Would you sacrifice a second term as President in order to guarantee equal rights for ALL?

[cherokeeprogressive]

Poll question: Would you sacrifice a second term as President in order to guarantee equal rights for ALL?

Would you put your legacy on the line in order to bully, cajole, intimidate, or otherwise do whatever it took to literally FORCE the country into accepting equal rights for those among us who are LGBT?

Would you go out on a limb and speak out on this issue every time the cameras were pointed in your direction?

Would you sacrifice your place in history as a two-term President in order to repeal DADT and DOMA in your first term?

Or would you consider a two-term presidency a larger victory than what you would achieve by using the "bully pulpit" in an effort to shame the American Public into accepting what's right?

I post this poll because my gay Daughter went to orientation at Long Beach City College this evening, and I'm more than a little proud, and more than a little indignant. We had a conversation today that included a discussion about choice vs heredity and she asked me for the dozenth time... "Who in their right mind would choose this?"

[dsc]

1. congrats on your daughter

My 20th college reunion is this year (sheesh that makes me old) but I still remember orientation and the very first time I stepped in my dorm. I saw this gorgeous guy in just shorts (the football team arrived the week before the rest of us) and he was just sitting and chilling. That sinched it for me I was gay. Oh I knew before but I kept holding out hope it was a phase or just the women where I lived or something. College was a blast though it was where I came to know who I was.

[cherokeeprogressive]

2. She's my hero. I know things are going to be hard for her and so does she...

She's going to do well in what ever endeavor she chooses though. She's tough, smart, witty, and more than a little artistic. She definitely has all the tools necessary to succeed in a straight world, and I can only hope that my President feels compelled sooner or later to really take up her cause and make her an equal player. That little push just might make her this country's first GAY President. It's in her. I know.

I know I haven't said this before, but I love you and your posts and your passion. I can only hope that my Allison doesn't get beaten down by a bigoted society and lose that fire she has inside her. She's fucking awesome. Even moreso now that she's no longer afraid to show the world who she really is.

[dsc]

3. thanks for compliment

as undeserved as it is. I continue to be amazed at young gays who have become so open. For all the talk of how much better it is for gays, and it is, there still is an amazing risk in coming out so young. I have definately seen less than supportive parents in even my short time as a GSA advisor. Parents like you, and daughters like yours, are what will eventually change this country, whether with the help of or despite our political leaders. I would love to think I will see a gay President one day.

[Ken Burch]

4. Other.

I wouldn't assume the American people would defeat me just for fighting for equal justice for all.

And the real question is...if you put off doing the tough things 'til the second term, wouldn't you inevitably put them off for THAT term as well?

I've never heard of a second-term president, of either party, doing more in the second term than the first.

[trueblue2007]

106. IT WOULDN'T TAKE MY VOTE - The LGBT cause is not necessarily the most important thing affecting the

The LGBT cause is not necessarily the most important thing affecting the country in the short term

[Kahuna]

5. What does the issue have to do with the president being black?

Leave race out of it.

[ruggerson]

33. I think the implication is that a black President

rightly or wrongly, might be expected to be sensitive to the rights of minorities and equality issues in general.

[Kahuna]

50. I get that. But Obama is the President...Not, the "black" president. nt

[Number23]

39. I was wondering the same damn thing.

[MuseRider]

6. It would have been the first

or one of the first things I would do. I would do it because it is right and for those who disagree I would pose the possibilty that we become closer to who we have always said we were as a nation but never have been.

A speech with the right words would solidify the reasoning and keep those who already believe it is right on your side and help to solidify those who are on the fence but have no real reason not to support equality. It would give others who are against it a positive outcome, like it or not, with reasoning for those who are still reachable to chew on and learn from. Where is the loss here?

I wish for your daughter peace and the chance to live a full and equal life with a partner of her choosing without having to hide and with the ability to marry if they so choose.

[Amimnoch]

7. Option 2, I'd definitely gamble it, especially while I still had both the house and the Senate.

Rarely does either party manage to hold majority in both the house and the senate combined with the presidency for more than 1 or 2 election cycles. I'd do my darndest to live up to progressive social and financial reforms to the best of my ability while I had the ability to, even if it did mean being a 1 termer. But, that's me. Especially right now, the Senate is pretty likely to remain Democrat for now, going by the races out there, but the House has more than a fair chance of loosing Democrat majority. I wouldn't risk what might be the last chance to trample over the republicans and get passed everything that I possibly could.

