Oh God! The Gay Marriage Ruling Is Likely To Help Bush in '04.

Please don't get me wrong. I'm not gay, but I'm not homophobic either. I'm just thinking that this decision is bad, bad timing politically. How many assholes will seize on this to boost Bush? In other words, for all the trouble in Iraq, the economy etc, a lot of people will think this is more important. I have no problem with the decision. I just wish it had occurred after the '04 election. Now the democratic hopefuls will be asked to give an opinion on the decision. Woe is us.

And this is not to say that the court should have ruled the other way because of the timing of it. I'm just lamenting the fact that we (the democratic) party are going to get an awful backlash from this one. Especially when you consider the other rulings lately about the ten commandments, etc.

People will always say it's not the time now. That the GOP will use it against us.

If we keep thinking like that we'll never actually progress on anything. We shouldn't be afraid to take on the right wing and win.

anything? I guess I'm glad it happened with a year to go instead of happening with two months to go.

When, in the past three years, has there been a "correct" time for a gay marriage ruling?

Are we to wait until the entire GOP is on vacation, and then sneak it in under the cover of darkness?

If we can't take the gay rights fight directly to the American people, and show them that this isn't an issue that negatively impacts them - then we should win.

If we don't even try - we WILL lose.

we need SOMETHING to distinguish ourselves as the opposition.

When, in the past three years, has there been a "correct" time for a gay marriage ruling?

Absolutely! If I were gay and in love, this decision would be too long in coming. Since when do we hesitate in extending equal rights to all people? Honestly, some things are too important to be judged against how many votes are gained or lost.

And really... do you think for one second that Republicans would hesitate in passing a law giving everyone the absolute right to own a fleet of anti-aircraft missiles and to store them in a shed in the back yard just because it might lose them votes?

Do it because "they" would damned well do it for their issues, but most of all do it because it's the right thing to do.

It's a good thing this happened.

I agree the GOP will try to make it an issue. But it also gives the Democrats an opportunity to stake out a position on gay marriage once and for all.

Why not advance the idea of civil unions first. Let people get use to that idea and then push for marriage.

and let them get used to the idea of not having any of the myriad of federal protections they now enjoy.

I think MA is more than ready for same-sex marriage. My state, CA, is almost ready. If we can get parity in public opinion, that's a hell of lot better than as with most social progress. Integration, inter-racial marriage, etc., has far LESS support than does same-sex marriage today.

to define marriage, it certainly will hurt the dems to publicly oppose it. MOST Americans, by far, are opposed to gay marriage. This issue could easily push moderates and independents to the right.

for a political advantage! :eyes: I honestly think this will no way hurt the democrats, after all it wasn't the democrats who made this decision.

during the civil rights struggle of the 60's. I think we need to stop being afraid of our RW foes and take the fight to them, just like we did back then.

on civil rights in the 60's. Unfortunately, it was the democratic party that was the obstructionist party on civil rights back then.

you're in for a big surprise. I would be willing to bet that most democrats and moderates oppose gay marriage. This isn't the time. Our number one priority has to be getting bush the hell out of office. This won't help that cause.

'nuff said.

(n/t)

weve got war, a bad economy, unemployment, jobs fleeing the country like rats on a sinking ship etc. and the GOP is getting their knickers in a twist over two men/women getting married?

hows that going to play?

shows some really messed up priorities if you ask me, and the swing voters (not the one-issue fundie voters).

edit: cause i cant spell.

Like gay marriage, flag burning & abortion...

I say we dismiss them completely. Firmly say that it's manufactured to divide us & leave it at that. When pressed, just say you won't take the bait. If someone feels so strongly about it, they can join a special interest group.

...for dismissing my life completely. Glad to know where I finally stand: I exist as nothing but a "special interest."

Hear this, understand it, accept it, and deal with it: Gay rights is NOT a wedge issue to gay PEOPLE, nor to the hets who love and support us.

We are not "issues."

We are not "wedge issues."

We are not a "special interest group."

We do not spend our nights lying awake trying to "manufacture" ways to further divide an already fractured nation.

We are not "bait."

We are people. We love and hate and laugh and cry and live and die with at least as much passion as you do.

Unfortunately, you've just reminded me that not everyone understands that yet. And failing to see us as real human beings is exactly the issue here: We are dehumanized precisely because of such "dismissals" as yours.

Of all the posts I've read today, you win the prize for slicing me right to the bone. You hurt me, buddy, personally.

