Should Democrats Move to the Middle on Abortion ad Gay Marriage?

Democrats should support abortion rights and gay rights.

But Democratic candidates for president need broad appeal, and should moderate their positions accordingly. Democratic candidates in certain other races also must moderate their positions on these issues to win.

I'd like for the 2008 Democratic candidate for president to say abortion should be legal for the first three months of pregnancy, and then illegal unless the mother's life is in danger.

I'd also like the 2008 Democratic candidate to say he supports civil unions but also supports state laws banning gay-marriage (provided these laws don't also ban civil unions.)

Kerry said he's against gay-marriage, but never explicitly endorsed state laws banning gay-marriage.

Democrats represent workers' rights, consumer rights, etc., and shouldn't let semantics over the word "marriage" keep us out of power.

more at:
http://www.moveleft.com/moveleft_essay_2004_11_05_abortion_ad_gay_marriage.asp

nt

From your essay: If John Kerry had told the people of Ohio, please vote to ban gay-marriage in the Ohio ballot-measure on November 2 and vote for me while you're there, maybe he would have won Ohio, and with it, the election.

---
Horrible. Just to "win".

How about making civil union the norm for ALL adults and leave marriage to the church?

By the way, not one official who voted for gay marriage in Massachusetts was defeated. Not one.

Massachusetts doesn't elect the President.

Let's also call for an end to interracial marriages so we can "win" a southern state

let's get rid of the damn computers so when our guy wins he gets to live in the white house for four years.

...they they contribute to the vote telly as does queers and women!

Nor should thrusting half the population of this country into the slavery of forced childbirth versus butchery by unlicensed abortionists. There are some things that are simply not negotiable.

Only DLC Democrats think they are. That's why they've LOST so many recent elections.

N/T

:hi:

try to telling the average citizen his marriage is now just a "civil union" according to the law.

I have heard more about the detriments of gay marriage to Kerry/Edwards at DU than ANYWHERE else. ANYWHERE.

I cannot be responsible for everyone's ignorance. Does this couple think that a notary republic can bestow the sacrament of marriage? Duh?

plastic_turkeys.

Abortion is a medical procedure and should be left to the attending physician to decide in conjunction with the patient what is best. Is there any other medical procedure that is legislated solely based on religious reasons?

Marriage does not belong to the churches in my opinion. There are two different types of marriages performed and have been since at least the 1800's. They are religious and civil ceremonies. In the past especially in Europe it was required to be married in the church. That began to change in the United States. There were many that also ignored marriage as an institution by living together as a couple especially in the wild frontier. Many pioneers left civilization to escape the strict religious requirements that were imposed on the whole community.

In addition, the government does not and should not dictate to the churches who they must marry. Only that documentation must be filed for the purpose of public good.

It is not just the government that should not be dictating to the churches. It is also the public and especially other churches. Churches should not dictate to other denominations their beliefs.

Abortion is just plain morally wrong.
With sex ed, the democrats actually prevent more abortions than republicans, this is what our candidates should emphasize.

I'm all for realism, pragmatism, and strategy--but I want to stand for something! Do you really think the RW fundies will go for any kind of compromise on abortion? Unrealistic. To them, all abortion (even the morning after pill) is murder.

After we modify the constituion to single out gays, since the ERA was never passed for woman, what will they require for us? We've already seen them pushing marriage as an agenda item for those single parents in need of public assistance for themselves and their children. Single women have seen how groups like Promise Keepers and their ilck react to them.... We've never achieved parity in jobs, or salaries...So, what will be our compromise on that? or on gun control: assault rifles, "cop-killer" bullets, shoulder fired missiles?

Where do we end the compromise of our values. We have already shredded the constitution in terms of civil rights regression, separation of church and state--which scarcely exists...

The problem IS NOT our values. It is ignorance. If the media would honestly report the news, the issues, and our stands, we would NOT lose elections. That is a major part of the problem and where we should start to focus, IMO.

Shouldn't we try to meet them in the middle?

Republicans or Independents who would compromise on a time period for legal abortion? I haven't come across them, that's for sure...

But I've spoken to people over the past few months who told me they're undecided becayse they're "anti-war but pro-life."

I wish I could have told them Kerry would pass some sort of anti-abortion legislation (not completely banning it.)

instead of telling them that, tell them to fucking adopt. they should know that faith without works is dead, so if they feel that way they should already have a passle of foster children running around.

i'm not sure you have any concept of what you just stated. that this is an issue at all is because the rethugs owned the media and drove it down our throats. Abortion has been legal for 30 years, why this year, this election? while we are in a war, and THIS is what matters to them? the largest march ever was the women's reproduction rights march in washington this year almost 1.25 million women. Do you really, REALLY think that Kerry wanted to take a chance on losing that kind of vote for some hypocrites with their heads up their asses?

I put myself in that category as well. I'm against killing.
I think we should stress that abortion is immoral and by educating we actually have less abortions. We need to point out that the mumber of abortions and teen pregnancy INCREASED under Bush*.

They demand that people have the right to make their own decisions in other areas of life but won't allow this?

Everyone has the right to decide what happens as a pregnant woman. If they are against having an abortion then that is their decision and theirs alone. And in most situations nothing will change their mind. It is their right to complete their pregnancy. They have to bear any burden that results from having children by proper planning and consider finances and environment. Even parents in the Middle Ages planned their children by spacing them out. Having children just for the hell of it is irrational.

Those that explore the option of having an abortion do so knowing all of the options available to them. Nothing prevents them from carrying their pregnancy to full term. They are the only ones that will have to live with their conscious if they have an abortion. But if circumstances are such that it is necessary than reduces or has a minimal effect on their life. If they have proper medical care they increase their chances of having children that are planned and a better environment.

