How Should Democratic Politicians Deal With Gay Marriage in '06?

Face it. Gays and lesbians are the number one issue the Republicans use to motivate and strike fear in their base. And as we know, fear gets people out to vote.

How should Democratic politicians deal with this issue?

Let them scream about social issues.

When we talk about wages and jobs, the TV crew turns off the camera and leaves.

Only Republican issues are allowed to be heard.

people aren't watching Tv, the budget will not be in Tv ads, they're trying to figure
out how to work the net and possible CDs to be passed around. It will probably be
a heavy emphasis on radio, since they know satellite is in, maybe The Daily Show
or some staple. They have done statistical analysis, there's a huge number of people
who only get their news from the NET.

…as a political force, while leaving it available as a marketplace.
They must not be allowed to do this!

People who get their news from the Net are with us already.
It's the people who get their news from Faux who are all brainwashed.

McCain raised 2 million from the internet
Dean raised 59 million

Jimmy Carter is making 2.5 million from the books that he has written, when was the
last time Pappy Bush had a best seller.

This country has been hypnotized into thinking that the extreme right wing conservatives
are a majority in this country they are not.

Their biggest fear that the everyday blogger will drive away the rich elite who will
no longer have guaranteed results to put in X dollars and get X result.

and other than a few meaningless platitudes, there was no talk of either.

The cameras didn't have to pack up and leave. He wasn't saying anything.

The government currently gives companies a tax break for sending jobs overseas!
Kerry wanted to end that and provide incentives for creating jobs at home instead.

This got NO media coverage at all -- nothing Kerry said got any coverage unless they
could spin it to his detriment. That is how the media operates in this country today.

he was saying he served in Vietnam.


Well... that IS something...

I guess....

Doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result.

We are facing the specter of nuclear confrontation, a planet wide global confrontation,
scramble for food, nuke aggression for resources due to global warming by 2010, loss
of jobs, huge national deficit. I do not want to offend the gay rights people or
those who believe in abortion, but I think the Dems should make the statement that
personal decisions should be up to the person, let the govermment worry about running
the country, fixing greenhouse gases, figuring out a solution to Iraq and let
everyone make their own decisions. The government should stay out of the pulpit, I
do not want the government to take care of my soul, I want it to govern and to figure
out who is scamming us with these voting machines. Also I want all those who
have sucked us dry to be punished and as much money recovered as possible and that
includes from the vote rigging thugs who did not live up to their promise of reliable
machines.

Rant/Off

Miss Waverly

:-)

"... Dems should make the statement that personal decisions should be up to the person, let the govermment worry about running the country, fixing greenhouse gases, figuring out a solution to Iraq and let everyone make their own decisions. The government should stay out of the pulpit ... "


Well said! :applause: :applause:

And quite frankly, I am tired of them preaching to me about how to live my life and what
constitutes "life" and what a sacred union should be. These shills who break into a cold
sweat the minute two dollar bills are rubbed together and never met a lobbyist they didn't
like or a crony who didn't need a job regardless of ability.

that didn't solve all their "family values."

many of whom are still suffering after all this time.

and a moral travesty.

You'd think we could get the religious folk to hop on board with us on that one.

first, folks are beginning to see that many have been left behind on the Gulf Coast and
there is no rapture, second, Rahman is going to be executed in Afghanistan for being a Christian unless Karzai boots him out of the country after declaring him incompetent,
this really shows that freedom is on the March in Middle East. The fundies are feeling that
they have been suckered into supporting a country which is anti-christian.

and those are the memes we should be pushing:

Bush and the Republicans are selling our national security to terrorists.

Bush and the Republicans have shed American blood to support vicious anti Christian regimes.

and we might add that he's peddling nukes to India

…though I've heard that even some pretty hard-core bigots
were upset at the treatment of the victims of Katrina.

to see how little was done, I saw Extreme Makeover Thursday night, they are doing specials
on going to help the hurricane victims, they showed Biloxi, debri from the storm is still
piled up everywhere. They should have brought in the army, the National Guard and
used earth movers, bulldozers to clear the debri. This is not a public works project,
it was a disaster and to go around like it's a public works project is just not cutting
it. I saw one sign: FEMA - Fix everything my a**!-this was on another blog.

