I am tired of my family life being transformed into a campaign issue

I am tired of "Democrats" demanding gay people be sold down the river in swing states for votes.

I am tired of the pink tutu crowd who think I don't have any other political home.

I am tired of Democrats who won't stand up to right wing Republican assaults on upstanding American citizens who happen to be gay or lesbian.

I am tired that there are so few people who will take on the talking heads when they launch their hate campaigns.

I am tired of Democratic "leaders" who don't show 1/2 the decency of the rank and file in dealing with these issues.

I am tired of poll-driven focus-group-honed "positions" on basic civil rights issues that are "nuanced" to maximize the vote, when taking a strong stand for what's right and articulating it clearly is the way to go.

I've held my nose and supported this ticket, despite the fact that "my man" lost the primary and despite the fact that the party has been downright yellow on basic human rights for Americans. But I warn you I and many others will NOT stomach an effort by the Democrats to support any anti-gay laws from here on out. The "credits" are all used up.

Some say that they can win the vote without gays and gay-supporting heterosexuals, and they're welcome to try. I suspect they are in for a nasty shock come election time.

The party had better get its act together and stand up for what's right sooner rather than later. I have the strong feeling that tts last "credit" on being weak on issues of bigotry is getting used up in this election.

this: vote Kerry because if we don't, we might not have a chance to vote again. However, once Kerry is in office, we must hold him accountable to be fair and honest to everyone, and to take on the progressive agenda. Dr. Dean's organization is one that I hope will be there to hold him accountable. I certainly hope they do.

However, if Kerry goes anti-gay, all bets are off. It makes no difference to me at that point.

For God's sake, man, it's the pukes who are putting this on the table, knowing that it's a lose-lose situation for the Dems. Why the hell should ANY pol have to weigh in on an issue that has no chance in hell of passing? It's not the Dems who are on the offensive on the issue, it's the pukes trying to rally their base and at the same time, putting the Dems in an awkward position of being asked to take a stand. Same thing with abortion.

These shouldn't even BE issues. The pukes want to make laws restricting personal rights for women as well as the GLTG community, but you have to realize that defending against these issues also brands them as "pro-gay" and "pro-baby killing" to much of the voting population. It is a shame, but that is the way it is.

I am an architect and the great architect, Louis Sullivan was once asked, "What is the most important part of a project?" His reply was "Getting the commission."

If we can get the Dems the commission, these will be non issues once again, and the pukes offensive attacks will be repulsed.

for bullshit reasons doesn't deserve to be in office. To me, it doesn't make a damned bit of difference how they personally feel about the issue but I do expect them to make a stand to protect the constitution from partisan finagling.

No Dem ever backs down. They know damn good and well that they would lose a lot of votes from women if they did.

Same thing with gays. If they're going to endorse anti-gay initiatives then they better be prepared to lose a segment of the LGBT vote.

And no, it isn't a "shame" to be labeled "pro gay." It's a shame to endorse bigoted legislation and constitutional amendments while hiding behind political expediency.

but women have worked hard to get politicians to support abortion rights because they have delivered in terms of support if the candidates support their cause. not just support from women but also in getting men to support candidates based on that issue. they have been able to turn out votes on election day.

the key to get gay rights passed rather than just get demand politicians speak in support of it is to get PEOPLE to support gay rights. it's not surprising politicans wont openly speak of an issue when majority oppose it.

in california the anti gay amendment passed a few years ago even though all the top democrats were opposed to it. our governor, both senators,and just about every other democratic officials opposed it, yet it still passed by a large amount.

n/t

because of what i explained.

so why not work as the prochoice movement did and continues to do to get people organized and in support of gay rights ?

go educate people on the issues. don't just demand politicians do or say something. you have to deliver also.

which is why i pointed out the example in california where all our top democratic officials opposed the anti gay measure yet it passed by a large majority. it's easier to sit around and get angry at politicians for not doing or saying something than it is to work hard to get people to support certain causes and get them to vote based on it. it requires speaking to those who will not agree with you. it doesn't happen all at once but in steps and could take years. just as was the case with women's rights, civil rights for colored people.