Religious beliefs should not be forced on everyone or anyone. That is why they want to prohibit abortion. They consider it a violation of their religous beliefs and nothing more.

Maybe some people do see it as a religious issue, but some don't including myself. I hate religion.

"abortions should be safe, legal, and rare." I agree.

Civil unions: yes Same-sex marriage: no

Or we can keep losing to the Republicans in which case all abortions will be outlawed and gays will have no rights at all.

Choose your poison.

Because a media "exit poll" said so? What about the exit polls saying Kerry won?

I realize that punchcard ballots undercount, but hopefully these will be hand-counted if enough provisional ballots go our way.

No one thing cost us this election, but we didn't do as well in Ohio as we would have if gay-marriage weren't a big issue this year.

How do you know gay marriage was the issue in Ohio? Because CNN told you?

meme. It is a freaking operation mockingbird moral values. NPR is officially dead in my eyes after Nov. 3.

this is a nationwide voting fraud scandal, not just OH. Florida is reeking, Indiana has problems, NC has problems, more and more are coming forward.

OH has a large # of discarded ballots, about 90,000, and spoiled ballots almost always largley dems ballots.

But since you ask, I think that 9/11 lost us the elction. For reasons I cannot fathom, more people trusted Bush on the "war on terror" than trusted Kerry. So Bush won.

The Republican strategy was one that flew entirely under the radar. Karl Rove long ago decided that the only reason Bush lost the 2000 election was because at least 4 million evangelical christians didn't vote. The made a concerted effort to get the "morals" and "family values" initiatives on the ballots in those important states....then he/his team made sure that each and every evangelical church (we're talking over 17,000 of them) told their congregations to go out and vote.

I remember a poster a while back (right after the mass. supreme court decision) who said that, while he supported gay marriage, he felt that it was going to cost us the election. I tend to sympathize with that opinion.

But, I hope that the democratic party does not move away from it's support of rights for everyone.

A civil union is a marriage. If a church doesn't want to preform it then fine, but its the same god damn thing in the eyes of the law. And if a church WANTS to do it, good on them. Do it up.
Where does the line between union/marriage sit? And since when are basic human rights an election strategy?

nt

I believe in parental notification, or in case of parental abuse, judicial approval for an abortion for minors. I don't believe in late term abortion, including partial birth, unless there is a health danger to the mother.

I'm indifferent to gay "marriage" but I do believe in equal rights via "civil unions" with the full rights and responsibilities of marriage (I really don't care whether its called marriage or not).

That's the middle, and that is where the party should be and probably is for the most part.

The Republicans are the extremists but we foolishly keep giving them issues to work with because we get caught up with unimportant things.

We should have had an alternative to gay marriage (civil unions) on the ballot of every state with the ban on it and campaigned for full civil rights understanding that to many people marriage is religious, and campaigned against "marriage" per se.

Let people marry eachother as they see fit. The republicans just have a hangup with regards to anything sexual. Abortion on the other hand is truely about balancing a woman's freedom with a new human life. It is hard to draw the line with abortion, but I can definitely say that both Republicans and Democrats currently have extremist positions. A new democratic position could really help.

Gay marriage exists, gays exist, and the government in a free nation should NOT regulate such things. It is simply none of their business.

On the topic of abortion, the Dems should come out with a better stance on abortion. Making abortions legal up until the birth of a baby is just sick and disgusting. However, for the first 3 months after conception, the fetus does not have brain activity and therefore is not alive by the standards of modern science. If abortions were legal up to 3 months, and then illegal from 3 months onwards (with exceptions for mother's health)... I think that it would be a far more popular position for the Democratic party. Three months should be plenty of time for a woman to decide if she wants to keep an unexpected pregnancy.

It would also be allot harder to claim that abortion before 3 months is murder. Most anti-abortion activists show pictures and tell stories of abortions that were done after 3 months. Of course, these are horrific, as pictures of the aborted fetus look like a mutilated little person. Abortions before 3 months don't necessarily have such nastey pictures and stories.

you're taking a postition.

medical decisions? Why should it not be between me and my doctor?

Ideally the Democrats would have gained control of the House and the Senate.

With Republican control of the White House, Senate, and House, we need to discuss ways to appeal to more voters.

Even if you disagree with me on abortion, please contribute other ways we can broaden our appeal.

Yes, in the early stages of pregnancy, it is an issue of privacy, but in the later stages of pregnancy, another life is involved. At 7 months of pregnancy, for example, there are two lives to consider. If the mother's health is in question, then obviously it should be up to her. However, if this is not the case, then the government must protect the other life involved.

Logically, how can you deny that a baby 5 minutes before birth is not a life protected by the government, while a baby immediately after birth is a life protected by the government? I am not saying that it would be easy to draw the line as to when an abortion is "late-term" or not, but there is a big difference between late-term and early-term abortions.

energy and occupying her body -- and the constitution does not grant any person the right to soak up another person's energy or occupy their body against their will.

Suppose a distant relative is dying of a disease, and the only thing that will save him is for you to be attached to him for nine months, so that your blood will circulate through both of your bodies. At the end of the nine months, you will have to undergo surgery. Not only does this whole procedure put you at risk for a variety of conditions such as incontinence and back problems later in life, but there is also some risk of death involved. And suppose you don't particularly care for this relative. Should the government have the right to force you to undergo this whole procedure? Or should you have the right to say no?

you can not legally elect to abort up until birth..

You either for equality or you're not. And how do you "moderate" your views on abortion? You either think women have a right to decisions over their own body or you don't.

Damn, with dems like this, why don't be all just become rethugs. You want to sell out just like Dems did on the war, the patriot act, tax cuts, etc.

Has it ever occurred to you that THAT is what hurts us? That flip floppy sell out mentality? IT IS. THAT IS THE MAIN PROBLEM WITH THE PARTY.