The GOP fires up their base election after election like clockwork on the same 'ol same 'ol wedge issues - abortion and gay marriage/adoption - always putting the Dems on the defense. The get sucked in every time which makes them as stupid as the GOP base.

The Dems MUST frame those as equal treatment under the law, refuse to engage otherwise, and then, and this is important, MOVE ON to the REAL MORAL ISSUES - Katrina, the poor, torture, and not taking care of our soldiers and veterans. Those issues are guaranteed to resonate and will highlight the negligence of this administration.

The Fed can tell states who gets partnership benefits? And which employees' families can get security? If you aren't a terrorist, the government should stay out of your business.

We're Democrats and we are for limited government, personal freedom, states' rights, and free market.

when they lost an election and need to push the loser into the White House, via
Bush v Gore

Oh yea and also the war.

Easy - they should help Jeff Gannon get married to George Bush.

into his over-nighters at the White House?
:shrug:
emdee

where Bush agrees that civil unions should be allowed.
emdee

marriage is a sacrament, a religious thing. liberal groups should not try to impose gay marriage onto churches and religions that do not support gay marriage. i believe the problem is that the government must recognize marriage because of tax breaks, child custody, etc. gay couples should be given the same rights like visitation. however, what about friends living together who decide to take advantage of the system? this presents a huge logistical issue with civil unions. i dont believe there is a good answer to this dilemma

http://electionpredictions.blogspot.com

democrats should definitely not be promoting gay marriage in the 2006 election because the majority of americans oppose gay marriage AND social issues are not a strong point of the democratic party, let's focus on economic and environmental issues

on churches and religions?

The issue at hand is CIVIL marriage. The kind you get at the local courthouse. Completely different question.

What churches do is their own church's prerogative, because church marriages have no meaning under civil law. (in other words, if one marries in the church, you STILL need a civil license from the state in addition)

who has run with a gay-marriage agenda. But, when the question was asked in '04 both Kerry and Bush agreed that civil unions were the way to go. Run the tape over and over and over of Bush saying the same thing Kerry said. And, I mean over and over and over and over and over.
emdee

Marriage is a civil contract.

You should read up on the history of why churches ever got involved in marriage contracts - usually the town priest was the only one who could read and write, so it fell to him to fill out the legal contract.

All the religious mumbo-jumbo in the world doesn't create a marriage. It's the contract itself, the piece of paper, that makes it a legal marriage. Without that, you got nothing.

Nobody is saying churches have to bless any marriage they don't approve of; nobody is forcing gay marriage onto churches. What they are saying is that any two people should have the right to enter into a legal contract with each other, regardless of their gender.

If Joe can enter into a legal contract with Mary, but Joanne can't enter into the same contract with Mary, that's not a gay/straight issue. It's plain old sexual discrimination, which is illegal.

the First Amendment rights of every church and religion that recognizes gay marriages as a sacrement by denying them legal recognition. That's another avenue in which to attack the far right's agenda.

and should not be discriminated against in the constitution.

but let's not get sucked into moral argument, we are not going to win on morality or
religion and that's not what the government should be, church does not equal state,
individual makes his/her own decisions. Look at how we got sucked into Terri Schiavo
and the controversy over her care. I don't want to go there, I think this whole moral
thing is allowing crooks to run the country. Look at George Bush and the Rahman issue,
he's just distancing himself. He's supposed to be leading the Christian crusade.
They are going to kill someone for becoming a christian after we have been fighting
over there to bring democracy and freedom to the Middle East; in Afghanistan for 5 years
now.

the fundamentalists try to define it as a "moral" issue, but the reality is that it's a constitutional one.

The issue is about CIVIL marriage. It's always been about civil marriage. The churches can do whatever they wish and discriminate all they want. No one is, or has ever, argued otherwise.

The right tries to confuse the issue to make it seem as if this somehow has something to do with churches and religion, when it does not.