Next time you so blithely "dismiss" us, do you think you could use a LITTLE more TACT next time?

doesn't really care right now about 2004.People should never have to wait for the so-called right time to get equal rights,and if that hurts us then so be it.

But thanks to all the Republic vibes,
I guess the Fab Five (Queer Eye) will be registering as Democrats.
And they can bring their entire audience along as well.
Y'all come vote now.

cause this will embolden O'Reilly, Limbaugh, etc....

:eyes:

a gay woman i work with was CRYING with JOY when i told her the news. guess now i'll have to print this post and take it up to her and explain that the RW won't like this one bit so we must take this away from her.

:eyes: x onefuckingthousand :eyes:

we stop testing the temperature. We should be the one that setting it and cranking up the heat on this.

http://www.house.gov/frank/samesexamendment2003.html
.... snip
When asked by Bernard Shaw to state a position on the subject of same-sex couples, Vice Presidential candidate Dick Cheney responded as follows:

“This is a tough one, Bernie. The fact of the matter is we live in a free society, and freedom means freedom for everybody. We don’t get to choose, and shouldn’t be able to choose and say, ‘You get to live free, but you don’t.’ And I think that means that people should be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to enter into. It’s really no one else’s business in terms of trying to regulate or prohibit behavior in that regard.

The next step, then, of course, is the question you ask of whether or not there ought to be some kind of official sanction, if you will, of the relationship, or if these relationships should be treated the same way a conventional marriage is. That’s a tougher problem. That’s not a slam dunk.

I think the fact of the matter, of course, is that matter is regulated by the states. I Think different states are likely to come to different conclusions, and that’s appropriate. I don’t think there should necessarily be a federal policy in this area.

I try to be open-minded about it as much as I can, and tolerant of those relationships.
And like Joe Lieberman, I also wrestle with the extent to which there ought to be legal sanction
of those relationships. I think we ought to do everything we can to tolerate and
accommodate whatever kind of relationships people want to enter into.”

...this ruling should have happened years ago!!!

I guess some people can put equal rights on the back burner. I cannot. For me equal rights is always #1 or #2. I guess it is easier to push aside when it does not affect you directly.

Why should same-sex couples settle for a civil union? This is not-even "separate but equal". Why should we ask that certain citizens forgo their right to equal protection under the law?

Why should I forgo my beliefs in order to win a political contest? What is right is not always popular. If you can't handle the backlash, then you better change your views. I can tell you that if the Dems choose to sideline gay rights in order to win the election, there will be another kind of backlash.

I'm sorry, I'm just really offended by this suggestion.

...saying for years.

I guess it is easier to push aside when it does not affect you directly.

No truer words have ever been spoken.

It is very true. Sappho and I have been fighting for years to get the PPIA passed, but not many people (even in the queer community) gives a rat's whisker because it DOESN'T AFFECT THEM.

I think it is about time that straight people who are opposed to same sex marriage need to sit back and shut the fuck up. It DOESN'T AFFECT THEM. It affects us QUEERS.

I am very in love with Sapphocrat. I would do anything for the woman. I would walk to the ends of the earth to be with her. MY feelings for her are no different than what a straight person feels for their lover. I am so sick to death of straight people (on both sides of the political fence) telling me my relationship isn't valid because it is a same sex one.

People need to get the hell out of bedrooms and begin to realize that if DoMA wasn't made into law and we had the right the marry, that this wouldn't be an ISSUE now. Dems as well as repukes made DoMA possible and it is about damn fucking time they took the blame for their actions as well.

Flame me all you want, but I warn you, if you do, it is YOU who will be the one looking like a fool, not me.

On edit when I feel so strongly about something my fingers tend to type faster than my thoughts.

and gay marriage. That is why they will portray Dean as supportive of gay marriage.

ALL the candidates support civil unions so it would be used against ANY of them no matter which one comes out of Boston. Say it to yourself until you understand that.

There is a difference, even if only in perception.

...see the difference between civil unions and marriage, so why shouldn't we have equality right across the board? Why should we be made to put up with civil unions.

I can just see it now. I am on the phone to my family back in Australia, I am telling them I am getting civil unionized with Sapphocrat next week. Real good that is.

You all said it ,

w/ the economy (think deficet)
w/ the problems in Iraq
etc.
with all the problems in the world bush and
the repukes are going to focuss on this ???

Looks the American people are sick of the negativity
of this Administration , (FEAR, HATE, FEAR, HATE )

Let's face it , It's a real turn off .

Americans being very fickle , Will Not
Appreciate the repukes focussing on
something like this .