You know why? Because voters aren't going to vote for wishy washy sissies who won't stick up for what they believe in.

It is not about compromising your values. It is about reevaluated your political positions so that they more accurately match your values. Most Dems oppose later-term abortions, but support a woman's right to choose with regards to early-term abortions. Obviously a woman should not have the right to kill a born baby, so why is it still legal to kill a baby a couple days before it is born?

as anything else.

Can you tell me what precentage of abortions take place before the 16th week? I can tell you. 96%. There is NO SUCH THING as late term abortions except those that take place because the baby has died in utero and other very rare cases.

So called partial birth abortion is extremely rare and just a made up BS problem by the right, who wants to use it as a stepping stone to outlawing abortion.

It's sad that a dem would form opinions about that without doing the homework. Really sad.

My position is clear: if the fetus has brain activity, then it is a living human and must be protected. Therefore, before the fetus has brain activity, abortion is perfectly legal, and once the fetus has brain activity, abortion is illegal. Brain activity is the most objective measure that we currently have for determining if a human is alive.

The fact that most abortions are done within the 16th week is irrelavent to my position. If most murder victims were less than 80 years old, then it wouldn't make any sense for me to be able to go out and shoot 90 year olds. So even if the injustice is rare, it doesn't mean that it should be legal.

Furthermore, with regards to the original topic, the fact that 96% of abortions take place within the first 4 months means that a ban on abortions after 4 months, with exceptions for mother's health, would be widely accepted by Democrats, and it would therefore be a good tool to help win support from swing voters.

You don't know that there ALREADY is a ban on PAB and that many dems voted for it? There has been for about a year now. In fact, it's already being heard in the courts. And guess what? It includes NO exception for the health of the mother (which is why it is in court).

Keep up much?

The purpose of an abortion is to kill the unborn baby. If the baby has already died, you can't kill it. I don't like to state the obvious but I don't know what you meant when you said "There is NO SUCH THING as late term abortions except those that take place because the baby has died in utero and other very rare cases."

Perhaps you intended to say that a dead baby is surgically removed, but I don't think that's ever done in late pregnancy, either. The mother has to wait for labor to start on its own to deliver her dead baby. Doctors don't want to induce labor or perform surgery. It's about preserving the mother's health. It's also tragic. I've known several women who went through this.

I've seen pictures from fundies on the internet of late-term partial birth abortions and it's not a pretty sight. I was in shock for days. Yet, I still support a woman's right to choose at least before the fetus' heart starts beating. It's just not viable before that. It all depends oh when you think life begins. I'm one of those who think life begins when the heart starts circulating wich is around 12 weeks or 3 months.

For the Dem party to come forth and announce a compromise like this would be devastating to the Republican "holier-than-thou" party.

... and it includes no provision for the life of the mother. It passed over a year ago. How devestating was it to rethugs? Sorry folks, you need to keep up more.

the mother. I DO keep up and I AM aware of that law being passed. Thank you.

Usually, you would not want a doctor to do any such thing. Unless you had your airway blocked, in which case you'd be very grateful for a tracheotomy. Open heart surgery and bone marrow transplants are seriously disgusting to look at as well.

while the person having a tracheotomy or open heart surgery usually survives. The very purpose of abortion is killing the baby, while all other medical procedures have the purpose of restoring health/ saving life.

It's good to know I'm not alone. I'm not religious and I don't like to preach about this type of thing, but I really think by changing our position we would represent more people.

when they were voted on.

Abortions dropped under Clinton and increased under *. (There are better ways to control abortion than banning it)
The repugs late term abortion ban could never pass constitutional muster because of the lack of protections for the life of the mother. They had to know this; therefore it was only a cynical ploy to get the fundy and catholic vote. Dems, Clinton, and Kerry would have supported the ban if the mothers health was protected.
These facts should have been hammered into the red states.

...for the mother's health. Who would oppose it? Not the Republicans, as they would never want to be seen opposing a "Ban Late-term Abortion" bill. Democrats would most likely see little problem with it, as long as the definition of late-term was late enough. This could be used to swing voters back to the Dem party.

For pete's sake, rethugs have consistently REFUSED to allow an exception for the mother's health in the legislation.

Where were you the last 10 yrs? This has been debated over and over again in our legislature and the republicans have done exactly what you claim they would never do over and over and over.

Just as the Republicans use tricky titles for their bills, e.g. "The Partiot Act", the Democrats should word their bills the same. It would be a PR nightmare to have commercials stating that a Republican opposed a ban on late-term abortions. THEY DO IT TO THE DEMS! This kind of crap works! Fight fire with fire!

That law has already BEEN PASSED, with support from many dems, and it includes no exception for the health of the mother. It passed over a year ago. Did you miss the ceremony when Bush signed it? A bunch of congressmen standing behind him - not a single woman there.

Where have you been?

PBA and late term abortion are not synonyms. PBA refers specifically to procedure rather than to the timing of the abortion.

The procedure is a D&X..Partial birth abortion is a made up term by the religious right. And again late term procedures of anykind ARE NOT ELECTIVE.

have an exception for the health of the mother, and the Republicans only voted for the one without the exception.

They voted agaisnt the version with the exception.

does not include that exception. Again, this bill is ALREADY law. Was passed and signed by Bush over a year ago.

It is already the case, capeesh? There are, however, exceptions for the mother's health.

the sticking point of the health of the mother exception is whether depression is included.

If a woman can say she is depressed and therefore qualifies for the exception, then the law would be meaningless, because what woman who wants an abortion but can't get one wouldn't be depressed.

That's where the fight over the health of the mother exception has been, and until it's resolved, it will continue to not be a realistic compromise.