[Historic NY]

8. The ERA Constitutional amendment has languished since 1972

http://www.equalrightsamendment.org/

[ropi]

11. and it should not have lagged..

now they want to revisit the 14th amendment.
:facepalm:

[LostinVA]

9. So NOT surprised to see so many posters throwing me under the bus

as well as my civil rights. My HUMAN rights. And, so many of you wonder why the GayTM is closed and the votes will probably be going to someone else.

Niiiice.

At least you 12 (currently) who think civil rights aren't that important can at least stand behind your rather shameful convictions and say why.

And also answer this: which civil right do YOU want to give up?

[BklnDem75]

12. To be fair...

Your number one issue is not everyone's number one issue. Many here are sympathetic, but calling out those who don't feel as strongly as you do won't gain you many supporters. Considering that conservatives are much worse on EVERY issue, there's NO issue that I would consider worth sacrificing a second term over.

[LostinVA]

13. I'm not calling out anyone, I am discussing their vote

And, how is this "my" issue??? Civil rights should be THE issue for every American.

[BklnDem75]

14. It's an issue for sure...

It's not every American's number one issue. Did you catch that part? You're not discussing, you're accusing them of throwing you under the bus.

[Bluenorthwest]

16. Every American's number one issue is their own family.

So I'd say we all have the same number one issue, if we were being honest about it. Most people I know have a list of important issues, and I have not read anyone here claim this issue should be every American's number one issue. That sort of snark is really not helpful. It is, in my opinion, fully self serving and kind of mean.

[BklnDem75]

18. Please point out the snark

'Your number one issue is not everyone's number one issue.' That was my original point in defending why people would vote differently in this poll.
'Civil rights should be THE issue for every American.' Please point out how my reply to this was considered snarky or mean.

[Bluenorthwest]

31. First, no one but you is aksing for it to be 'everyone's number 1

issue'. The use of such rhetorical devices in the face of those honestly seeking rights from your community, rights denied for no good reason at all, is snark in and of itself. Add the comments presuming to tell us how to win our rights, directly after saying those rights don't matter to you, is the height of arrogance. I don't care about your issue, but allow me to tell you how to achieve victory. Right.
Straw men and arrogance is more precise than snark, but I thought the internet term was fitting. I mean, why even come to the thread?
No one expects this straw man of yours 'everyone's number one issue'. No one. You foist the straw and fight with it.

[BklnDem75]

34. Actually someone did ask me...

and it came with a whole list of different answers. This being one of them: 'The LGBT cause is not necessarily the most important thing affecting the country in the short term.' I already gave my answer in saying there's no issue that's worth sacrificing a second term over, not even my own. It's unfortunate you don't like the answer, but every issue is important to me.

[mkultra]

95. But yet, that was part of the poll

And happens to be how I answered. gay marriage is NOT my number one issue and it isn't even my number two. Anyone how doesn't like that can go fuck themselves because they are MY issues.

[ruggerson]

104. hey isn't it great about PRop 8 going into the dustbin!!

I'm sure you're overjoyed!

[mkultra]

110. As a matter if fact i am happy

And your post just shows your two dimensional thinking. Prop 8 was a scourge to Americans and to freedom. In fact, it pissed me off that those jackasses would pass a CONSTITUTIONAL amendment to discriminate.


None of this changes the place in which this issue falls on my priority list. Using your logic, You must be pissed at positive GDP.

[ruggerson]

116. I"m cheered by the fact

that many in prior generations did not share your cavalier attitude towards equality/civil rights, but instead thought that they demanded immediate urgent attention.

[Kajsa]

88. Civil rights should be a number one issue.

Sure, there are two wars, the worst environmental disaster in modern history,
record unemployment and a tanked economy. All are important.

But since when do basic civil rights take a back seat to anything?

We can multitask, can't we?

This battle we are fighting against H8 is about equality, not someone's interpretation
of marriage. It's been a very long battle for us.

By the way, I'm a S8 against H8, and yes, I live in California.

It's been a very good day for us.

[treestar]

21. +1000

[JonLP24]

32. The President himself said

that winning elections is not the politicians job. It is do to what is best for the American people by introducing or signing legislation that is best. I happen to agree with him.