It has to do with the piece of paper you get at City Hall. A marriage LICENSE. Issued by the government. Not a church.

status of Democrats fighting for gay marriage hhtp://electionpredictions.blogspot.com

more Americans being polled support gay civil unions, BUT what we have to fight is the
whole fundie/Rove mantra. They are going to play it again. Democrats are baby killers
and they support gays who are evil and that is why God drowned New Orleans was because
of the gay people there...YADA, YADA, YADA. It's pumping something up by Limbaugh,
O'Reilly, Hannity, etc. because they can't run on their record. They have no record
that's worth 2 mouse farts. What we have to do is reframe the issue. We believe that
the government is for the common good and the right of every American to decide religious
and moral issues, we even encourage them to seek out churches to help solve moral dilemmas.
That get's us off the hook. I don't have to defend right to life decisions for Aunt
Ethel, who's been on life support for 3 years. I don't have to argue about gays in my
community or about pregnant teens. All these families will make decisions without my
interference and decide what is best for them.

and I think the entire thing should be framed as "family privacy" rights. Uncle Sam does not have the right to make decisions for you that your doctor should or tell you when you can or cannot pull the plug for grandma or tell you whom you can and cannot marry. That's not the role of government. It's the role of individual Americans to make private decisions about family matters.

Another thing that will help is that people are alienated, the cameras will follow the
democrats because that's where the people will be. But I think emphasizing family values,
saying it's all about freedom and that we don't behead someone in this country because
he doesn't meet our religious standards.

:-)

inalienable rights under the Constitution and let's stop thinking up mealy mouthed
excuses for taking people's rights away. Let's quit putting labels on people that
deprive them of their rights they were born with, whether it's Gay, Terrorist,
Activist, War Protestor, Liberal. No one has the right to be harassed or punished
because a label was stuck to them, we still have a nation of laws and the right to
a fair trial by jury.

let them taste some of the grief they are given to others!

as long as we let them frame it as sin, it's hard to understand, but look at how mad
the Islamic people are over Rahman being a Christian, anyone who is Islamic and converts
to Christianity should be beheaded. They are mad at us for interfering. This is a bad
man and should be punished. There are no guarantees for religious freedom in the
Afghani constitution so there you are. Now they have made a moral judgment of this
man, it's much harsher that what's done here, but people are just as eager to condemn
gays in this country when they know nothing about them. We have to push freedom and rights
of the individual. And we might say, all these people who are worrying about your morals,
they are also wiretapping your conversations to make sure that you're not a terrorist
or a war protestor or an animal rights person or a quaker and they're snooping into
your computer to see if you're a child molester. Very soon, we won't have any freedom
left at all.

Jewish, or any other group.

Because it is the mo of these people not to run on a platform that they can deliver, they
run on TRUST US, we will save you from THEM, we will isolate these people who are a threat
to our society. It's not like they promised better roads or impacting on global warming.
It's something nebulous like saving us from Terror. What is the benchmark for that
capturing Osama or invading Iraq for the oil barrons.

Stand strongly in favor of gay and lesbian rights, and point out that is an issue of basic equality.

It's the no nonsense way to frame this issue.

Refuse to engage in any other manner.

We hold them accountable, we hold their feet to the fire, like Joe (Gotta Go!) Lieberman.
He dosen't like it that the bloggers are attacking him for being a Friend of Bush.
This will be during non-elections, any right wing crap that they put in place, we
will undo. The majority of the country are in favor of gay rights, non-involvement of
the government in right to die cases, privacy, abortion, gun control, social security,
seperation of church and state.

Tell the media and the public that the republicans only trot these social issues out during an election cycle to drive a wedge among the voters, while they are running this country into the ground on issues that concern all Americans, like the war, national security, the economy, jobs, constitutional rights and the environment.

The dems need to make the public aware that these social wedge issues that repubs trot out are just a smokescreen to cover up their horrendous record of governance.

The dems cannot fall into the repub trap again of discussing these wedge issues, and not only that, but they cannot allow the media to play that game either. The focus has to be on the war, and the complete failure of republican leadership.

But the dems need to energize the bloggers, talk to them thru the blogs ask for their
support on the ground in their home states.

...remind people that the Constitution is a POSITIVE document, one that elucidates and expands the rights of individuals, rather than taking them away. The Constitution overall limits the rights and powers of the government, not the people. Also, Prohibition showed that attempts to limit rights via the Constitution are harmful -- and eventually it needed to be repealed.