And this time they will move so close that you will not be able to stick a knife blade between them.
We will have a one party system that is split in two parts, one playing good cop the other playing bad cop, and the game will continue.
'The real question is whether we move with them and abandon all principles in order to say that we won on for the gipper.
Or go the other way and just give up on politics altogether and let them do what they want with there country.

care more about jobs than so-called "free-trade.'

Slightly more than half the country now opposes the Iraq War.

But the abortion issue is stopping Democrats from getting as many votes as we should.

because the fascists on the right have drug us so far over there we have forgotten what the middle was.

We need to articulate a coherent position on our issues that is moral, rational, and consistent. We should not build a platform that is meant to attract people who will simply never agree with us, and let them go. If we are in the minority, as were moral Germans in 1936, then so be it. We should not succumb to becoming tyrants for the sake of power, and if we cannot execute our will through traditional political channels, we should use civil disobedience to move our society in the right direction.

goddamn. How about we talk a little science and reality again? If there's any abortion that is unnecessary and should be outlawed, it's in the FIRST trimester, NOT the last. Late term abortions are medically necessary, yet they're the ones that are outlawed. Jesus broke the Old Testament Law in favor of tolerance, that was his whole message, love thy neighbor. How about we practice a little tolerance. Use our BRAINS to decide what that means; perhaps not tieing gays to fence posts and not dragging blacks apart limb from limb.

They will just keep making up wedge issues and recycling them every 4 years. We actually are teaching creationism in science class now. The solution is not to compromise on these issues, but to be stronger about what we do believe and why our beliefs are rational, reasonable and right.

Very well said.

Sometimes you have to compromise if you want to win in order to accomplish the goodness of your ideals. They would look like the extremists if we were willing to compromise. Heck, many Republicans don't even follow their own party platform on the issues so why would any our individual candidates have to.

A compromise like this would also make us even more "moral" than them because they don't believe in supporting unwanted children once they're born and they lie about going to war and send off our military to risk their life in an unjust war that ends up killing innicent men, women and children. There are so many things we are more moral on that compromising with your proposal might shake a few religious people away from the neocon stronghold. That and the gay marriage issue are the only issues holding those to the Republican party.

but don't support any abortion regulations, Democrats should cite abortion regulatins they do support to reach "pro-life" people who also consider other issues.

Maybe they should just ask the idiots who voted for Bush on that issue what they got for their vote?
Considering that there have been more abortions, they are going to have to decide whether or not they want someone who is going to pay them lip service in agreeing that they think it should be illegal, or if they actually want to see fewer abortions.

the Republicans say they are "pro-life", it only seems that they are pro-life before a baby is born. They then proceed to not give a shit about it when it actually draws a breath. They certainly don't care about poor children in this country who are hungry or don't have a roof over their heads. And they certainly don't give a shit about the Iraqi children that are being blown to bits. What hypocrites. I don't intend to move one inch toward what they consider the center. If being a liberal democrat makes me a loser, so be it.

And I really don't believe that this election was won or lost over values or gay marriage or abortion. It was stolen, just like the last time.

abortion and gay marriage are two of them

you're either pro-choice or you're not

you're either for gays and lesbians sharing in full civil rights or you're not

this "civil union or marriage" debate is so much crap and it's not a states rights issue

as long as there are nearly 2000 benefits offered by the federal government that a gay couple, not matter if they are legally married in their home state, can't get, then it's a federal issue

Gay marriage, yes. If you support individual freedom, then you are for allowing gays to get married. However, abortion is all about shades of grey. Obviously an abortion at 9 months, of a healthy baby, when the mother's health is not a question, is just plain wrong. However, when the line should be drawn is difficult. My position is to draw it when the fetus has brain activity. That is the best objective measure that science has come up with for detecting life in a human. Now, how much brain activity is a grey issue. There is primitive brain activity at 3 months, but is this any more activity than a brain-dead veggie? So even if you agree that brain activity is the measure to draw the line, there are still shades of grey.

There are already restrictions on abortion. Late term procedures are NOT elective. Medical studies show the fetus can feel no pain and is not sentient until well into the 3rd trimester. If you check information on abortions you will find that most clinics will not perform abortions after 21 weeks, some will up to 24.

Sometimes you have to compromise if you want to win in order to accomplish the goodness of your ideals. They would look like the extremists if we were willing to compromise. Heck, many Republicans don't even follow their own party platform on the issues so why would any our individual candidates have to.

A compromise like this would also make us even more "moral" than them because they don't believe in supporting unwanted children once they're born and they lie about going to war and send off our military to risk their life in an unjust war that ends up killing innicent men, women and children. There are so many things we are more moral on that compromising with your proposal might shake a few religious people away from the neocon stronghold. That and the gay marriage issue are the only issues holding those to the Republican party.

and are doing quite well. Obviously America is not ready yet for gay marriage. Give it time. Both parties advocate civil unions and doesn't that include all the legal benefits of what a marriage would? My family members who are gay have never worried about being married. They just consider themselves married. It's not an issue with them but it does scare them that they are being made a political wedge.

They just aren't legally recongnized outside Massachusetts.

OK, how much time do you think is appropriate?

term "gay marriage"? It's not as if people have been fighting for this cause for decades. How many years has it been since gays lobbied the American Psychiatric Association so successfully that they got the APA to stop considering homosexuality as a disorder?

The first gay marriages within the society of Friends took place approximately two decades ago. I raised the issue in my own meeting 18 years ago, and was married under the care of that that meeting 10 years ago. Yes, it has been decades.

are a relatively small, and often radically left, part of the population. A religious rite doesn't make a marriage legal, either, and no same sex couples got anything like a legal marriage until the Massachusetts court decision and the San Francisco mayor granted them marriage certificates

Also, were those unions blessed by Friends' meetins called marriages or commitment ceremonies? It makes a difference.

but there were a few called something else. Mine was a marriage, as were two others I attended more than two decades ago.

