Something like that

More of a case of "this is what's being done in your name".

[The Philosopher]

11. *sigh*

Everyone in Starfleet has to be surveyed on their comfort levels when serving with a Klingon, because Klingons aren't human and it might keep them doing their scientific research and defending us from the Romulans.

We're obviously Klingons.