Gay marriage--can't anyone lead anymore!

I think the Dems should just say they're for gay marriage. Period. For those who already said they're against it, they should say they have reconsidered, found lurking prejudice in their understanding, and have now changed their minds. Period. Just end it. Lead, for Christ's sake. Lead, . . . just for once. There aren't two sides here. Not in a secular society. There's eliminating special rights for heterosexuals, and there's bigotry.

I think if someone came out strongly here, someone with real gravitas (top tier of the Dem candidates), it would move this issue to our side, energize the young, make the Repuklicons look like the sex-obsessed bigots they are, and make the Dem candidate look strong.

...and the reason for Civil Unions

-it takes the issue away from churches
-purely secular

nuff said

as a solution, by either side? I've seen activists on both sides say plainly, it will not. The Gay Marriage advocates want to end the Church monopoly on the "sanctity" of marriage, and the real-deal fring lunatics on the Xian right see anything less than a gulag as Gomorrah reborn.

No, we're in for an absolutely hellish tarbaby, and the Democratic coalition will fracture into a million splinters lo-o-o-ong before the Right does. Hundred bucks says a minimum of four different viewpoints on the subject expressed in the first real multicandidate primary debates.

If I'm Karl Rove and I see that the Democrats are willing to write off the south it would make my day.

Think Clinton's first midterm and Gays in the military. nuff said.

<sarcasm off> If progressives had always thought like that we would still have slavery.

but the reason the Repugnicans own the south is because of LBJ. I'm not saying we should abandon gay unions (we can't call it marraige) but we need to be like LBJ. The south had no clue he was pro-civil rights yet he was probably more dedicated to it than JFK.

Dems need to avoid the issue and not fall into this trap. Then, when we take back the country we can grant them this basic human and legal right.

Better--the LEADERSHIP JFK provided with civil rights. Sometimes the country is ready to move, and it just needs strong leadership to move it. I think we're there with gay (all right) civil unions.

I think the wingers' sick obsession with making sure sex is tidy, circumscribed, puckered up, dry, shameful, etc., is their achilles heel. It would just take strong, confident leadership to expose their sick nervousness about sex.

is LBJ's, not JFK. LBJ was the arm twister. He knew all the skeletons. He was from the old south, a "good old boy". With Kennedy assassinated, he used the nation's reverence for our murdered and much loved president to force feed congress legistation most of them feared would ruin them politically. It did ruin many careers, especially in the south but not exclusively. Liberals have been paying for this success ever since.

This gay marriage is a hot potato that needs to be avoided at all costs. It's a neocon trap. Dems should say it's a state issue, like overturning a legitimate election in CA through the abuse of the proposition process by sore loser Republicans. If an idiot like Bush can duck a question, surely the Dems can figure it out.

I never believed that LBJ received his policy decisions from a Ouija board. RFK was the one strongly committed to civil rights.
"Well, Bobby and his negroes..." JFK

I think you're confusing JFK with his brother

JFK was a lot of things, but a great leader on civil rights was not one of them. He was far more timid than LBJ on the issue. He likely would not have pushed for the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Run as a moderate but after a win then it's hells bells. Just say something like it's a public opinion issue for Congress to discuss but as we see the State of the Union can be used to convince any American of anything.

of gays in the military. It's not like "Hillarycare" or the Assault Weapons Ban or NAFTA had anything to do with it.

Like it or not, gay rights are a political hot potato that will cost more votes than they will gain. The fundi freepers will come out en masse to vote down any candidate who supports gay rights regardless of how bad the other choice is. The democratic party cannot afford to take the risk of alienating the southern swing vote who are leaning against Shrub's economic policy but hate gays so much that they'd rather vote for continued unemployment than support what they'd view as a 'sodomite traitor.' This is unfortunate for the GLBT folks but it's time to take a hit for the team if there is to be even the remotest chance of kicking the fascists out of the White House.

Using the word marriage confuses the issue. The Pope's letter was not simply a defense for the Church's right to define marriage for Catholics, it was a call to strip gay people of rights we are entitled to under the Constitution.