[BklnDem75]

36. With a whole slew of issues on the table,

do you think it's best for the American people if Obama was to focus on one or many issues responsibly?

[JonLP24]

46. Many issues

I think GLBT issues are what is good for the American people because they are American people(The ones that are Americans).

[geek tragedy]

47. GLBT people need jobs, health care, retirement funds,

and protection from global warming.

P.S. FDR didn't make civil rights his top priority--his record was awful on race.

[Arkana]

96. No kidding. Executive Order 9066, anyone?

[Hell Hath No Fury]

71. I read those results and wanting to cry for you.

I am so sorry for the LGBT community here but at least this confirms what you already know -- many a Dem would happily keep you as second class citizens as long as was politically convenient. :( :hugs:

[Kajsa]

89. This sucks!

I'm so sorry LostinVA!

--and sad!

:hug:

[ropi]

10. Thank you, Lost..

you summed that up nicely. Now 14 are willing to toss our rights under the bus.
To those 14....remember that next time you speak to an LGBT person -

[JNelson6563]

15. I would do it and many other things in my 2nd term.

Then I would laugh and laugh at the opposition.

Julie

[phleshdef]

17. I don't think repealing DOMA and DADT serve any threat to winning/losing any second terms.

If someone brought forth a bill to repeal DOMA and laid it on the President's desk, I believe he would sign it. I don't think it would cause anyone who voted for him in 2008 to not vote for him again in 2012.

The repeal of DADT is actually a pretty popular thing to do at this point and its in the works anyway. If we weren't in the middle of a bunch of war, it would probably be done all ready. But like it or not, getting all the elements of the military on the right page to make a fundamental change in the social structure of the entire institution is something thats difficult to swing when you all ready have so many troops engaged in such a stressful situation as an active ground war is. I'm not saying thats an excuse to put it off any longer, but its also understandable to see where the difficulties are.

My view is that the realization of equal rights for GLBT people is something that is steadily happening as we speak. And its not a matter of some President shoving it through. Its a matter of social evolution for the American people. And we ARE getting there, we just aren't there yet. But when you look at how being gay is regarded in popular culture today vs what it was just 10 years ago or 15 years ago, you can see a dramatic difference. We went through this kind of thing as a country a few times now. It happened with women. It has happened with African Americans and other minorities. Things change when society decides for it to happen.

[dsc]

19. and people here wonder why the gaytm is closed

Over half are willing to let the whole first term go by with nothing for LGBT people, the second most loyal voting group Obama has. I know this isn't scientific but I do think it reflects the thoughts of the White House just about right.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

22. I guess the Matthew Sheppard Act is "nothing" now, eh?

[dsc]

27. He had virtually nothing to do with it

He did sign it, but he did nothing in the lines of the bully pulpit on this issue.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

56. So he's got to sing and dance while he does something then, huh?

Maybe a little soft shoe?

[dsc]

66. he uses the bully pulpit when he wants to

He did it for the stimulus for example. But on gay priorities it is silence until he gets afraid the money will dry up and then we hear something. None of our priorities made it to the State of the Union. He was silent as Maine voted to take away our rights. He was silent as Congress passed the Hate Crimes bill (except when he threatened to veto the bill it was in over funding for a plane). I do expect some use of the bully pulpit for a bill benefiting his second most loyal constituency.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

69. I've got news for you - he did it for the stimulus because it worked for the stimulus.

The bully pulpit is not some magic device that transforms public opinion. Quite the contrary, it takes public opinion and directs it at an issue so as to apply pressure on the hands of Congress. Considering the votes of Maine and California, I do not think it would be productive at all for anyone involved - including you - to use the bully pulpit. You can read about what the bully pulpit can and can't do here: http://www.amazon.com/Deaf-Ears-Limits-Bully-Pulpit/dp/0300100094, but here's a synopsis:

American presidents often engage in intensive campaigns to obtain public support for their policy initiatives. This core strategy for governing is based on the premise that if presidents are skilled enough to exploit the "bully pulpit," they can successfully persuade or even mobilize public opinion on behalf of their legislative goals. In this book, George Edwards analyzes the results of hundreds of public opinion polls from recent presidencies to assess the success of these efforts. Surprisingly, he finds that presidents typically are not able to change public opinion; even great communicators usually fail to obtain the public's support for their high-priority initiatives. Focusing on presidents' personae, their messages, and the American public, he explains why presidents are often unable to move public opinion and suggests that their efforts to do so may be counterproductive. Edwards argues that shoring up previously existing support is the principal benefit of going public and that "staying private"- negotiating quietly with elites-may often be more conducive to a president's legislative success.