This is, and HAS to be, a bottom up issue, rather than a top down issue. The pukes are trying to force it into being a top down issue, same thing with abortion. It is a losing issue as long as most sheeple get their news from FauX, CNN, CNBC, Rush, Hannity, etc. etc. etc.

As long as there is not a groundswell from the population, the Dems are better playing off towards the middle. I agree that maybe more could be done, but not now, not before the most important election in my lifetime. Face it, we need every vote. Taking a strong stand at this point would cost votes, on this or the abortion issue.

If this election becomes a referendum on gay and women's rights to choose, we loose. Don't let rove define the issues, let us win and chip away. There are more over-riding problems, in the minds of the voters. Not to denigrate GLTG or abortion, but with Dems in power, they would not even be issues and even if they are not brought to the fore, at least they will not be attacked. If they become issues in this campaign, and we lose, they are lost forever.

Choose your battles correctly in order to win the war.

"which is why i pointed out the example in california where all our top democratic officials opposed the anti gay measure yet it passed by a large majority."
And did they all lose their seats over it? No they didn't.

And that's the point. Kerry isn't taking a stand in favor of equality. He's doing the opposite. Not only is he not standing up for equality, but unlike the Democratic politicians you mentioned, he is coming out in FAVOR of these state amendments and saying he supports them. That is the difference.

As for you contention that no one other than gays fight for gay rights, that is a load of crap!

There are hundreds of communities with gay rights ordinances all across the country. Some of them are located in conservative areas such as Sarasota, FL. But even there an overwhelming majority of voters voted in favor of extending civil rights to gays in 2002.

There are a lot of examples where anti-discrimination laws are passed, by popular vote and initiatives, all across the country. Unless you think gays are over 50% of the population in those areas you can't claim that only gays are voting for the advancement of civil rights.

So your contention that gays are too lazy to persuade straights to vote for equal rights protections is complete nonsense.

It just shows Kerry has no reason to pander to bigots.

and i never said gays have not fought for anything or that gays were lazy. i myself support gay rights even though i'm not gay so i'm not saying only gays do it either. i go out and try to get people tos upport rights for gays. it's tough.

i know people have worked hard, but the fact is that there is still a lot to do in getting people to be more accepting although there has been a turn from about the time the last bush administration was in office.

"Vice presidential candidate John Edwards, campaigning Thursday in Cape Girardeau, said he and running mate John Kerry have "no objection" to this week's vote in Missouri to amend the state constitution to ban gay marriage.

In an interview Thursday, Edwards told the St. Louis Post-Dispatch: "We're both opposed to gay marriage and believe that states should be allowed to decide this question,"

Your life is on the table as an issue, but, to be honest, it wasnt the Democrats who put it there, it was the gay activists who are fighting for their rights, and the right wingers who oppose them.

. . . that was Karl Rove's decsision.

And you are one of the people playing into Rove's hands by deciding to stand against what is right.

They are letting him define the issue, and them...and it looks, from Edwards comments, that they are going to try to seem like they are anti-gay marriage and pro state-amendement, while still leaving some wiggle room.

What is right is for Kerry & Edwards to make a clear stand, one way or another and be forefull in defending their position.

This shading and avoiding that they are doing is not going to hack it.

it plays in Dem circles....

"Vice Presidential candidate John Edwards, campaigning in Cape Girardeau, said he and running mate John Kerry have "no objection" to this week's vote in Missouri to amend the state constitution to ban marriage between Jews and non Jews.

In an interview Thursday, Edwards told the Post-Dispatch: "We're both opposed to marriage between believers and non-believers and believe that states should be allowed to decide this question."

Like gays, one cannot tell who is and who is not Jewish.

NO political LEADER should be silent on another American's HUMAN rights.

Just because people are not well informed on an issue or enlightened does not mean the LEADERS should encourage that lack of understanding. Sometimes the people have to be dragged kicking and screaming into accepting new ideas (such as women voting and working outside the home). LEADERS don't rubber stamp people's prejudices or at least they should not.

are they opposed to gay marriage or are they opposed to the feds deciding what is, essentially, a state matter?