Your initial point, unless I misunderstood it, was not when marriages gained any legal recognition but how long the question of gay marriage had been in the public mind. Issues don't spring full blown into the pubic mind on an identifiable date. The question of marriage - as is the pattern with all such questions - was raised in small circles which gradually broadened over time to the widespread public recognition the issue has today. Marriages were also performed in some Jewish communities, and by Unitarians at least a decade ago.

In addition, many of these sacramental marriages were registered (or attempts were made to register them) with the state - some of them between one and two decades ago.

So, as I indicated before, this issue has been publicly raised for decades. You are correct that there was not legal recognition anywhere until recently - but that legal recognition was the culmination of decades of work not something which sprang up this election cycle.

racial minority rights didn't happen overnight either. The gay marriage issue only came about during this election cycle. It's nothing more than a wedge issue that Republicans used to rally up their base to come out and vote and it worked, didn't it?

on civil unions, if we take that approach, we need to PUSH for civil unions. No ambivalence. We cannot be the party that stomps on people's rights for our own advantage. I can deal with caving on semantics only because I have confidence that civil unions will be a stepping stone as more people come to realize gay people in relationships will not cause the destruction of life as we know it.

On abortion, stepping backwards is a mistake. First, most people are with us on that issue. Second, the proposition doesn't take into account things like serious birth defects that can't be detected that soon. Third, right wing doctors will take advantage of the law to postpone postpone postpone abortions until the three month window is passed. Mark my words, women will be victimized by this.

Instead, the abortion issue needs to be reframed. The single most effective way to reduce the numbers of abortions is to remove the causes. We need to use the data that shows lack of health care is a major reason - let's face it, a single woman on minimum wage with no health benefits cannot afford a $20,000 bill for prenatal care and a hospital stay that may or may not involve a c-section. That's two years of take home pay for some people, it just won't happen. Leave the choice, remove the causes needs to be our mantra.

We need to tie it in with health care, and hammer THAT home as our pro-life agenda. We need some hard data as to how many women would give their kids up for adoption if the medical costs were picked up, and how many people die from not having health coverage - skipping medications, etc. And add in how many kids die from things like corporate pollution, due to cancer and such. We need to aggressively attach the pro-life label to ALL life. On the forums we talk about it regularly. In public discourse, in the debates, our talking heads, it is never mentioned.

Civil unions convey ZERO federal rights. But thanks for being so ready to bargain for my rights. I'll just go sit in the back of the bus while you all work this out.

That's a huge problem, yep.

Come grab a seat up here in the front, I won't have you sitting back there. I'm trying to find a way to push your cause forward despite overwhelming fear and bigotry, I'm not trying to shove you to the back of the bus.

I don't know much about civil rights movements, maybe I need some schooling. Were most rights that people fought for won all in one shot, or by pushing and shoving a bit at a time?

But I've just been through 3 days of having the news media and DUers blame gays for Kerry losing.

I'm overwhelmed with how much we owe to the minorities of all sorts here - blacks, gays, and more. All the crap you all have gone through to fight for your rights, and it seems you all fight even harder than the rest of us for everything else where we ought to be pulling our fair share. Always it's the people that get screwed over the most that give the most. I was going to start a thread on that earlier, but I figured I needed a more eloquent phrase than "screwed over" if I was going to express the thought properly.

A marriage in any state (or country, for that matter) is recognized in every other state. Civil unions convey rights only in the state that created them

You said "I have confidence that civil unions will be a stepping stone".

We are out of time. Just like there can be no stepping stone to a oman's right to choose, we need equal benefits and we need them now. I could care less what you call it, but it's time.

Also as I have said a million times, the exit polls that say moral issues drove the election also said Kerry won.

it's hard to communicate that to "pro-life" people.

Have some gonads! We got almost 50% of the vote. Heck, if fraud is taken in account, we could have gotten just over. What does the Democratic party stand for? We stand for inclusiveness of genders, races, religions, and sexual orientation. We stand for choice. We stand for health care. We stand for a living wage. We stand for conservation and keeping our environment safe. WE are the ones that stand for fiscal responsibility. We provide job growth.

Those who voted for Bush were fooled (except for those super rich types that are selfish) and it's up to us to keep pumping out our message. Yes, it's an uphill battle. Yes, the media has a financial interest in promoting the conservative (really Neo-Con) agenda, but this is our country. This is what we stand for.

There's a divide and conquer mentality going on. Caving in. The Republicans wouldn't do this if they lost and we must not either.

Remain strong and remain vigilant. THAT is our only choice!

Did Kerry or Edwards ever say so?

Dennis Kucinich might support a living wage, but I don't think most Democratic politicians do.

Civil rights for all. Do not cave in.

People generally say "balls", but I say "gonads" because gonads include both testicles and ovaries.

So, yes, civil rights for all! :thumbsup:

:+

And otherwise a science fetishist extraordinaire.
:hi:

gonads are not a pretty sight :P

Well, depending on the man that is. :7

any of them. It's really holding us back from getting the bigot vote.

2004.

We should try to find a moderate position on the issue.

Our next presidential candidate should support civil unions but also support reserving the word "marriage" for a man and a woman in actual legislation.

rights back in the 60s. Too radical, we're losing voters in the south, we should keep a more moderate stance. Perhaps stand up for the right for blacks to vote, but restrict their vote to the value of 3/5s of a white vote.

So sorry I've disturbed you with my desire to be counted as a human being with the rights accorded to other Americans. I'll just go crawl back in my closet now to keep you and the other bigots hiding in the party happy.

Fuck NO. I don't think so.

Many didn't vote because they know nothing will change for them.

vote democratic because they feel the democratic party respects their bodily integrity.