Give equal rights and separates the religious connotation although
so many heteros get married without a religious ceremony, it's still
called marriage.

if you say marriage they'll find some way to twist it to make it sound like the Dems want to force churches to recognize them.

I believe that the concept of civil union is a reasonable approach, but it's much too early in the current "climate", from a POLITICAL stance, to take this issue too closely to heart.

I do believe that civil unions are a fair alternative that does cripple the religious right's ability to impose themselves "the old fashioned way", as they've always been accustomed to do.

Unfortunately, this issue needs to ferment in the public's mind....THIS particular election coming up is the make-or-break, so gambling on the notion that this country is collectively ready and willing to accept civil unions is a dangerous venture....You can argue with all the facts in hand and never make a dent in a person who's rigidly stubborn in believing that CIVIL UNION is the last sign of the Apocalypse.

The America I know is SLOW to change and this issue, in particular, should not be at the top of our priorities list....No sooner do I hear about a USA TODAY poll that says the country is not too keen on the idea, that I hear Bush at a press conference, echoing that point of view....He pounced.

I know that honest change can't come soon enough for so many GLBT
people in America, but it'd be wise to accept that the process takes TIME and the Democratic Party does not take your support lightly....When the time comes, let's arrive together.

Issue for issue, except for the death penalty, they are in agreement with Dems. What they like about * is that he is a "bold leader." He may not be right, but he's certain. What they find distasteful about Dems is that they always seem to be trying to play it smart politically.

I think a politician who just came out and stood for what they really believed would be just fine, and they might actually be able to move some of those in the middle onto our side.

<i>What they like about * is that he is a "bold leader." He may not be right, but he's certain. What they find distasteful about Dems is that they always seem to be trying to play it smart politically.</i>

Bush is on the right side of this one....On pure political instinct, his position is the one of least resistance and we're in no position right now to argue the merits of the issue so close to an election, crossing our fingers in the hopes that we'll persuade enough of the center to embrace it....We can't afford to wager because I'm convinced that this issue hasn't been given widespread thought in our culture....We're proposing a CULTURAL ideal here that's much too risky in America today.

for those couples who favor a marriage instead of a civil union, or an agreement between the two of them without a ceremony. I have never understood why one group has the right to dictate to another group what they can, or cannot, do.

In addition, I can think of two ceremonies I would be invited to that I would love to be able to attend. The couples I'm referring to already have lived together for a number of years, and have stable, loving, relationships.

Why can't they formalize their unions? What right does any group have to deny them? They will live together, in loving, absolutely beautiful relationships regardless of the uptight asshole pricks who seem to get some joy out of dictating to others.

I'm straight, they are gay. We are all friends and love and respect each other. I fail to see the harm, but do see the enormous good, and joy knowing them has given me, and I can only hope that their friendship with me has brought them the same measure of satisfaction.

First of all I do think that gays should should be able to get spousal benefits and be able to see each other in the hospital. I also think that they should be able to have protection from job, housing, and financial discrimination. I support ENDA.

At the same time I am not sure I am in favor of "gay marriage". I think that society simply won't accept that. I have mixed feelings about "gay adoption" too.

say they oppose it. That's my point. I think leadership here would (1) move many in "society"; and (2) make the Dems look less like poll weasels.

and the only problem I can see with gay adoption is people who blab about how kids shouldn't be exposed to a "deviant lifestyle"

At the same time I am not sure I am in favor of "gay marriage". I think that society simply won't accept that. I have mixed feelings about "gay adoption" too.

Do you mean that *you* have problems with gay marriage and adoption, or that you are wary of the problems society might have with them?

nt

Tempering your public face is one thing, but do you care about anything enough to stand up to the right wing in order to defend it? As a non-electoral question, what do YOU think about gay marriage and adoption?

I don't see a problem with gay people marrying as long as they don't try to push it down other peoples' throats. As for gay adoption I don't see a problem as long as the children aren't abused and the parents are not unfit.