Mark My Words . The Time Is Now !
If Not Now When ? If Not Us Who ?

I will not stand by and allow this to fall to my
Children . I will not be looked back upon with
disdain .

How I hate to read any thing that starts off with "Some of my best friends are **insert minority group here** but I just don't think now is the time for **insert same minority group here** to receive **insert basic civil rights here**."

Of course you ARENT GAY because if you were you would be thrilled to death that you and your partner can finally be granted the same basic rights as your heterosexual neighbor.

And you don't have to be homophobic (ie abnormal fear of homosexuals) to not want them to receive their rights, you only have to be homoprejudiced (ie judge homosexuals prematurely and irrationally because of a preconceived preference or idea).

Gay marriage is about one thing: granting all individuals the same rights. It is NOT about religion, a "social interest group", or the 2004 election.

It is sad that people continue to politisize this issue. The idiots who will vote for bush because he will ban "gay marriage" even though some of his "best friends are gay" should go over to the dark side--Bush needs some support on some of his other anti-human rights agenda.

The fools who will cry over this issue coming up because it may hurt democrats need to remember what democracy is about: Majority rule WITH minority rights. If a law that the majority supports will harm the minority then it is not a valid law. Didn't we learn anything during the civil rights movement?

*stepping off the soapbox and back into obscurity*

You basically said everything that was on my mind.

it's bad timing in terms of the '04 election. And yes, it should have happened years ago. Don't mistake my meaning. In no way did I say it shouldn't have been done. It will effect the '04 election for a lot of fence sitters. Maybe you guys are right and I shouldn't have raised the issue. I agree it's more important in theory to gain civil rights than to defeat Bush. Even if Bush has been successful in dismantling our constitution.

Take your anger elsewhere. I never started out with the some of myn best friends are gay and its disingenous of you to suggest that.

But you said you would rather have this ruling come out after the 2004 election.

should have been delayed. Look, if you all think it won't effect the election, then fine. I'm still hoping that it won't. But an effort to paint me as anti-gay is your prerogative I quess. I never thought that I was, but from listening to you all, maybe I'm a flaming homophobe. I will meditate over it. As I said, at least the true homophobes have a year to get over it rather than two months.

personally, I don't know you well enough to determine if you're anti-gay or not. I do think it is important for people to realize what may be a minor issue to some affects every moment of every day of someone else's life. We may all be guilty of this. I support the rights of the disabled, but I'm not disabled, and I can in no way profess a full understanding of the everyday issues a disabled American faces.

actually, I believe civil unions/gay rights will be an issue in the 2004 election regardless of the MA Supreme Court. It's one of the positive stances Dems are taking that distinguishes from Repugs. This actually puts the Repugs in a delicate situation--how to reconcile the conservative view with that of more moderate Repugs. If they come out in support or against gay rights, they will have to face their own angry constituents. imho, gay rights on the agenda can only be a winner for us.

gay marriage, and so is almost all of the swing vote. About 70% of Americans are against Gay Marriage. Since Democrats are only about 35% of the electorate, and since Democrats support gay marriage, that means that just about everybody else is opposed to it. The Reps can oppose it and win great support form their base and make the center happy. A Dem that supports gay marriage will be in trouble with this electorate, except in a few safe areas. Sorry, but those are the facts.

I didn't say you said you wish it would be delayed, but you did say you would rather have this come after the 2004 election.

please place the words bi-ethnic couple/marriage in every place you put same-sex or gay....

read it that way - then tell people of color to take their anger elsewhere?

you had the option to say, oops, you stated wrong. versus "don't get me wrong."


i waited, worked and fought for equality for thirty years. what's it to wait till long after i'm dead, ya?

What is the difference between saying "I'm not gay, but I'm not homophobic" and saying "Yes, I am mindful that we're all sinners. And I caution those who may try to take the speck out of the neighbor's eye when they've got a log in their own.I think it's very important for our society to respect each individual, to welcome those with good hearts, to be a welcoming country." (Bubba Bush 7/30/2003)

THEN HERE COMES THE BUT:

Lets not talk about it now. Lets leave it alone. Lets allow gays and lesbians to be slighted for being in love. Lets sign a bill codifying "marriage" even though we've already signed several. Lets complain when bills codifying marriage FOR homosexuals comes about. Lets put our heads in the sand while the rest of the world acknowledges homosexuals as worthy of human rights.

If you believe in civil rights then you should always believe in them, not only when it is convenient for politicians.

some help for that. My words have failed me. I never said it should have been delayed. I wish I had said I wish it had been done before Bush got into office. Maybe then people wouldn't try to paint me as anti-gay. It's your prerogative though. I should have been more careful with what I was trying to say.