Go ahead. You'll come crawling back.

4 current generations of an actively dem family since the 20s. *poof* GONE

With a new Dem position banning abortions after the 4th month (with exceptions for mother's health), would affect a very small minority of abortions, yet it would make the Dems look far better. So why would a woman prefer to have a Republican party that wants a total ban, as opposed to a Dem party that "Protects life and choice".

This is a nation of extremism! Only the extremem right-wing position wins!

The race is on to see who can transform the Democratic Party into the Republican party first.

You are extremely naive (and I'm being very polite here) if you think that being "just a little less bad" than the other party will ensure that people will vote for you. Go and read the last chapter of "What's the Matter with Kansas" by Thomas Frank.

No, you will lose the endorsement of NOW, Naral, and Planned Parenthood, and the votes of the 1.15 million women and men who showed up for the "March for Women's Lives" in DC last spring, and the votes of the many millions of women who wanted to attend but couldn't afford to. Not only that, but you will also lose any chance of ever getting the votes of the millions of single women who are too disillusioned with the system to vote. If there are lots of single-issue anti-choice voters, there are also lots of single-issue pro-choice voters. But you won't find that out until you try relaxing your position on abortion.

Don't forget that women make up more than 50% of the population.

38% of union members voted for Bush.

If you're going to participate in the dominization of gays and the enslavement of women, I say you should fuck the workers too. Think of the ads we can run with all the corporate money we'll get!

Wage slavery has happened in the USA before. We cannot let it happen again.

Winning is the only thing that matters.

Don't you get it? This thread is about tossing our principles aside!

Our platform will be most successfull if it calls for the imprisonment of sexual minorities, the enslavement of women's wombs, and the principle that capital owns labor.

We should just demand voting machines that can add correctly and verifiably.

Also, we should point out to the idiots who vote on "social" issues (anti-gay rights, anti-abortion) that what they get is actually tax cuts and Social Security privatization.

"who vote on "social" issues (anti-gay rights, anti-abortion) that what they get is actually tax cuts and Social Security privatization,"

then how will we get that through to them in the next election?

Exit polls?

"moral issues."

that 1 in 5 who believe in a total ban on abortion voted for Kerry.

And 1 in 5 who believe in choice voted for Bush.

Conclusion?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=962455&mesg_id=962455

Meanwhile, good luck with your exhortation to endorse discrimination because that is exactly what you are suggesting.

It's a groundbreaking analysis of the Republican's bait-and-switch: run on social issues, but deliver financial issues (to elites).

equal rights for all Americans and a woman's right to control her own womb?

I don't recall anyone trying to explain it. I remember a lot of soft-shoe tiptoing around the issues in an effort to "moderate" the message.

Don't you realize it's the lack of steadfast adherence to principles that is the ultimate "values" issue?

our core values in the Democratic Party. Seems too many are trying to sell us down the river.

Support neither.

Stand up for the separation between church and state. a la:

"Marriage is a religious sacrament, so a secular government has no business recognizing a religious rite. Civil Unions for gays and Marriage for straights would create a 'separate but equal' system in the law. Therefore, I support shared living agreements, where by the government recognizes and dissolves a social agreement, a binding contract, between people that encourages people to live together, enabling them to care for each other and their families and encouraging our society to be more efficient."

There. It's so common sense and out of left field that the fundies will never see it coming. Suddenly, we have jumped out of Republican framing of the issue, AND taken the "gay" and the "sex" out of the issue all together. Instead, we have turned the issue into a way of arguing for secular government and the separation of church and state. When battling theocrats who have been eroding the wall, these are the arguments that must be had. This forces the country to consider the real issue/value here: freedom of religion. If the Republicans oppose us, then we should point out that they may have morals, but they have no principles/ethics, which are more important in maintaining a peaceful and civil society and respecting the rights and liberties of all people.

the thing that really bothers me is how some people seem to think that it's no big deal to have a baby and go through nine months of pregnancy. Even when you are looking forward to that little bundle of joy, you have to experience discomfort and possible health problems ranging from high blood pressure through scads of potential life threatening health problems. It's one thing to face toxemia when you are choosing colors for the nursery and quite another when you never wanted to be there in the first place. Keep in mind too that these same people are also going after birth control.

Trying to be Republicans light has deeply hurt our party.

We don't need to change our positions, just to change the way we talk about them.

I'm not advocating Republican-lite.

was happening, if someone came along and said, maybe we should be more moderate about this. Let's compromise.

We are talking about basic human rights here. There is no middle!

Should the Democratic Party change their fundamental beliefs and move to the right because of the extreme ideals the Republicans currently represent? I thought we all shared most of the same fundamental concerns in this party. I have watched my religion being hijacked by a bunch of radicals who don't give a rat's ass about the poor, the minorities, gays, murder, etc. They yell and scream Jesus but behave in just the opposite manner.

We can't change our core beliefs regarding equality and civil rights for EVERYBODY. I am pro-choice - keep the government out of the lives of women and provide education and tools to prevent pregnancy and STD's. As we know, the abortion rate would decrease, we could make it decrease more. It's not my place to critically judge or oppose same sex marriage, why shouldn't they have the same rights that I have?

The current Democratic Party has moved to the center, we need to stand up and not be ashamed to call the hypocrites out for their unchristian behavior. They are trying to turn back the hands of time - we fought for civil rights once and we need to do it again.

We were the party that respected all religious beliefs, as well as non-believers.


This article sums up how I am currently feeling better than anything I have read yet.