You can hide your head in the sand all you want, but your civil rights are not as popular as they should be nor are they as popular as you think they are. And like it or not, but in a democracy, for the most part, things have to be popular to get done unless it's through the courts. Meanwhile, I see quite literally nothing being done to actively change that public opinion by the GLBT community itself besides pointless marches and angry protests - neither of which have ever swayed opinion on any issue. I have never seen a single piece of advertising promoting the value and the justice of ensuring civil rights for gay Americans. You can complain about not getting the bully pulpit all you want, but you aren't even using your own megaphone. If the so-called "GayTM" is anywhere near as powerful as it's being touted around DU, there should be plenty of cash available to run ads and do things that actually sway public opinion.

This is the problem with all of our liberal groups - we just sit around and expect people to take our side because we're "right" instead of actively trying to convince people that we are. We expect gay rights to become reality because it's the "right thing to do". We did it on health care and got no public option. We've been doing it with the wars for nearly a decade now. We do it on choice and continually have to worry about every SCOTUS decision that gets made. We do it on climate change and we have no cap and trade. We do it with unions and we have no EFCA. Meanwhile we sit here with our thumbs up our collective asses wondering why the results don't turn out like we hope they will.

I've got news for all of us - there is no shortage of "right things to do", and unless we do something to improve our place in the queue, there will always be higher priorities. It's high time we stop treating the truth as if it's the "Truth" - some immutable, irrefutable fact that can only ever be denied by complete idiots. They may well BE complete idiots for the way they treat gays in our society, but I can think of no other time in history where someone's opinion was converted by directly calling them a fucking moron.

[dsc]

70. ENDA DADT and hate crimes are above 70% in popularity

that is higher than his approval rating. Yes marriage is less popular, partly because cowardly politicians refuse to embrace it. But our issues are actually sky high in popularity. Oh, and by the way, gays have come out at great risk to our careers and sometimes our lives. That is why on the big three opinions changed.

[BklnDem75]

58. You can't say what role Obama played

The bill has been dying in Congress since 2001, with Bush threatening to veto the House version when it finally did get through in 2007. Another House version was passed April after Obama took office, and after testimony from Holder, passed the Senate in July of the same year. Do you honestly think that if there's no speech or anything on the news, nothing's being done? Really?

[NMMNG]

38. Indeed

From now on whenever I hear "wait, wait" regarding equal civil rights, they'll hear in response, "wait, wait" regarding support, money or votes from me.

[laughingliberal]

41. +1000 nt

[Hell Hath No Fury]

74. I think there are a BUNCH of ATMs that should remain closed.

My cash only goes to those who actively work for the betterment of my friends and family -- and right now, that means only a handful of Dems will be on my donation list come midterms and in 2012.

[mkultra]

97. thats a laugh. Ok genius, who is the FIRST most loyal?

[treestar]

20. Would you sacrifice that for an end to the wars?

Or for a guarantee against poverty for all?

Why pit one issue against another that way?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

23. +1

"Me first" leads only to "everyone last".

[Ignis]

25. "Me first???" That is a disgusting accusation.

Many of us are interested in civil rights as a matter of principle/patriotism, not simply because we stand to personally gain something from it.

:thumbsdown:

[laughingliberal]

42. That's hardly sensible.

:sarcasm:

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

48. Disgusting accusation?

You'd risk a second term, another Republican regime and all that comes with it - which make no mistake whatsoever is going to lead to pain and suffering for ALL Americans, ESPECIALLY gay ones if past Republican regimes are any indication of future results - all on the premise that Obama try to force something through before the end of his first term when he'd have four more years to get it done if he gets re-elected? Oh, and while we're at it, there is less than no guarantee that a DOMA repeal would move anywhere in the Senate, which means it'd essentially be a suicide mission with very little realistic chance at success?

Why? Why in the hell would you do that? It makes no fucking sense. These are precisely the kinds of issues that 2nd term presidents historically take on. I see no reason why this 2nd term president should be any different.

So, yeah, I think that's a "me first" argument if I've ever heard one. This is fighting just to fight, which make no mistake, is exactly what people are pushing here, because there is no realistic end-game win right now.