But unfortuantely the rest of society does. Remember, the civil rights movement took many decades to reach its goals. From 1909, the date when the NAACP emerged, to 1964, the date of the Civil Rights Laws, fifty-four years passed.

Why do I even try to talk to you?

I don't see a problem with gay people marrying as long as they don't try to push it down other peoples' throats.

Meaning what? Stay in the closet?

As for gay adoption I don't see a problem as long as the children aren't abused and the parents are not unfit.

That's pretty much a standard requirement for any adoption. Why single out gays in that regard?

But unfortuantely the rest of society does. Remember, the civil rights movement took many decades to reach its goals. From 1909, the date when the NAACP emerged, to 1964, the date of the Civil Rights Laws, fifty-four years passed.

Yes, and the people who are doing the same work in the trenches now regarding equal rights for gay folks are the ones being called "activist elites" by the DLC. Yet fifty-some years from now, the party will claim that victory as its own.

Feh.

You can't make it happen overnight.

What I mean by "not pushing it down people's throats" is to be flagrant about it.

As for gay adoption here is my concern. I think that children need both MALE and FEMALE role models in thier homes. With only parents of one sex I am concerend about their ability to connect with the parent of the gender not included.

Slowly, yes, but if you wait for others to put *their* necks on the line, then don't claim hero status to yourself.

What I mean by "not pushing it down people's throats" is to be flagrant about it.

Define that. What's flagrant? Some guy in San Francisco in skimpy biker gear? A suburban couple living openly as homosexuals? What?

As for gay adoption here is my concern. I think that children need both MALE and FEMALE role models in thier homes. With only parents of one sex I am concerend about their ability to connect with the parent of the gender not included.

Absolutely! Those children are much better off being raised as wards of the state, or in homes where their MALE and FEMALE paired role models are not really fit to raise children! And God only knows what all those single, heterosexual mothers are thinking!

Where they remidn people of it always, when they push in front of people who don't want to hear it, etc.

As for the second point I don't understand it. I don't think they should be wards of the state either, but I am concerned about their not having a parent of the sex not included. You can't deny that being in a same sex headed family cuts off access to the gender not included.

I have nothing against single or gay parents. But I do think that these children are losing something by not having people of the sex not included in the picture.

Where they remidn people of it always, when they push in front of people who don't want to hear it, etc.

It's gauche, yes. :eyes:

As for the second point I don't understand it. I don't think they should be wards of the state either, but I am concerned about their not having a parent of the sex not included. You can't deny that being in a same sex headed family cuts off access to the gender not included.

I can, in fact - many same-sex adoptive parents make a point of raising their kids around authority-figure adults of the opposite gender.

I have nothing against single or gay parents. But I do think that these children are losing something by not having people of the sex not included in the picture.

Welcome to the real world, circa 2003. Personally, I think kids lose a lot more in seeing their biological parents slap each other around or in not having parents at all than they do in having same-sex parents.

Not that I spend any time around kids. And I'm just some crazy liberal anyway.

I am just saying that in most cases the two parent model is preferable. And I think that even single parents would agree with that.

Now realistially that isn't always possible.

We seem to be getting somewhere.

I am just saying that in most cases the two parent model is preferable. And I think that even single parents would agree with that.

Careful here. I haven't walked in those shoes, and neither have you.

Now realistially that isn't always possible.

Thank you. Now let's think about special needs and minority children who've been put up for adoption. Realistically, because I know you're a big fan of realism, would it not be better for them if we opened wide the gates of adoption to same-sex couples who simply want to raise a family?

edited to note that I don't mean that gay couples are going to magically mesh with special needs or minority kids, but rather that those kids stand a better chance of finding a loving family with more families allowed to adopt.

Yeah but the "gates" aren't going to be "opened" because the public will not allow it.

that "the public will not allow it" was a phrase oft-repeated during the 1950s in a different context?

That somehow I don't support civil rights for gays just because I am ambivalent about gay marriage and gay adoption. And no I would have supported civil rights for African-Americans.

This is what I resent about your clique of posters here at DU. Who are you to act like you are the only "real" progressives/liberals here?

