Gays want more from Dems on marriage

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/06/13/MNGO0JD8JS1.DTL&hw=gay&sn=001&sc=1000

Gay and lesbian political leaders applauded Democrats in the U.S. Senate last week for defeating the proposed constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, but they say the real test of the party's commitment to the gay community will come this fall.

The national party is simultaneously courting conservative evangelical Christian voters and planning how to defeat proposals on the November ballot in six states for constitutional bans on same-sex marriage. That has created tension between the Democratic Party and the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender communities.

Gay Democrats supporting the outreach to conservatives insist the party does not have to turn its back on gays and lesbians to appeal to evangelical Christians.

Our Constitution granted full civil rights to "all men" when it was ratified. We know that it actually only meant White heterosexual men.
With the help of activist judges and liberal legislatures, those civil rights are now guaranteed to men with skin colors other than white. Now, men of color, and even women often enjoy a somewhat full set of civil rights.
For some reason, homosexuals in America still haven't been guaranteed complete civil rights.
The rights still denied include full probate rights, survivor and spousal benefits, parental rights, protection from discrimination in housing and employment, lending, and bereavement rights, and many others.
American homosexuals don't even get the benefits of all the tax cuts the fundamentalist Christians are throwing at married couples with children these days.
As far as the author of the article trying to drive a wedge between homosexual voters and the Democratic party, I think he's completely off base. It's not the Democrats who are working to deny civil rights to homosexuals, it's the Republicans.

Sadly, I see that as even more remote than civil rights for gay people. :cry:

under existing anti-discrimination laws under the religious discrimination section of the law. Atheists are allowed to marry as well as sue when they're discriminated against (which doesn't stop discrimination or harassment, but at least they have legal standing to sue anywhere in the country unlike GLBT (atheist or otherwise) Americans who are not covered in over half of the country, and even when the coverage is extended to sexual orientation it's all lost when you cross a state, county or city line, unlike all other people who are covered under federal law).

But you're right about Democrats not defending rights of non-theist addicts. There are many areas just like this where the alleged "two" parties are in agreement to the detriment of large sections of the population. We need a lot more parties and smaller congressional districts.

level. GLBT Americans are the ONLY minority NOT included in federal anti-discrimination laws. Even when the Democrats controlled both branches of Congress and the Presidency they still didn't pass any gay rights laws. They only passed the disastrous DADT policy which we're still suffering from today.

They trot out ENDA when they're soliciting contributions and volunteers for GOTV efforts to get them elected. Then they put it on the back burner until the next election.

After 30 years of blind support by the overwhelmiing majority of the gay Americans you would think that sooner or later gays (like all other minorities in the Democratic party) would DEMAND at least SOMETHING in exchange for helping these heterosexist bastards elected time and again. But no. It's always "now isn't the time" and other assorted bullshit. Hopefully, more people will wake the fuck up by 2008. Otherwise they will continue to take us 100% for granted.

If they want my vote, then don't TALK about equal rights and eqaulity, DO IT!