[Ignis]

72. You've yet to explain how equal rights for all is "Me First."

You've simply rehashed the "keeping our powder dry" bullshit we've heard from our Democratic congresscritters for almost a decade.

How, exactly, is pushing for equal rights for all a "Me First" argument?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

76. You either read it and didn't understand it or didn't read it at all.

You pick which one it was.

[Ignis]

77. I did read it. I didn't see the specifics of how that approach is "Me First."

...Particularly when it's a straight white guy (me) working for equal rights for all Americans. I understand your desire to focus on other matters, but you haven't supported the claim that those who wish to focus on LGBT rights are merely doing so from a "Me First" perspective.

[Kajsa]

90. +1

Sing it!

:thumbsup:

[Ignis]

93. Just like all those uppity "Me First" Negroes wanting their civil rights!

Did they have to push for desegregation in the '50s & '60s? Why couldn't they just wait their turn like good citizens?

:sarcasm:

Can you believe you're seeing this vile crap on DU? I'm flabbergasted, but maybe I'm just the last frog to notice the water in the pot is getting hotter.

[Kajsa]

100. Ignis, I'm flabbergasted and

frankly disgusted by many of the comments made here!

And yes, I remember the civil rights struggles of the 60's
well. I'm 59, so I was around then and remember.

I can't believe we are explaining and defending basic
civil rights on DU, in 2010-
but we are!!

:(

[Ignis]

101. We know that a cultural shift takes time. That's a given.

There will always be conservatives whom we must drag, kicking and screaming, into a new era.

But it's discouraging as hell to hear liberals refusing to champion basic human rights! FFS, it's not equality for some now and others later...kinda, maybe, under a different name, in some states, certain restrictions apply, void where prohibited--it's equality for all or the system is not working as intended.

:argh:

It's 2010! I, too, can't believe we're still having this discussion.

...And I still don't have that damn flying car! ;)

[Kajsa]

112. LOL!

--me neither!

:) :hi:

[Ignis]

113. Thanks for the chat.

Friending you. Hang in there. :hi:

[Kajsa]

115. Thank you, Ignis!

Friending you too.

Stay strong! :hi:

[mitchtv]

28. me first? how dare you

it's more like "What about Me?"

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

49. Yes, what about you?

What about you when a failed attempt leads to another Republican president? What will happen to you then? What job will you have to gain protections from if we have another Republican in charge? What assets and interests will be left for you to protect through marriage if we have another Republican in charge? I'm sure it'll be wonderful to have your spouse allowed to visit you in the hospital, but it'll be less wonderful when you go bankrupt afterwards because they take away the health care reforms. What wars will you personally be willing to fight under a Republican president? And this is all to say nothing of the not insignificant chance that you'd look back on today as though they were the "good ol' days" after these bigots take control and start RESCINDING rights instead of expanding them?

Or, instead, we can just wait until the 2nd term, not worry about that bad stuff happening, and still have a chance at a positive end result. So yeah, what about you? What about ALL of you?

[mitchtv]

75. I've survived lots of puke presidents

no I ain't waiting for pie in the sky.I don't depend on the gov for my healthcare. any reforms, or gains made by Obama can be swiftly taken away with the stroke of a pen, so I wait for real, legal reforms. We'll never get it from the GOP , and I doubt we'll see any relief from the D's. Same ol; same ol. Wait, wait , wait we got all three , WH, House, and Senate, what are we waiting for now? to lose control of one or more? Sorry I ain't buying the fear package.

[CakeGrrl]

24. Agreed. As was implied above, there is no absolute "most important issue"

For some, enjoying the right to marry or have the benefits of a married couple is most critical to them or someone they know/love.

For others, a most urgent concern right now may be getting/staying employed to feed themselves and their family.

Keeping a roof over their head may be someone else's biggest issue.

Some have a family member overseas in harm's way and they want them home.

Someone else or their loved one may have a life-threatening illness and no way to afford the treatment.

Would they all be expected to agree what the President should try to accomplish first?

[ruggerson]

30. One could however posit that:

1) While others worry about getting/staying employed, GLBT are in a unique circumstance: they can get fired just for who they are in the vast majority of states. Until ENDA passes, there is no job security at all for gay Americans.