I guess that in your black and white world I am probably just like the Christina Right.

much less that *you* wouldn't have supported the civil rights effort. The original post on this thread, though, talks about leadership - it's not leadership to know the just outcome of a situation and not pursue it simply because a majority of people don't already agree with it.

is that the people adopting have generally taken the needed steps to care for their children and have planned out their life to accomodate the needs of a child - including provision for same gender role models or adoption of kids of their sex. Heteros, not of my family, who have kids through procreation seem different to me. Many have made plans for their children but others raise 'accidents' and have no plan at all. Surely they do the best they can with what they have, as I believe nearly all parents in any situation do, but the deliberate choice to raise a child versus the surprise pregnancy and raising of a child would seem to me to have potential to provide better opportunity for the child.

Additionally there is the issue of sperm donation with regard to lesbian couples. If homosexuals cannot adopt, and cannot raise children after a divorce or seperation, because they are believed to be unfit or less than fit as parents - what are we to do with those who receive artificial insemination? Allow them to carry the pregnancy to term and then take the baby? Take it if it is male? Perhaps prohibit lesbians from receiving artificial insemination?

Come on....just a little stereotypical are ya?

"not pushing it down people's throats"

You say, "its ok to be gay", but yet you infer, "just don't act gay"

As I said in another post, there are plenty of gay men legally married in America..they just happen to be married to women. Equal rights for all, means ALL. The Demo's have the opportunity to take back the government from the thugs that now occupy it. Make a stand and show the world that America treats ALL its citizens equally and fairly. Break out the mortar while you're at it and rebuild the wall between church and state! WTF is the going on? gods have no place in government, keep that in your church/synogogue/closet(like that dude preached in the NT) Gay discrimination stems from religion, as does bigotry. Stop looking for an invisible friend to help you, get out and help yourself and your country.


Skeeve

Why? Do you think sexual orientation is of any significance in a parent/child relationship? Does my heterosexuality disqualify me? Sexual orientation is so irrelevant in almost every aspect of our lives, this whole thing is just fundie bullshit.

if you're not in favor of gay marriages, don't marry a gay partner. Just let others, who feel differently, have the option of making the same choice.

It's really hard to believe that while our soldiers are dying daily in the quagmire in Iraq, the President of the United States calls a press conference to say absolutely nothing...oh yeah, except to state his views on gay marriage. And he gets away with it!!! What the f*ck? Are Christians now saying, 'Thank god, he's against gay marriage! Phew, what a relief! Now god won't smite us (like Canada, hee, hee).' Surreal.

I think it's easy to say that our leaders should support gay marriage because most everybody here does so. Out in the rest of the U.S. that is not the case. For many of our elected officials, supporting this kind of move would result in Republicans being elected. We would lose both the House and Senate and might even end up with a horrifying Supreme Court.

I know I'm talking politics about civil rights, but I'm being realistic as well.

I know I'm talking politics about civil rights, but I'm being realistic as well.

How do you justify continuing to deny an entire class of people their civil rights on "realistic" electoral grounds? Does wrapping a turd in the shiny foil of "realism" make it any less a turd?

I don't understand why some people would have rather nothing at all than something. Among the left I sometimes wonder why people take pride in losing and in their marginalization. They would rather not win and lose all the gains of the past because to them it's "all or nothing".

Put away the broad brush, Carlos.

Can't be said any better!

But ask yourself how much worse things could be. Pushing for gay marriage right now might make all of those nightmares come true.

Vote Democratic - It Could Be Worse

Tell me, when *do* we get to push for gay marriage/civil unions/whatever you want to call it?

The neocon fascists are infinitely worse than anything the democratic party has on offer. Indeed, the only way the party could run worse would be to run Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot or Idi Amin. Getting rid of the fascists is vital and all non-essential policy points must be put on hold to acomplish this.

Only when (if) the fascists have been disposed of should divisive issues be forced forward.

(This is in reference to MuddleoftheRoad's post above about losing seats in Congress and so forth).

Look, obviously the idea of Democrats supporting gay marriage is risky because the public is largely against it, but sooner or later, as some others have said in this thread, you have to LEAD.