Why don't you stick around a little more before you start calling people hypocrits. Perhaps I was wrong to speculate over the irony that having Bush elected would result in all of us losing civil rights.

My appologies to all of you. It was not bad timing at all for '04. You have made me see the error of my ways.

thank you.
but is it really that repulsive to you to just humbly say:
"I should have been more careful with what I was trying to say."


how peacemaking it would be for us all to be able to say that more often.

Look. I'm not trying to fight anybody here, but I suspect this conversation shows that it will become a national issue. I just wish I had kept my mouth shut. I don't like the attitude that because I remarked on this that it means I'm anti-gay. I think that was extreme on the part of my detractors.

you said sorry, then you kept justifying.
like right there.

is called face-saving behavior.

no worry.

mr dean took care of your worry, quite brilliantly, i must say. and i wasn't a supporter of any specific candidate, yet.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=733831

let yourself be contrite and find peace.

we all have to do it.

...you are actually shitting on todays remarkable ruling, and shitting on every queer as a person.

And obviously you don't hold faith in your party if you believe todays ruling will help Bush* next year. Some dem you are. Shit on queers and your party at the same time.

It was the wrong time before the 2002 elections. It was the wrong time before the 2000 elections. It was the wrong time...

Are you beginning to see a pattern here?

Let's see, what was it everybody said when Clinton finally caved in on "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"? It was the wrong time. Americans weren't ready yet.

I was 22 years old before I ever saw an openly gay U.S. congressman -- and before they stopped calling it "the gay cancer" and started calling it "AIDS."

I was 29 before lesbians and gay men were finally included in national hate-crimes statistics.

I was 30 before the first publicly-held company in America extended domestic-partnership benefits to queers.

I was 32 before I saw passage of a state law to protect gay youth against hate crimes in public schools.

I was 33 before I saw the appointment of an openly gay federal judge.

I was 34 when Clinton signed an executive order prohibiting the denial of federal security clearance on the basis of homosexuality.

And then I turned 35 -- and watched the passage of DoMA, the defeat of ENDA, and the death of any hope for marriage rights in Hawaii.

But at least I got to see Ellen come out on TV.

I am 42 years old now, and my country just told me that, whether the rest of the nation likes it or not, I can no longer be arrested for making love to my partner. Big damned deal, AFAIC. I'm more concerned about my right to see my partner if she's in the hospital, and her right to govern our business affairs if I die. I really never gave a damn if I was violating some stupid state law by getting laid in a Texas motel room. Besides, sodomy laws applied to heterosexuals as well as homosexuals. Lawrence v. Texas wasn't a "gay victory" -- YOU won, too.

All I want is to have the same rights you do. That's all. Not more, but never less.

Exactly how long do you want me to wait before I'm equal to you in the eyes of the law? When do you think it would be a "good time" for me to go begging, hat in hand, for the rights promised to me by the Constitution of the United States?

When? When will it be a "good time"? That's a real question, because I certainly don't know.

Don't you see why I can't wait any more? My life is already more than half-over. And at this rate -- and with all the hand-wringing over "the right time," it will never be "the right time."

"The right time"? How about supporting a cause simply because it is the right thing to do?

welcome to d.u.!

all people need to remember is that equal rights are not special rights. end of argument.

You are the first person on DU today to make me smile:

How I hate to read any thing that starts off with "Some of my best friends are **insert minority group here** but I just don't think now is the time for **insert same minority group here** to receive **insert basic civil rights here**."

If you do a search through the archives on my name and almost anything having to do with gay rights, you'll see why that sentence sounds so familiar to me. :)

And... Welcome to DU! What a time to jump in! Glad to see you here -- stay OUT of obscurity. :hi:

Do nothing.

In systems analysis we are taught that this is actually the first choice to be explored.

There's no reason to push gay marriage right this instant or any time for the next two or three years. Wait for Canada. Wait for the Anglicans.

Think about it in 2007 after the Canadians, Dutch, Belgiums and others have cleared the underbrush.

If a fundie comes up in your face and asks "are you for or against gay marriage" the correct answer is "I don't have enough information to answer that question".

"I don't have enough information to answer that question".

Do you honestly believe that if any of our candidates were asked if they are for or against gay marriage and gave that answer it would be acceptable?

Gays will go to the SCOTUS to get the state DOMAs overturned. To prevent this the Reps have ALREADY introduced the Federal Marriage Amendment. The Reps are almost certain to bring the FMA up for a vote next year. Dems will have to vote on it. We can't simply duck.