2) Again, housing is an urgent issue for everyone, but gays and lesbians are in a unique position: they can get thrown out of their homes by a landlord who doesn't like gay people. Other people have legal recourse (it's illegal to throw someone out based on race, ethnicity, religion, etc.) Not so with gays in most states in this country.

3) I don't even have to explain how DOMA affects immigration and DADT affects people who have partners overseas in harms way.

4) GLBT partners/spouses are not considered families in most states, and often they are not able to be on their loved one's insurance policy, while a straight married couple does not face that particular obstacle.

All the things you mentioned are huge problems we should be addressing as a nation. But there is still this one group which is not even at square one. Not even at square one! They don't even have a level playing field to navigate through the land mines life throws at all of us.

Shouldn't they have the right to press urgently for equality without others diminishing their quest? Since they're not even at square one, do we really blame them for thinking that equality in America - full citizenhood - should be at the top of the list of priorities for all of us?

[TriMera]

37. +1,000,000. It is so easy for those

who "enjoy" those rights and protections to tell us that it's no big deal. They take the things for which we are fighting for granted and don't even realize it. They were born with those rights, but we should just sit back and wait until the time is right. In whose lifetime will that be?

[mkultra]

98. because they want to pit liberal against liberal.

Somehow, they think that is what will solve the problem.

[mitchtv]

26. the answers prove the theory

.Repubs hate you to your face, Dems smile to your face then stab you in the back

[mitchtv]

29. and the Dems want help from me?

what a laugh what a bunch of crumbs

[Radical Activist]

35. Yes. Certainly.

I might also repeal DADT in a way that ensures buy-in from the military, even if that slows things down a little.

[quakerboy]

40. Victory breeds victory, defeat breeds defeat

It would be done. I would rather be devastatingly effective in 4 years than mildly positive in 8. It would not have been the first thing that I pushed for, but if you had put me in Obama's place right after swearing in, I believe it would be done by now.

I don't think anyone can accuse me of unseemly humility now, eh?

[Safetykitten]

43. I do not understand why gay rights is always

a bargaining chip on display. Why is this allowed? I thought that belief in gay rights was something that was non-negotiable for people here.

It is becoming repugnant to see these polls, posts and herd cullings on something that should be a given. All this does is show that there is a relatively large group that could care less about gays.

No postions are going to be changed.

[Kahuna]

52. Not true. You can care about gays and also believe that because of

the last eight disastrous years of bushco, there are many priorities to be addressed, but also that all of the priorities can't be addressed at the same time. Maybe some people believe that it would give the Democrats more strength to address GLBT issues if they have an even greater majority to enable them. Others seem to believe that "punishing" the Democrats will in some way help them to achieve their goals. I don't even get that. For me, that is just extremely counter-productive.

Imagine if people didn't feel the need to "punish" Al Gore in 2000. Imagine how far along the goal of GLBT equality would be right now. If activists continue down the path to "punishing" Democrats by allowing the republicans to regain power, THEY will be the ones to suffer the most. Then what? They will be able to gloat for only so long until the consequences of their actions come home to roost.

You can howl all day and night about what is right, but politicians are by nature weak sisters who will take the path of least resistance. There is power in numbers. Right now, we don't have the numbers to push through the agenda that many progressives want. The answer here is not to punish Democrats so that the repukes regain power. How did that work out the last time? The last time the repukes had power they sought to pass a constitutional amendment targeting gays. Keep down this current path and the repukes will get the numbers THEY need to do just that. Then who will be harmed? Not those Democrats in office. They always do just fine once they leave office.

The saying goes, he who laughs first, laughs last. Keep it up.

[Exilednight]

54. The only reason Al Gore was "punished" as you put it, was because ............

many on the left were getting tired of triangulation politics. Bill never went for the big win, he played it safe and gave us bad policy.

This is the problem with the Democratic party. No one we elect to the Presidency is willing to go for the gusto.

[Kahuna]

55. Whatever the reason, it was a foolish move. Sometimes it really is

the lesser of two "evils." But in this case, there was nothing evil about Al Gore.

[Exilednight]

86. People can project whatever greatness they want upon a person, but the reality is ............

people are much different than their campaign promises. Just look at our current President.

[Hawkowl]

44. False choice

As a straight man, I think putting it all on the line would probably ENSURE a second term. I don't think it is risky at all.