No Longer a Christian

-snip-

The solutions to the social issues used to manipulate good, decent people have no resemblance to how Jesus responded to the social concerns of his time. He never once mentioned the “right to life” the year he was born King Herod ordered the execution of all babies. (Matthew 2:16). He knew that passing laws does not change the heart. As a follower of his teaching I believe in the right to life, including the children in Iraq who stumble onto land mines, cross the street at the wrong time, or who are snuggly tucked within the warm bellies of their wounded or grieving mothers as US fighter jets fly overhead. These are living, breathing children. The killing of these little ones are never even reported, and our tax dollars pay for these bombs. I believe in the right to life for those in the United States who are unwanted and impoverished. I believe in the right to life of the naive kid who was promised by the recruiter they could choose a desk job and still get their education paid or could see the world or could accelerate their life or could play a very realistic video game from a cockpit.

I've worked at a shelter, and I know first hand the reality of unwanted children. I know the reality of this right wing rhetoric when week after week I begged and pleaded with people to give up only one night every three months to sit with these unwanted living children for a few hours while the overworked house parents had a night off. Of the few I found, many changed their minds when they discovered that they would need to wear rubber gloves to change the babies diapers. These “believers” stand on the street corners holding right to life signs and then vote against medical assistance for the mothers and their unwanted children creating an impossible existence for them. The few of these abortion activists who might adopt some of these unwanted children generally want the white and the healthy. The ones withhydrocephaluss, tracheotomies, emotional/ mental problems and communicable diseases along with their life long medical expenses can be someone else’s problems.

-snip-

Who will show the face of Christ to the world? Who will speak His radical message? I hear from these so called imitators of Christ that the pacifists are a collection of kids, hippies, socialists and communists who haven’t got a clue. Some of us, however, have come to our beliefs as a result of careful and prayerful study of the scriptures and admonishment from our elders. Many are Mennonite, Amish, Quaker and other Anabaptists, whose ancestors did not resist their torturers and were drowned, burnt at the stake and flogged for their pacifist stand. They truly followed the example of Christ, and their resistance against the catastrophic effects of the merging of church and state cost them a great price. Churches today have signed onto the government plan and have agreed to look the other way in exchange for tax free privileges. The true message of Christ still exists to some degree in the quiet of the land to peacemakers, but sadly these good people have been deceived by the angry words from a righteous sounding religious media majority broadcasting in cars and trucks and tractors all over our land ironically preaching the “good news of war for peace“ and convincing 24-7 “liberal“ bashing. I suspect there are many who share my sorrow at the loss of what it means to be Christ-like, but our voice is seldom heard. The blaring rhetoric drowns out the still small voice of the mighty God. Peace used be the opposite of war, Conservative used to mean the tendency to conserve resources. Liberal used to mean kind and generous, and Christian used to mean like Christ.

So I am no longer a christian but just a person who continues trying to follow the example of Christ. I’ll let him call me what he wants when I see him face to face. Until then, I will pray that someday people like me will be able to reclaim the meaning of Christ’s identity, and the world will see the effects of the radical message of Christ‘s love--the perfect love that casts out fear

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1025-25.htm

slavery when he ran in 1860.

In retrospect, you can say that Lincoln should have opposed slavery everywhere in 1860, but he didn't.

eom

*Obviously* we can't win elections by being Democrats. Since winning elections is all that matters, shouldn't we join the winning side so we will be able to congratulate each other every few years on our new winning tactic?

women's rights, why don't you just join the Republican party? I would say, good riddance.

This thread is making me incredibly furious. Bad enough facing bigotry from the repukes.

That's why I said, "yeah", meaning, "I agree completely". I should have made it clearer.

lately.

Damn this notion makes me so fucking mad I can't see straight.

The majority of DUers seem to be solidly pro-choice.

BTW, on re-reading my message, I realized that it did appear as though it might be directed at you. It's not that you're not seeing straight. I tend to do this sort of thing a lot; I should be more careful.

consumer rights, etc.

and that of millions of others if you try to sell my human rights down the river.

--about 'social' issues. As Thomas Frank keeps pointing out, if we just go along with only wussy objections to the corporate screwing of middle and low income people, and social issues are the only things that distinguish the parties, why should they not vote for the party that is with them on at least some things?

my friend YOU ALREADY ARE A REPUBLICAN

If you had told me I'd be reading this shit on DU when I joined 2 years ago, I would have laughed in your face. This place is getting unbearable...yeah, fuck my rights, let me turn my body and my life over to the fucking US government so Dems can win an election.

Fuck that.

I can't stand to read this stuff anymore, I really can't.

Kerry lost. We lost Senate seats. We lost House seats.

If you disagree with me about abortion, fine, but what SHOULD we do to win?

nt

mods deleting in 3..2..

But I'm not fucking sorry.

its about language. Abortion should be safe, legal and rare as Clinton said. We need to do more as a society to reduce unwanted pregnancies.

in the debates, instead of his vague speech about not imposing his faith on anyone.

"Abortion should be safe, legal and rare" is probably Clinton's greatest quote.

http://a9.g.akamai.net/7/9/8082/v002/www.democrats.org/pdfs/2004platform.pdf

The quote is down towards the bottom.

The DNC just doeasn't know how to get the word out about the issues. We all know what needs to be said on dozens of issues--how come they never get it?

of explaining our positions. We don't need to change them.

The radical right has done a good job in grabbing the conversation. They've controlled the terminology, they've controlled how things like gay rights and abortion are discussed.

We need to change the context, and change the way these issues are talked about. That will require listening to them, and then using their own arguments to bolster ours.

We do not need to capitulate to bigotry and misogyny. We need to explain why these rights are important to ALL Americans.

phrasing isn't enough.

We need to be able to show something our candidate actually did about abortion.

fewer abortions via better birth control, real sex education and better financial care for those who would otherwise be willing to carry a pg to term. Not to mention support for adoptions.

We DO NOT make abortions illegal, forcing women to cede control of their own bodies to the government and to see dangerous, lethal, back-alley abortions once again.

