Gay marriage is more important than as a bludgeon against Obama.

Two of our 8 candidates support equal rights for the LGBT community.

Two!

My candidate who I love dearly is wrong on this issue. It is not that she is against the LGBT community as she has taken various stands in support of LGBT rights but rather I think she is afraid to. I think her political instincts tell her its a bad move. And frankly that makes me sad.

I used to think that civil unions were fine. After all, marriage was only a word right?

Well I was wrong. If marriage is just a word, why do we fight it so? Why do we make up new definitions, new classifications?

So equal rights means exactly that. Marriage is marriage, a recognition of the union of two people by the State and all the rights and privileges that union is granted by the State. No more, no less.

But I also know the political peril that involves embracing gay marriage. We all saw what happened in 2004 and as much as I hope I don't think the nation has grown up all that much since then.

So what is next? Do those of us both inside and outside the LGBT community who feel strongly about it seek to put pressure on the candidates now to stand for equal rights? Do we need that political capital to cash in when a Democrat is President or is it better to wait for a Democrat to be President to turn on the pressure?

so either stand for it completely, and challenge Hillary to get rid of the two SC state co-chairs who voted for the gay marriage ban amendment -

or shut up about it altogether because you're a hypocrite.

The poster just attacked their chosen candidates stance on marriage as well as Obama's and that makes the OP a hypocrite???

No, I didn't see anything about the homophobes heading up Hillary's South Carolina campaign. :shrug:

The OP doesn't say anything about Oama's concerts either - I don't see your point.

:eyes:

great way to get others to see your point of view.

and others know the rationale as well. But go on ahead and pretend you're confused if you get a kick out of it.

that I am aware of. So no, you have never explained to my why one must list every infraction of every candidate when discussing their lack of support for Equality. You must be confusing me with someone else. Nor can I find a post of yours explaining why.

I really would like an explanation. If you don't want to spell it our or give a link to your thoughts on that I'll stop posting to you now because I really don't appreciate your being demeaning to me when we have never even conversed before.

This was my question to you:

"you have never explained to my why one must list every infraction of every candidate when discussing their lack of support for Equality."

(and just as an FYI - Im not a Hillary supporter and wont vote for her)

I really can't be of any help to you.

it's like arguing with a broken record.

n/t

and I'm not likely to stop.

I see....:eyes:

is what makes you a hypocrite.

You really are a few slices short of a loaf aren't you?

Hillary should tell her SC co-chairs to resign. She should tell Darrel Jackson to take a hike too. Then maybe Obama can pick up Darrell Jackson like he originally wanted to going so far as to personally solicit him and offer a $5000 a month contract to his media firm.

Now would you like discuss gay marriage and how we can pressure our Democratic candidates to embrace it or the merit of said action or will you slink off to your hole now that you;ve thoroughly humiliated yourself?

Apparently you are completely unable to see this issue as anything more than a weapon in partisan bickering. This is a much much larger issue than you attempt to make it into.

Post 50 posts about Hillary's SC Co-Chairs over the next week, and I'll believe this is about more than a partisan hatchet job. Lots of people have had the opportunity to get outraged about bigots heading Hillary's campaign in SC. Nobody has.

How do you, as an Obama supporter, rationalize his "committment" to equal rights for all in light of the McClurkin debacle?

When somebody makes a hoopla about the SC Co-chairs, I'll believe the McClurkin incident is worthy of my attention.

about Hillary's co-chairs?

:wtf:

I would recommend ignore.

The logic does not improve with time.

impresses me, I must say.

We need this Sand's ultra-conditioning come General Election time. This gal is a fighting machine!

you don't really care about the other.

Ya know before you took a dump on this thread.

The point of the thread was that gay marriage was a larger issue than partisan BS. That our candidates have the wrong stance on a civil right.

Wanna know how many threads I posted about the gospel thing? Zero.

Wanna know how many times I called Obama names over this? Zero.

So by all means, continue making yourself look like a complete jackass.

that civil unions can confer the same rights to us in the GLBT community as marriage does? Do they absolutely know that FOR SURE?

I'm reading these distressing stories...of gay and lesbian couples in New Jersey, for instance, who are discovering that civil unions don't confer nearly the same benefits as they were led to believe.

We deserve equality. Goddammit, we give these polticians our money and votes. We are a consistent voting bloc for the Democratic Party. That should account for SOMETHING.

We have some political capital. We deserve more than them going on a forum and saying that they are committed to equality. We deserve our rights. We deserve to be first class citizens in our country.

I don't believe that "gay marriage" cost us the 2004 election. I don't think that standing up for civil rights (even when a large part of the country is bigoted) loses elections. I put the blame for that squarely on the Right where it belongs. Even if they did win legitimately, which IMHO, they did not, they did not do so because Democrats are pro-civil rights. They did so because THEY pandered to the hatred of bigots. That makes them wrong, not us. And we would be equally wrong to follow their example.

You may argue that the end result is the same, so why not set civil rights on the back burner in order to win? But I would argue that it is never wrong to stand on the side of civil rights, no matter what the consequences may be.

To clarify, I'm talking about putting pressure on our candidates to do the right thing, NOT about not voting for the Democratic nominee if they don't come around in time.

How old are they?

They were 6 years (Urd) and 8 months (Neo) when those photos were taken.

Urd is now 11 and looks like this:



and Neo is 6 and looks like this:



:hi:

edited for typo

And I like how you framed the loss in 2004.

A loss in the fight for justice is never a true loss.

legalize gay marriage and ban the death penalty. You can't get those concessions from a GOP government.

It's been proven time and time again that Civil Unions/Domestic Partnerships, no matter how well intentioned, do not measure up to marriage. The only reason that marriage is being withheld from us is to appease homophobes, and that is not an acceptable reason. Some claim that marriage is a religious term but that is not true. Religion does not own the term marriage. Others claim that allowing gay people to marry will force churches to marry gay people against their will, and that is another lie. Just as with straight couples, any church can agree or refuse to marry anybody they wish.

Equal rights, including marriage, for LGBT individuals must be part of the Democratic platform. We have waited far too long.

We are ahead of the curve, as our two of our candidates, so what we need is a cultural shift, towards acceptance and equality. Its happening, in my opinion, far too slowly, but it IS happening. What we need to do is make homophobia as controversial to hold onto as racism or sexism. This shift in attitude in our culture will not come easily, but it will happen, we just have to make sure not to let up on the pressure.