[Exilednight]

53. I agree, but sadly most politicians ..............

continuously campaign while in office. They live by a circular logic. "Have to stay in office to make a difference, so we can't jeopardize doing anything 'drastic' or else I won't be in office to make a difference."

[LostinVA]

57. +1 -- absolutely

As it stands now, I won't be voting for Obama and Biden in 2012, and to hell with anyone of you who start babbling about "President Palin." So what? Our civil rights are spat upon by Dems and GOP, and pretty much everything we HAVE gained has been because of US, not the Democratic Party.

Why should someone vote for either a homophobe, a homophobe enabler, and someone who quite publicly doesn't acre about you and your rights? WHY?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

59. You seem to be under the false impression that the status quo is safe.

Under President Palin or any Republican regime, you risk having far fewer rights than you have now. Don't for a minute think things can't go backwards in a heartbeat, because I assure you, they can.

And it's total bullshit to suggest that everything you have is solely due to the LGBT community. You are less than 10% of the population - you had to have help somewhere along the line to get anything.

[LostinVA]

62. What civil rights do you want to give up?

Pick two.

And, it isn't bullshit. The LBGT community and allies have gotten 99% of what little we have. Very few politicians really go to bat for us.

Thanks for marginalizing us even more. Condescending bullshit.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

64. You pick two rights you currently have that you want to give up.

Oh wait, I'm sorry - Republicans will pick for you if they have their way and you won't have the choice. Wake up - you're only marginalizing yourself.

[mitchtv]

81. they sure can go backward in a flash

especially when they are not laws , but rather presidential directives that have no mandate when the next guy comes in ie: fed employee benfits(which exclude healthcare per DOMA)

[dionysus]

60. cutting off one's nose to spite one's face....

[LostinVA]

61. Except that isn't what I'm doing -- nice try, though n/t

[LostinVA]

63. And, I am done arguing with posters who continue to marginalize us

[dionysus]

65. if you want to punish dems, fine. but realize that will help the party that openly loathes your

very existance.

[mtnester]

92. as opposed to the one that ignores it

do you need the sarcasm icon thingy?

[FreedomRain]

45. 2nd term , shmeckond shmerm

I would have run on the fact I am only going to take 1 term, there are thousands of Americans qualified for the post, hundreds that would have my views on most issues. Why should I spend 1/4 of my time in office campaigning for the next election when I could be gettin shit done!

also: moved your rec to positive teritory ;)

[Exilednight]

51. I'd rather be a one hit wonder than a no hit blunder. n/t

[Shining Jack]

67. Well said. n/t

[Orsino]

68. You mean sacrifice it for a CHANCE at equality.

It does not follow that a double-down commitment will equal success. America's climate of conservatism and fear, however, nearly guarantee that even trying carries the heaviest of political costs.

Sane politicians play it safe, or keep the risk low.

[Ignis]

73. Thanks for posting this poll/thread, CP.

Personally, I think you should re-post it in GD rather than GD: P. I suspect the poll results above will change dramatically.

[LostinVA]

78. I was thinking that, too n/t

[Dark]

79. I'm gay, I want gay marriage, but this country has a fuckton of problems going on right now.

People aren't dying because they can't get married.

People are dying in the two pointless wars we have going on right now.

Fix the economy, end the wars.

Also, as president why gamble? Let it go to the supreme court first. If they rule gay marriage is legal, then you've already won.

Oh, and Obama is ending DADT. Yea, it'd be nice if he just did it now, but by December it'll be gone.

[dsc]

80. tell that to the people who get sent back to places like Iran

because their spouse can't sponser them. Tell that to the people who have no health insurance because their spouse can't insure them.

[Dark]

84. Well, we just passed HCR.

As for getting sent back, pray tell, do you have any figures on how many people that happens to?

Cause so far, nearly 2,000 troops have been killed in Afghanistan, and god knows how many more afghans are dead.

Like I said, the best option is to let the courts sort it out. Then, if they fail, try it when we're not in the middle of a tepid economy and at war with two countries.

[dsc]

85. These were your words

People aren't dying because they can't get married.

and I provided examples. OH BTW gays were left out of HCR that aspect wasn't fixed. Yes, they could get in a high risk pool maybe but that isn't the same as the much cheaper and better insurance that they would be getting if they were married for real.