I'd be interested in hearing the audio from that bite in the entire context in which it was offered, because it's real easy to jump the divide on this one by eliminating such a huge qualifier as it being a state issue and not a federal/constitutional issue to them, not gay marriage, per se.

and they've unequivically stated many times they they are against gay marriage PERIOD. Kerry says he supports Civil Unions, but has said he would have voted for the ban in Missouri and he came out in favor of the amendment in Massachusetts.

Furthermore, he has stated his position is *IDENTICAL* to Bush on this issue. The only difference being that he doesn't support the FMA and Bush does.

:hi:

Where've you been?

Good post, by the way. You have noticed how hard Dean has been working, yes?

We vote Kerry now and work to support more palatable choices for future elections. Every Democratic congressperson that supports amending the constitution to ban gay marriage needs to be thrown out on their ass in the next primaries. I don't take that position because I support federal laws to make "marriage" for gays legal but because I'm opposed to amending the constitution to specifically discriminate against GLBT. Kerry deserves the same fate if starts pandering to this mindset to get reelected.

and it's a very good one. not just on his voting record, but of speaking in support of gays and gay rights many times on his own. not just because he had to for campaign purposes.


the fact is that most of america is backwards on things like gay rights, and even differences on religious beliefs. and to win nation wide we need the votes of these people.

if kerry can get into office he will speak of not just tolerance but acceptance of gays and in support of gay rights. if he can get in a democratic congress he will be able to get laws passed supporting gay rights. this would help to get more support for same sex marriage later on. kerry has attended many same sex marriage and has many gay friends. if they felt he would not do right on this issue they would never have supported him.

John Edwards:
""We're both opposed to gay marriage and believe that states should be allowed to decide this question,"

Vice presidential candidate John Edwards, campaigning Thursday in Cape Girardeau, said he and running mate John Kerry have "no objection" to this week's vote in Missouri to amend the state constitution to ban gay marriage.

..so Kerry must have changed his mind on this?

but if we can get in a liberal supreme court they will strike down these state bans on same sex marriage.

the candidates speaking on his issue is mostly about political reasons. same sex marriage is NOT popular in this country. the candidates wont win nationwide with support for it. but once in office they would do things to expand on gay rights. unlike bush who would bush for restrictions and appoint justices to the court who will vote to uphold anti gay laws.

but meaning we got a long way to go. Do you by chance have Kerry's points on DOMA, I think Kerry of all the candiates then and now especially now has the best and longest record on GLBT rights, I believe Ive read he was one of the first to introduce gay rights legislation.

Pre DOMA

" "This bill is election-year pandering of the worst order, and I will not be a party to legislative gay-bashing."

and after DOMA

"fundamentally ugly, fundamentally political, and fundamentally flawed," "The results of this bill will not be to preserve anything, but will serve to attack a group of people out of various motives and rationales and certainly out of a lack of tolerance."

http://www.bostonphoenix.com/medialog/2004/02/homework-help-for-john-kerry.asp

...so at the time he was pretty strong opposing DOMA, but hes really backpedalled on the issue, it seems...or at least is avoiding discussing it.

These quotes seem at odds with what Edwards was quoted as saying, at least in spirit.

Canadians Overwhelmingly Support Gay Marriage
07.06.04
By Jack Siu

Toronto, Ontario) A new survey shows that support for same-sex marriage continues to grow in Canada and for the first time an overwhelming majority supports the idea.

The poll, for Research and Information on Canada and Environics showed that 57% of Canadians favor equal marriage rights for gays and lesbians, 38% are opposed.

http://www.gaywired.com/article.cfm?section=9&id=3444

So nice try, but no cookie.

I wasnt trying to say anything, jeez I support gay marriage but I realize its not gonna happen on its own.

He has a good voting record as Senator, but that has changed since he began running for president.

You'd be hard pressed to find any reference to gay rights on his campaign site. There is only ONE section which is hidden under the communities link and it only refers to his alleged opposition to the FMA. But hesupports state constitutional amendments which are equally as bad.

"the fact is that most of america is backwards on things like gay rights, and even differences on religious beliefs. and to win nation wide we need the votes of these people."
The Civil Rights Act would have never passed with that mindset.