...So if the full "marriage" thing doesn't go through, Romney will still probably sign a civil union law. And by doing so, will neutralize the reactionary right's ability to use that issue against Dean, should he be the nominee.

Everyone is so damned worry to take a principled stand for fear it might have some political fallout.

You know what? It probably will. The conservative fundies are probably wailing right now that "BABY JESUS IS WEEPING IN HEAVEN!!!!" while most democrats inclunding goodly portion of moderate democrats are saying what the fuck is the big deal.


I mean really, does anyone believe the way to take this country back is the DLC method of trying to woo a fraction of on the fence republicans to vote for a democrat?

It's this entire attitude that we have to be the milquetoast party without principles that is hurting us.

ahead. I appologize.

There's one thing the American public cares more about than its continuing predisposition to homophobia -- money.

Jobs, economy, the cost of iraq will be more important.

guns, affirmative action, economy, war, and also gay rights, there are some people to whom it will be either an overriding issue, or it will be the deciding issue. For those people it will be the thing that makes them vote one way or another. Gay marriage is a "hot button" issue of the cultural war. If it move 5% of the electorate against us, how will that impact us?

All issues operate on a percentage. No issue is ever an absolute for the entire electorate, and every issue is an absolute for somebody.

who didn't express utter disgust at the idea of gay marriage.
This includes people I know who are otherwise open-minded and liberal on most every other issue.

Some form of gay rights such as a civil union of some sort would be more acceptable. But for 99% of the people out there the very idea of gay marriage is just repulsive with capitial R. The gay marrige issue would severely cripple any democratic candidate's to beat Bush if they support it. Let's not go down that road.

There are people dying in Iraq and people losing their jobs here at home. These are much more pressing issues then whether a gay person should be allowed to marry. I'm not homophobic, but I feel that gays ought to think about the well-being of others much less fortunate than themselves.

No, you are not homophobic, you are homoprejudiced, who probably enjoys (or will someday enjoy) the hundreds of rights a heterosexual will enjoy as a married person while I worry that if my spouse is in a life threatening situation will I be allowed to enter the hospital room (much less make decesions for her).

It isn't enough that I cannot provide health coverage or other employee related perks that my cubicle buddies enjoy, but you must then tell me that I must think about the well being of my friends (who may or may not care about my feelings) before the good of myself.

Maybe you should sit down with a homosexual so you can meet someone who isn't utterly disgusted about homosexual marriage--preferably someone who has been denied telling their loved one goodbye because "friends aren't allowed in intensive care" or one who has lost their child because of their relationship. Better, yet, visit the gravesite of Matthew Shepherd who was murdered because of one aspect-his homosexuality.

I am a lot less fortunate than you--the only luck I have is that (if women were drafted) I wouldn't have to go because they don't want me anyway.

While I certainly don't agree with the percentage of people who don't like the gay marriage idea as stated by the person you are replying to, it's true that there are a lot of left-wing liberals who have a problem with it too. (I know I know, you're convinced that I'm one of them no matter what I say). That is just a fact. It's nothing you or I can do about that. I guess to you, anybody who is not gay, is "homoprejudiced."

Maybe you should sit down with a homosexual so you can meet someone who isn't utterly disgusted about homosexual marriage

Better yet, how about sitting down with a heterosexual who isn't "disgusted" by it?

Have I told anybody yet how bloody well overjoyed my mother was when she heard the news today? Have I mentioned that she was as excited as I was when I told her that if this decision sticks, my other half and I would end up having one beautiful honeymoon in New England?

aeon flux should go talk to my mom. Or my sister. Or hell, anybody in my extended family -- even the hardcore Republicans (of which there are many), who keep shrugging and saying, "Why don't you just go to Vermont and get married? That'd fix everything, wouldn't it?" (Republicans can be so darned cute when they're really trying to help!)

P.S. Mom's as straight as they come. Devout Catholic. Incurable crush on Robert Duvall. And bald men. (She gets all woozy over Dr. Phil. Go figure.)

"for 99% of the people out there the very idea of gay marriage is just repulsive with capitial R"

I just want to know if this is true and not some assinine figure you came up with in your little world.

You're not homophobic but you associate a same sex marriage as REPULSIVE (with a capital R, nonetheless)??? Yeah, and I'm not racist but I'm REPULSED by interracial dating. Does that work for you?

I think gay marriage is a wonderful idea. Beautiful even. How can the fact that two people who love each other enough to commit their lives to one another be disgusting?

