Gay marriage: another inconvenient truth

With Bush and the Repub majority in Congress preparing to throw gays under the bus with their symbolic amendment talks this week, it's time for the Dems to take an honest and progressive stance on this issue:

http://vastleft.blogspot.com/2006/06/let-love-rule_04.html

(inspired by recent conversations on DU)

It's much more harmful than gays. Express your comments at Sward@ktownonline.net

What, really, is supposed to be so bad about gay marriage?

It will be interesting to see how Bush spins it. No doubt it will all be coded platitudes about tradition and "faith."

___

Hey, the liberal light is always on at the Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy. Please stop by and say "hi!"

Huge difference between "Let's talk about gay relationships as a reality in our culture" and "Gay marriage is a threat to MY marriage."

Huge difference between "Let's try to find a way to drastically reduce the number of abortions in this country" and "Abortion is murder."

Huge difference between "Let's talk about giving every American access to health care" and "Socialized medicine."

We need to put an end to "TP culture" NOW.

We are indeed in, as you say, this "TP culture."

Not playing the game means we lose.

Playing the game badly means we lose.

Bill Clinton knew how to campaign in this culture. John Kerry, not so well.

Is the ability to play that game a sine-qua-non for national office? If it is, don't we need to reckon with it while picking and preparing our candidates?

I'm not saying that we should shy away from progressives, but we need progressives who know how to communicate. It's clear that Gore has got his groove back more than ever, and I like everything I've seen so far from Feingold. IMHO, that's our dream ticket.

___

Hey, the liberal light is always on at the Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy. Please stop by and say "hi!"

The Heritage Foundation literally does have a booking agency, ready to pimp their most well-trained talking head about nearly any issue.

We not only lack the booking agency, we lack the TRAINED talent.

It's not that our guys and gals don't know the issues, they most assuredly do--it's that they can't communicate it well on the air--which was one of Kerry's enormous problems.

Don't discuss the talking point, Dems--discuss the issue underlying the talking point (but don't get too wordy, either--that's where the TRAINED talent comes in). The opposition isn't prepared for any sort of challenge whatsoever.

Like any potential employee, it all comes down to who has the minimum qualifications and who's the best training candidate. In this case it's all in the communication.

never heard of it

and he also gave us Plan Colombia and kept the torture/assassin training at the School of the Americas (SOA), aka WHISC. It was SOA graduates that were involved in the failed US-sponsored coup in Venezuela and were involved in numerous human rights violations and crimes in Latin America. DOMA gave the homophobes a platform to launch attacks on the US and States' constitutions establishing a second class citizenship for LGBTs. "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" led to witch hunts against any service member perceived to be gay, and to women GIs that "don't put out."

Enough of this family!

I don't see the merit of demonizing Bill Clinton.

For one thing, there was a third part to his policy that you didn't mention: "... don't pursue" reports of homosexuality. I'm not schooled enough in the realities of gay servicepeople to know whether witch-hunts occurred, but clearly that was the furthest thing from his intention.

To me the "don't ask..." policy was classically Clintonian. The idea was to progress gay rights beyond what the public or the military was ready for. He paid with a huge cost in political capital, by being mocked for making such a "trivial" thing an early linchpin of his legacy, and it's easy to question the bizarre compromise underlying the policy.

In today's reality, where we've seen paradigms for actual gay marriage, we're right to insist on less equivocal solutions, but I think we should salute Clinton for taking the heat and making some actual progress with a seemingly insurmountable issue.

___

Hey, the liberal light is always on at the Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy. Please stop by and say "hi!"

:thumbsup:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don't_ask,_don't_tell
"Homosexuality is incompatible with military service. The presence in the military environment of persons who engage in homosexual conduct or who, by their statements, demonstrate a propensity to engage in homosexual conduct, seriously impairs the accomplishment of the military mission. The presence of such members adversely affects the ability of the armed forces to maintain discipline, good order, and morale; to foster mutual trust and confidence among service members; to insure the integrity of the system of rank and command; to facilitate assignment and worldwide deployment of service members who frequently must live and work in close conditions affording minimal privacy; to recruit and retain members of the armed forces; to maintain the public acceptability of military service; and to prevent breaches of security" (ibid) (DOD Directive 1332.14 (Enlisted Administrative Separations), January, 1981).

DADTDHDP isn't perfect, but it was a step forward from DOD regulations at the time.

I'm argued about SoA here before, but no one listened, so I'm not even going to bother. DOMA is crap, I'll give you that, but there was nothing Clinton could have done, IIRC: there were enough votes to override the veto.

against Gays in the military in his first shot RIGHT OUT OF THE GATE after winning the election.

It's the REPUKES and DINOS like LIEberman who mounted a vigorous opposition to it.

The D.A.D.T. policy was a COMPROMISE forced on Clinton by the REPUKES and their fundy asshole bigoted dem appeasers in the Congress!

Get the history CORRECT before spewing nonsense. (not you, the perpetual Clinton bashers here!)

D.A.D.T. was an IMPROVEMENT over the existing policy!

Clinton has many failings that can be justly criticized, but this attack is plain WRONG and an attempt to rewrite history.

Better to be ineffective and pure than obtain any sort of real progress.

> What, really, is supposed to be so bad about gay marriage?

Toads will fall from the sky!
The sun will rise in the nightime and the stars in the day!
The rivers will run red!
Locusts. Did I mention locusts?
And Bush will pronounce a three-syllable word correctly!

Tesha

And it's not what most people think; that women have changed. The real reason divorce is sky high is that men, especially conservative men, have not changed (apart from DU men) since before the women's movement.

Conservative men still think they're entitled to dominate their wives, but many, if not most, women aren't putting up with that shit anymore. These guys still don't get it.

What's changed is the death rate. Women used to die in childbirth, from fevers, smallpox, malaria, TB, etc, etc, etc. Men, too. A child was lucky to have the same two parents at adulthood because the average age of death was young and people remarried easily. Children often grew up with step-parents, half-siblings and in informal fosterage arrangements. Two of my four great-grandmothers spent several years in orphanages in the early 20th century, and in the 30 people who make up my direct 4 generations (parents, grandparents, great-grandparents, and great-great-grandparents) there are an average of 3.2 marriages per woman and 2.6 marriages per man. My parents were the first divorce, in 1984. I have step-grandparents, late-step-grandparents, half-grandparents....

Statistically, marriage lasted on average 9 years in the 19th century. Usually someone died or abandoned their partner (and de facto divorces and remarriages were far more tolerated) and the survivor started over. Marriages last about the same now. The difference is that people live through the experience.

and talk about inclusiveness.

Amendments to the Constitution have historically/traditionally been to enhance freedom, not to restrict it.

the ERA. How convenient for the party of non-governmental intrusion to adopt this ploy yet again--in reverse.

Great point.

:applause:

We need to make your second point sn idea that's talked about (not a talking point) and drive it home.

How come no Dem pol has made the simple point that the Republicans argue against supposed "elitism" in our culture, but then back measure which would create elitist caste systems for people of different orientations.