Does Bush care about what society thinks? No way. He only cares about what his base thinks. That's why he can bash gay marriage and get away with it, because he knows the issue will endear him further to his base but not cost him too many votes otherwise. Those likely to disagree strongly with Bush on gay marriage probably weren't going to vote for him anyway, so he had nothing to lose.

But even on those positions in which society disagrees with him, Bush doesn't care. Bush has polluted the political discourse so much that when he takes actions contrary to what society wants, no one notices, except for people like us.

And, frankly, what "society" wants is irrelevant where equal rights are concerned. There's no rational basis to deny equal rights to all citizens (and I mean every human being, not just Americans).

Democrats have refused to take principled stands on several issues and HAVE STILL lost seats in Congress over the past several years. If you're going to lose, you might as well lose with courage. Instead, we get more mealy-mouthed posturing and hemming and hawing. This is why the GOP continually abuses Democrats and gains stature in the public's eye.

TAKE A STAND, DAMMIT!

If you push many of our politicians to take a stand on this issue, you won't like what you get.

Some people would rather lose everything. Their "all or nothing approach" has gotten, gets, and will get them nowhere. But they would rather lose and get nothing than only get part of what they want.

But I have a hard time believing most Democratic polticians think gay marriage is a bad thing. They just say it is because politically it's the right thing to do. In fact, I think a lot of GOP-types probably don't care if gays can marry or not, either. They just say they're against it because it feeds red meat to their mindless zombies.

I don't care about the word. The word is a huge stumbling block. Way too many people associate it with the religious ceremony. Remember interracial marriage was only won in the courts. The same will happen with same sex marriage.

Of course, I admire the guy for signing the Civil Unions bill in Vermont. Why? Because it was a first step in giving gays equal rights. But I don't like where he hems and haws about whether they should be "married." Usually he dodges it and says he'll leave that up to the courts or the church.

Dean is a very determined man and he is known for being very tough and strong and inspirational. He speaks how we should distance ourselves from the Republicans and give America another option. I wish he would apply that to gay rights.

would have been amended just like in Hawaii and Alaska.

What we are in right now is what would be best referred to as political siege warfare. We cannot storm the position we want, so we have to simply sit, make small sorties to take what we can, and starve out the opposition. If we push too hard too fast we risk losing all of what ground we have taken, but we cannot simply refuse to move ahead at all, we just can't make a big push, not yet. We have a Supreme Court ruling on our side, that will help turn the tide, we just have to keep pushing forward slowly and making ground. Step by step, we WILL win this battle, ut we can't do it RIGHT NOW. We have to wait for the opportune moment.

as far as the Gov is concerned and allow 'marriage' to be defined by whatever church the marriage takes place in? (If it is a church at all). No gay marriage, no plural marriage, no marriage marriage - just civil unions that everyone can have. The part concerning the government shouldn't be marriage, it should be the contract and the benefits - the term 'marriage' isn't important to that. Or is making it all civil-unions and leaving 'marriage' to the religious bodies even less doable politically than allowing gay marriage?

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

I think all the politicans should just say,"Let the courts decide." When was the last time a national political did anything for Gay people anyway? Nope, this should stop. Let the courts decide. That should be the end of it.

J4Clark

Women created the catchphrase, but it works for homosexuals as well. Very apt, appropriate, and fitting.

The law, if it were just, would give a homosexual equivalent. Otherwise it is caving into a bunch of outdated and wrong religious texts, so much for separation of church and state. It would also be caving into a bunch of stereotypes, probably made true because so many gay men know it'll never happen so why bother striving for it?

The US Government, which employes around 2 to 3 million civilians, no longer discriminates amongst their gay civilian employees. That was a huge step for hundreds of thousands of gays and lesbians plus as a role model for private companies. ENDA would be law today had Gore gotten the White House. That would allow millions of gays and lesbians to be out at work without fear of losing their jobs, out at home without fear of losing their lease, and out in public without fear of not being served. Those are big deals that only the feds can do.

It doesn't get better than that.