[mitchtv]

82. He can walk and chew gum at the same time

why not take care of something that's possible? I'm glad you are so sure about DADT. Me?I'vs been around too long. I'll believe it when I see it.

[liquid diamond]

103. Why do you hate gays?

Oh, shit. Wait...

[TheKentuckian]

83. I'd work for true equality, popular or not.

[laugle]

87. I think DADT should end

now!! I don't think it would be a gamble on the presidency. I think some people forget that DADT was instituted almost 18 years ago by Clinton, as a compromise. Surely, the time has come to stop this discriminatory policy. To me, it is a nobrainer.

Time will tell....if the POTUS has the courage............

[Kajsa]

91. Yes, I think doing the right thing trumps

playing it safe to get re-elected any day of the week.

I think voters are getting very tired of that crap!

I know I am!

[Arkana]

94. Since I'll never hold the job, I don't have any idea.

I can only point to the 44 men who have held it and wonder what went on inside their heads.

It would be so easy for me to say "Hell YES I would do this!" but I genuinely do not know.

[mwooldri]

99. This poll is useless.

Even if it did have pictures.

THIS is the picture we should be looking at.

EVERY WORLD LEADER MUST WORK ON MAKING THIS ARTICLE THE LAW OF THEIR LAND. Problem is, it's not the law here - yet.

So to answer the question - if I was elected President, I'd do what I could to make this document legally binding in the United States. This will ensure things like DADT, DOMA etc can all go away because they would be illegal in the eyes of the Universal Declaration. We'd have a better healthcare system because of the Universal Declaration, oh yes and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan would be ended immediately.

As far as I can tell, the United States of America, the very place where the United Nations has its main headquarters, fails on about 13 out of the 30 parts of the declaration. Even my homeland - the UK - fails on many aspects - I count 8.

I feel that re-focusing the issue away from "gay marriage" and towards "human rights" is the way to go - because human rights is an issue that 95% of Americans can get behind. Gay Rights, Abortion, etc... are divisive issues and always will be. But talk about something that will protect ones' life, liberty and freedoms... and you'd even get the staunchest teabagging conservative on your side over that.

Mark.

[ruggerson]

105. Well it did help to bring some of the more, uh, "empathetic" people out into the open

where we can see them in all their brilliant colors.

[liquid diamond]

102. No. I would let the courts handle this issue. Checks

and balances n' shit.

[neverforget]

107. This is what happens when rights are put up for a vote. If it doesn't affect

them or they are different, then they're tossed aside. Remember, America is all about me and what I want.

[CTyankee]

108. I find this tough but for another reason. What no one has discussed is

the context of such a dilemma. That is, if I sacrifice my presidency for a cause that certainly on the wrong side of history but temporarily not won, then what happens? If you discern that the country is BETTER off, all things being equal, then it is the right thing to do. If a roaring tide of the right wing gets in and totally reverses the course of progressivism, making it worse than before, then that is a problem.

Context is important. I have seen what has happened to this country after Carter. "Liberal" became a dirty word and liberals went into hiding. I wish I could say we liberals were stronger than that, but we weren't. Some tried, but not enough...and the American people just drank the kool aid...

[bliss_eternal]

109. wait....what....?!?

:shrug:

i'm not sure which is more offensive, this poll--or the fact that so many people are telling others they should be willing to wait for their equality.

must we do this--seriously...? again with the whole, "your rights aren't a priority" thing....?

offensive and insensitive, much?

:( :grr: :mad:

[MadHound]

111. Wow, what disappointing results,

Shows that a lot of DUers are more interested in political gain rather than insuring justice and civil rights for all.

Sad, truly sad.

[Cali_Democrat]

114. You can't rank issues like that

For some people, the war is the most important issue. For others, it's GLBT rights.

It's all a matter of perspective.

That's why we see wildly different results.

[DailyGrind51]

117. I would not drop the basket to save just one egg, no.

Jobs, economic justice, ending the war(s), universal health-care, immigration reform, are too important to sacrifice for any single issue.

[BeyondGeography]

118. Obama would be derided as "President Lifestyle" and take much of the Democratic party down with him

if he made gay marriage his #1 priority, which I don't think would be good news for gay rights in this country.

[keepCAblue]

119. JFK did exactly that for black civil rights.

The wording of the options you give shows a clear bias as to your position. Sadly, it shows you care more about whether Obama gets a 2nd term in office than you do your daughter's right to expedient equality.