So there you go. You've met one now. Oh, and so you can put it on your tally, I'm straight.

mean invective deleted by myself.

who didn't express utter disgust at the idea of interracial marriage.
This includes people I know who are otherwise open-minded and liberal on most every other issue.

Some form of interracial rights such as a civil union of some sort would be more acceptable. But for 99% of the people out there the very idea of interracial marriage is just repulsive with capitial R. The interracial marrige issue would severely cripple any democratic candidate's to beat Bush if they support it. Let's not go down that road.

There are people dying in Iraq and people losing their jobs here at home. These are much more pressing issues then whether a interracial person should be allowed to marry. I'm not racist, but I feel that minorities ought to think about the well-being of others much less fortunate than themselves.

But for 99% of the people out there the very idea of gay marriage is just repulsive with capitial R.

Are you trying to tell us now that the gay community in the United States only consists of 1% of the population? Shit man! Even the rethugs say 10%.

...is a mind so tightly shut as those with whom you seem to share your time.

Goodnesss, I'm certainly glad I don't have such a violent reaction to the idea of straight marriage.

Got a hint for you, aeon flux: If it's so repulsive to you, don't engage in it.

You're "not homophobic"? Oh, my God, there is no hope of explaining to you how astoundingly ironic that statement is.

And for the record, my uninformed friend, I suggest you "bone up" (pun quite intended) on the causes of "the less fortunate" to which lesbians and gay men devote themselves every day. Let's see, my own list includes fundraising for the Lyons Eye Foundation and BAMM, financial support of the Special Olympics and Doctors Without Borders, a visitation program at a local convalescent hospital, teaching developmentally-disabled children to swim -- uh, how long do you want me to go on before I get to the gay causes I support?

Oh, yeah, and I give cash to homeless people on freeway offramps -- without even asking if they're gay first.

Sheeeeeeeeeeeesh. You really amaze me.

Thanks for helping me get my head screwed on straight.

Here I've been spending all this time spent worrying whether my financial affairs and wishes concerning my partner would be honored in the event of my unexpected and timely demise, or whether I could visit him in the hospital should the need ever arise, or if there was a way we could have purchased our home with a little less legal maneuvering and a little less red tape. Where were my priorities?? As a second class citizen, I should know my place and that the concerns of those in the majority are more important than mine.

:eyes:

</sarcasm>

I have been married for almost 34 years, and to THIS day, NO ONE has ever questioned the validity of our marriage or asked to see "proof"..

Marriage should be a LEGAL term...and ONLY a legal term for two people who choose to spend their lives together, share a domicile and co-mingle their assets.. It should be a legal contract, just as if two people decide to open a business together.. They are legally bound to each other..

the "romanticized/moralistic" marriage should be reserved for the religious community ONLY..

Perhaps the fact that ministers "have the authority" to perform the ceremony, is the complication here..

If marriage was just a legal term, and people had to "marry" in a civil transaction, for the legality, BUT had the latitude to also have the whoop-dee-doo ceremonial wedding for family & friends & church, this whole issue would be moot..


I think that the GOPers who hate the whole idea, are really hating it for the MONEY side of the argument..

Think about it..

Right now , gay people are destined to remain single (unless they enter into a desperation marriage), so they do not "cost" their employers extra money for family insurance benefits..

They are also more likely than not, the be the ones in the office who "won't mind working on Christmas Eve, or on other holdays because they don't have families ".:eyes:

They are less likeley to make waves or apply for top positions that might require a lot of background investigation..(lots of gays are still closeted)..

If gays could adopt easily, they would be "taking children who would otherwise go to a god-fearing 'real family'.."

There are many reasons.. but I think it's mostly just meanspirited, greedy & hateful people who insist on making everyone see things their way..

We all knew that homophobia was going to be a major issue this election cycle. This issue has been being built up by the right. The Dems mostly support gay marriage or civil unions and the repukes mostly say it is against God's laws. :eyes: The more Dems can define what's at stake, who is impacted, connect to real folks, the more Dems will win this issue. I know it will be used against Dems, but I believe that most Americans don't really care what happens in someone else's personal life. They do care about jobs, education, healthcare, and Americans dying in an oil war.

I just hope Dems stand up for all GLBT rights. If the issue will be used as a swipe against Dems, then don't take the swipe for nothing. There is no middle ground here. Either support civil rights or not.

too.

As others have stated above, I think the GOP would have planned to make gay marriage an issue no matter what happened with the SJC here in Mass. They have been floating constitutional amendments and the like -- despite the existence of DOMA -- precisely to inflame their base.