States that choose to specifically prohibit gay marriage are in violation of the equal rights amendment. Nowadays we know a lot more about sexuality, and that one's sexuality is not chosen; therefore, we cannot limit rights based on that.

As to the Biblical arguments, while the Old Testament rails on homosexuality as well as many other practices that modern people accept (blended fabrics and shellfish being a couple of obvious examples), the New Testament says not to judge (morally) lest you be judged, to love your neighbor, to love the sinner, etc., etc.

Republicans are masters of wedge issues. We need to find our own. I think Old Testament vs. New Testament interpretations is a great wedge issue. We need to find liberal clerics who are willing to put their interpretations out there. The point is this: the believing Christian must take the New Testament as their primary source: where Christ's teachings disagree with Old Testament teachings, his must take precedence, for they are a correction to the punitive, eye-for-an-eye old laws. Yet, the Bible thumpers of today who rail on so about how great the Republicans are and how evil, un-God-fearin' the Democrats are, never quote the Gospels. They quote the Old Testament. Read to them the words of Christ, who said do not pray in public, to be seen by men; who said to drive the money changers from the temple; who said to turn the other cheek, etc. Remember, the Old Testament is the basis of JUDAEO-Christian teachings -- it is the New Testament that distinguishes CHRISTIAN beliefs. Lay it on.

We need to fight. We need to fight with everything we have. Some are uncomfortable with using religion -- I say, if you can use it, now is the time. And I say that as one who does not profess to be a believing Christian. I recognize the cultural influence, and Christ's teachings in general seem to be good, but I do not call myself a Christian and do not attend church. On the other hand -- why let those guys own the flag and own the Bible? Who appointed them? Why do we on the left give up the powerful symbols that people are comfortable getting behind? The Bible represents spiritual ideals, and the wish to be good; the flag represents love of home, one's people and the land, as well as the stated ideals of our country's Founders, however imperfectly we may have achieved those ideals.

I remember when it was the liberal churches of this country who gave refuge to South and Central Americans who were victims of the rightist pogroms in those countries during Reagan's reign. The Sanctuary movement, I think it was called. I remember when nuns and priests stood against the military, the School for the Americas who trained the death-dealing fascist thugs who did the dirty work. Where are they now? Seemingly cowering under the weight of the religious-right juggernaut. Don't take this as a barb -- we're all cowering under the juggernaut. We need to stand right in front of it and take it down.

Yes it's true, both patriotism and religion are refuges of scoundrels. But, we need to call the scoundrels out on their own turf.

The problem is that people like Pat Robertson, don't even bother to reference their statements, I am sure that there is no biblical underpining for much of what he says. We need endoresements by respected religious leaders, look at the RNC and the love fest that it was. I do think that Billy Graham touring the Gulf Coast was a good thing. He just
said it was a terrible thing. He didn't make cheap shots that they deserved it somehow.
I quite frankly am tired of the haters bloviating, whether they be rw pundits, journalists
or religious leaders.

...MissWaverly. And I, too, am tired of the bloviating haters. Begone with them!

I think that there is too much emphasis today on what rights the government may have as
opposed to our own individual rights, how the government's rights are greater than our own.
How can that be when the purpose of our government is to preserve the rights of the individual no matter how humble he may be. We must work to obtain what we need to get by but we rely on the government to protect the welfare of all, that must be it's primary function and is something that each individual cannot do by himself. Think of Katrina,
devestation beyond what many of us can comprehend and yet there are thousands of national
guard, hundreds of park rangers, thousands of public works employees. What if we asked
states to band together as the United States, isn't that the purpose of "US" in the first
place to come together and loan these people to the gulf coast to get the job done of clearing away the damage. That would be an imaginative way to use the government, let's
not make it into a "peeping tom" always at the end of phone line, or computer connection
pawing through our business for its own purposes. The government must be for the "common
good" or it is worthless. Let's not let it single us out for lifestyle choices or
interfere with decisions best left to the individual. Let's not legislate morality and
get back to the business of government for the people.

however much the religious organisations like to promote the idea that fact remains.

Marriage laws are extended to religious ceremonies because the civil law gives them a dispensation not the other way around.