And those "pro-life" people? Let's start by expanding the conversation. Life doesn't end at birth.

...your question, too.

The moment a national candidate embraces these positions, the moment I stop voting or vote green instead.

about their hypocrisy in saying they advocate pro-life when they really aren't.

1. If life to them begins at conception and they consider it murder, then why do they find exception in the cases of rape, incest or the life of the mother?

2. Why do they advocate capital punishment?

3. Why do they worry about abortion issues but at the same time do not raise their voices about innocent women and children dying in wars as well as our soldiers for an unjust war that the electorate was lied to about?

4. Why will they advocate discarding embryos after artificial means but not permit those very same discarded embryos to be used for stem-cell research?

We need to hammer on the Republican party about these issues until they give us an answer. This will put them on the defensive and cause the Christian right to question the rationale of their own choices.

Any other suggestions?

Yet another straight male who thinks he has all the answers. Need I say anymore?

If I am going to give up my beliefs, I might as well just register as one of them.

NO. Let them come over to our side. I will not give up on civil rights. What if people had compromised on civil rights in the south in the 60's, and said "Well, what if we just give up on equal rights for negroes?" NO.

Right is right.

is not rigged. We can discuss the details of policy when we've won the war on these Rethuglicans.

it just doesn't seem liek it becuase the far right has so much sway.

The reason we can't move even more rightward becuase dems are already in danger of selling out our own base. Becuase that is the only thing that will satisfy a lot of these people who voted for Bush on these issues. And then the conservatives won't even have to run to win.

IF we really want to win but not sell out, we need to get people to understand WHY supporting gay marriage and making abortions safe, legal and RARE are the moral choices and the correct ones.

we got our own values. And they don't depend on creating misery for the other people, an advantage the republicans lack. maybe we should concentrate on that instead

clarify what they believe in, and find a better way to market it to the American people in a nonstop manner. The 2006 and 2008 campaigns begin NOW.

Remember: 48%+ of the American people voted for a _known Liberal_!!

Do NOT sell women up a river to a group of thugs who will not even protect pregnant women's HEALTH (ref: 'partial birth abortion' law that just passed) and who are going after birth control pills, claiming that they cause abortion!

Gee, Dem Party, you are welcome for the pro-choice support throughout the years.

I am not going to sell out my gay friends, either. And do not think for a minute that civil unions are not a target ... these people do not want gay people to EXIST. (think: the ex-gay movement).

The right wing has been staunch in their beliefs for decades and it is paying off big time. Why not suggest *that* instead of selling off whole groups of people to the lowest bidder?

like the repugs do. they are not about to kill abortion, it's to good of an issue to lose for the next election. oh they will fiddle with it, and make it harder to get too.

but it will be around to beat up on next election.

Therefore, Dems represent women's rights and GLBT rights.. not just comsumer, workers, immmigrant, etc. rights.
I agree that semantics should not stand in the way of civil unions for GLBT individuals. I would much rather expend energy fighting for civil unions than squabble over the definition of the word "marriage." And I propose no stipulations on abortion. If ya want it, ya want it. End of story. Lets not set up complex rules on who does or does not deserve the procedure - verging into welfare territory with the worthy/unworthy classifications there. As long as Dems are the ones supporting gays and abortion rights, we will not be seen as the party of morals because in simplistic minds, religion = morality. Republican is the party of religion, and thus the party of morals. What we really need to do, as progressives and as Dems, is to both insist on these rights unwaveringly and build a strengthened coalition that once and for all accepts the fact that women and GLBT issues are a central part of the Dem party. It's just the way it is.

In the business world, there is the essential task of knowing your customer. An organization builds its strength upon knowing which groups to appeal to, and how to best target them. The Dems need to take a very clear, very firm stand on issues, just as the Repubs have done. That means that once the position is decided upon, the message is drummed home ad nauseum until there is not one doubt about the intent of the party and the people it represents. I'm not sure that we have such a clarity of vision, and it may be this uncertainty that most hurts the party.

it's gotta be in tiny pieces by now.

you mean kiss their collective asses---those goddamn Holy than Thous, no sir I wont go along with that. Better a Revolution!

we need to realize that things are going to be very, very different as time goes on. Even the 2006 congressional and senate races will be run on issues that people care about at that time. If Iraq goes down the path to civil war and massive US military losses, if Bushco decides to invade another mid-eastern country, if Bush reinstitutes the draft, if the economy continues downward for middle-class Americans, we may not even be talking about gay rights or abortion.

Abortion and/or gay rights will be issues, of course, if Shrub manages to get Roe v. Wade overturned and/or some even worse discrimination against gays is seen as going over the line by most voters.

IMO, anyway.

You call abortion illegal after 3 months unless the life of the mother is at stake fucking MODERATE?????

Do you realize that some women do not even know they are pregant until after the third month? Do you realize some women's babies die in their womb after the third month? Do you realize that some woman find out their babies don't have a fucking brain after the third month? Do you realize that some women are the victims of insest and may not seek help until after the third month?

Have you ever fucking READ Roe v. Wade? That legal decision IS moderate, if you'd ever bothered to find out what it is REALLY about.

This woman and lifelong Dem would bolt the party faster than you can say GOP WHORE if my party were to pull that crap.

I should also add, do you know there are GOP women voters who vote with Dems on the choice issue? And that issue alone? You wanna toss THOSE voters out so you can get a few of your "pro-life" voters???

Just like they are on most everything else. The problem is that the right has an effective propaganda machine devoted to making people think otherwise.

disrupt. This strategy must have been planned long ago. It can't be a coincidence that they're all showing up now. Divide and conquer, it's as old as Gengis Kahn.

I have to admire the tremendous length of time that Eric J must have been lying under cover, waiting until the election was stolen to come and finish us off.