Will it help or hurt the Dems? I think the real issues are going to be Iraq and the economy and perhaps health care. IMHO, the people who are vehemently against gay marriage are people who probably wouldn't vote for the Dems anyway. Others may be uncomfortable with the idea of gay marriage, but I'm not sure it will sway their votes.

the voters, but it will sway SOME. The question is what is the percentage. I believe it will be a hight percentage, maybe up to 5% points. This is a high "hot button" issue.

...the states dealing with the issue and saw no reason that free people should not be able to enter into any relationship they want.

It isn't a federal issue. We have bigger things on our plate to deal with.

...that all those families who won't be having a Christmas this year, because they can't afford it, due to no work will be thinking very seriously about the economy come next years presidential election.

Bush* and his band of thugs can make this an issue for next year, but it isn't going to change the economy is it? It isn't going to bring jobs to the country is it?

If the rethugs focuss to much on this issue and not on the issue of the jobless rate in the U.S. then this will all turn around and bite them on the bum very hard.

Hell, he's salivating. He's already made a statement about it and he's in England. Couldn't wait, I suppose? Either we stand with what we believe or we don't but let's not kid ourselves. Self-deception is the worst kind. The question is, are we ready to defend this issue as a Party, even if it defeats us in the next election? Do we take a principled stand and fight for it or do we surrender before the battle begins?

...the dems have hurt the gay community as well. Maybe not as much as the rethugs, but nevertheless they have. Especially with the signing of DoMA among others.

I think if the democrats don't want to the lose the gay vote period, then as a party, they are going to need to stand by and support the gay community 110%. No hesitation and no holes barred.

If the GOP tries to bring it up, then the dems bring up the Iraq lies, the economy while standing by the gay community.

If the dems fight this battle properly they will come out the winners in 2004.

We don't have a choice about whether or not to deal with it head-on, do we?

I for one have never kidded myself about the Right's intention to use this as a smokescreen issue. They will. Done deal. So now what? Capitulate as we have repeatedly since that monster stole the election three years ago, or dig in and fight the way we should have been fighting all along?

That's the only choice we have. If that's a freight train headed straight at me, so be it -- at least I won't be cowering in some corner somewhere.

But you know what? That "freight train" may turn out to be a mirage.

I'm sick of being so damned afraid all the time. I won't back down. I won't take their moldy table scraps and agree to call it cake anymore.

I hope to God that everyone reading this understands one thing: As a Democrat, you are now in this fight, whether you want to be or not.

As you wrote, kentuck:

Do we take a principled stand and fight for it or do we surrender before the battle begins?

I know my answer.

While we are at it, why don't we also push to the back of the bus pushy minorities and women so that we don't offend and threaten "Middle America," the same middle America that believes that Saddam flew one of the planes that hit the WTC, and that it is convinced that Saddam buried the WMDs in the desert.

Does anyone here understand what equality under the law means?

I feel like so many I thought were pro gay here on DU have slapped me in the face and tied me to the back of the bus. All because of a court ruling in Mass. Funny how every time something possitive happens for the queer community so many so called dems here at DU turn into rethug like people.

Since the Massachusetts legislature can't get their Plan A through in time (state constitutional amedment along DoM lines) to take it off the national table, they'll have to go through Plan B, civil unions by statute similar to VT, which is probably the best solution anyway, and it won't be an issue much either way and it could wind up being marginally helpful.

...and be exposed for the cruel, hateful nutjobs they are. There are already morans in Massachusetts and in Congress drafting changes to the Constitutions - and only a trifling 20% of voters think that should be done.

The soonest Massachusetts could put such an amendment on the ballot is 2006, by which time many, many couples will have already been 2 years into wedlock. I look forward to seeing them attempt a vote that will dissolve marriages - and then watching it blow up in their faces.

The world didn't end when civil unions passed in Vermont, and once people in Massachusetts see that, this "issue" will die.

The GOP is clever...they'll confront the candidates and demand a position on this issue...just because it's controversial. The dem candidates should call the right back and accuse them of politicizing the issue. The President does not have any role in deciding whether or not gay marriages should be legal. The candidates have to learn to toss the ball right back in the GOP's court....and show them up for their manipulation. But, they won't. It's the fear factor... I can see it here, the way this thread was phrased. Bush will win if Dems continue to shiver every time the Republicans come up with a topic that might be unpopular with a handful of people. Aren't there REAL issues that have to be articulated? I don't get it.

But if the Democrats are going to support gay rights, it is a loser to support it half-ass. If they believe in it, they have to be willing to fight for it.

... its a wonder some people think either political party still represent... well, the people.

I think the DNC and some at DU have their priorities backwards. Winning the 2004 Presidential elections should be secondary to righting this wrong and giving homosexual couples the rights they should have been afforded in the first place. The party agenda should exist to represent and serve the interests of the constituency, and not vice versa.

...that the majority here on DU are straight. Some of that majority will stand by the gay DU community, but others, well their only concern is getting rid of Bush* next year.

To them, they have the right to marry, to sponsor a foreign partner/wife/husband for immigration, taxation rights, hospital rights, and the list goes on and on. Unfortunately they don't give a flying fuck about those of us who don't enjoy those same rights.

They don't give a flying fuck that Sapphocrat and I will be spending yet another Christmas apart this year, because they have been stating all along, "It isn't the right time."

Well I have news for each and every one who has shown little or no support for what the supreme court in Mass did today, you are more REPUBLICAN than the republican party. Why not just cross over now and save us all the pain?

They have not realized that they have infact shitted all over their party today by showing a LACK OF FAITH in the Democrats, when it comes to outing Bush* in 2004.

Bravo people, I salute you!

I don't think there will be a backlash towards Democrats. I don't think this will become a litmus test issue.

But then, I really can't see the big deal against gay marriage anyway. Maybe I'm out of touch. People would really vote against a candidate on this? Guess I'm just naive.

Bev

...you of all people know just what "backlash" means.

Yeah, I'm afraid some people would vote against a candidate on this issue alone -- but I do not believe such anti-gay, one-issue voters comprise the vast majority some folks seem to think they do.

I think abortion and gun control are much, much bigger "one-issue" issues.

There's a line at the end with dogs, and men with shields and clubs.
Are you ready?
I can't guarantee your safety.
Justice is a prize won with tears and blood.
Cowardice just takes its toll.

is sheer suicide for any democratic candidate.

If they did they would probably lose to Bush. As a result, gays would have a much worse chance of improving their rights under another Bush term (with Bush, they'd probably lose the rights they have now!). Not to mention the untold millions of non-gays that would suffer under another Bush term.

There is no way in hell a candidate can defeat Bush if he pushes gay marriage rights. He'd be digging his own grave (and everyone else's).

..."any Democratic candidate" is "pressing the gay marriage issue"?

No Democratic candidate is doing that. The RIGHT WING is pressing the issue.

Look, aeon, this is the bottom line: The Repukes are the ones making it an issue, and they are making it an issue NOW. You CANNOT change that.

You have only two choices: You can either fight for what's right, or you can continue to tell us what a deal-killer the whole issue is, and contribute NOTHING GOOD to the situation.

There is no third choice. There is no making it go away. No amount of complaining about the issue is going to change the fact that it is here, right now, staring you in the face.

So either lead, follow, or get out of the way.

These are the elements we need just now, and if we have them, justice will prevail in the end. We just need to believe. That's the "faith".

The "patience" is in recognition that acceptance of this may take some time. It's possible that promoting gay marriage now may help Bush win re-election (Though not as much as some may think, since the most heated opposition is in states wh know he'll win anyway), but contrary to popular belief among DUer's, the world won't actually come to an end if he does. And if we don't get the ball rolling sometime, acceptance will NEVER happen. You have to be willing to lose the next election, in the belief that standing on principle will improve your chances for the one after that. That's where the "courage" comes in.

So when you read the polls showing how many Americans are opposed to the idea, do not panic. Be "calm". Personally, I think those numbers are soft anyway. Heck, in Bush's first year, I read an article in either USA Today or MSNBC about how Rove was looking at ways to subtly court the gay vote. Bush himself finally met with the Log Cabin Republicans around then. Does that tell you anything?

This issue riles up the faithful in Tennessee, Alabama, Georgia, S. Carolina, etc., which are solidly red states anyway. But not so much Michigan, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, New York, etc., all of which have significantly large and active gay populations. The gay community has proven adept at political activism and is a proven source of campaign cash, WHEN GIVEN A GOOD REASON. (This is why the Bushies were looking at ways to court them.) So, let's give them one, and do what we know in our hearts is right at the same time. Let's get busy eliminating another insidious double standard. Be prepared for the long haul, because as I've said, it may take a while. Ultimately, faith and courage will ensure the victory of justice, just as it did in the battle against Jim Crow.

Are you going to stand? Or are you going to run?