"if kerry can get into office he will speak of not just tolerance but acceptance of gays and in support of gay rights."
You base that on what? It sure as hell can't be based on anything on his campaign site because gays in general as well as gay rights aren't even mentioned.

I would think if he really had an interest in promoting gay rights there would at least be a gay rights section on his campaign site. But when you click on "Civil Rights" gays are completely absent.

i base my words on kerry speaking of acceptance on what he has done and his support for many rights for gays which they do not have at the moment.

and there is a difference between how one runs a campaign and how one governs. when one campaigns the goal is to get support. it's not just to say what you believe in and what you support, but to do it in a way to get additional support and enough to win.

bush had a bunch of minorities on stage at the 2000 convention and he talked about being a uniter , not a divider and about compassionate conservatism but he sure hasn't governed in that way. he governed as he did as governor.

kerry has said many times he supports giving all the rights of married couples to gay couples in the form of civil unions. if he could get this passed then there would later be support for marriage.

but if you want to ignore the things he has done and said he will do that's your choice. i prefer to judge based on a person's record and history rather than just their campaign strategies.

But Johnson said, after signing the Civil Rights Act into law, that "we just lost the South." And he was correct. Still, he signed the law on principle.

Your argument seems to center around your suggestion that gay rights aren't popularly supported. My point is that in many parts of the country neither was the Civil Rights Act, and it never would have passed if you waited until the majority wanted it.

"kerry has said many times he supports giving all the rights of married couples to gay couples in the form of civil unions. if he could get this passed then there would later be support for marriage."

Yes, and that's complete crap. Separate but equal NEVER IS.

Furthermore, it isn't possible to bestow all marriage rights on Civil Unions without changing literally thousands of federal laws, and Congress would never go along with that and Kerry knows it.

"but if you want to ignore the things he has done."
I don't want to ignore what he's done. The problem is he wants to ignore his own record and distance himself from it.

If he is opposed to equal marriage rights while endorsing worthless civil unions that's one thing. But coming out and endorsing state constitutional bans and saying, as he did in Missouri, that he would have voted in favor of the ban himself had he been a resident is beneath contempt from where I sit.

And furthermore it will only lose LGBT voters in Missouri. Most people who are opposed to gay marriage also oppose civil unions. His stance on civil union "equivalents" (and forgetting for a moment that it isn't possible to do that) will not get him very many of the 28% of the electorate in Missouri who voted in favor of the amendment. It may, however, piss off enough LGBT voters to give the state to Bush (afterall, Kerry is only 1% ahead in the last poll).

All I'm saying is that he needs to be aware that not all LGBT voters put party first. Some of us refuse to be taken for granted.

he supports expanding the rights of gays in this country. and it took separate but equal before colored people got total rights. but even in practice they don't really have all rights at the moment. it still takes work.

but during the civil rights movement people would go out and organize in support of it. and it didn't start with johnson. it took years before a president would pass it. but even before previous presidents did other things like integrate the military.

You'd be hard pressed to find any reference to gay rights on his campaign site.

"I'm really on your side, but lets keep that our little secret"

...it does seem Kerry is running from the gay issue, or at least trying to dodge it.

if what you want him to do is fully embrace gay rights and be open about it for the election he isn't going to do it. but you don't have to vote for him.

im pretty cynical about politicians, and find alot of what goes is amusing from that cynical/ironic perspective.

I certainly will vote for him, and have contributed to his campaign, but I am having alot of fun with how this issue is playing out.

KANSAS CITY, Mo. — Sen. John Kerry said in an interview published yesterday that he would have voted for the gay-marriage ban passed overwhelmingly this week by Missouri voters.

The Democratic presidential nominee, who spent parts of two days stumping across the state, told The Kansas City Star the ballot measure was the same as one his home state of Massachusetts passed a few years ago. Kerry supported that measure.
-------------------
"We've always argued the states will be capable of taking care of this by themselves," Kerry said. "... We didn't need a constitutional amendment in order to do what's right."

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nati...kerrygay07.html

So not only does he "not have a problem" with this bigoted amendment but he says he would have voted for it himself had he been a MO resident? And then goes on to say "it was the right thing to do?"

WTF? This would be comical if it wasn't so damn serious.

Then, and I love this, he compares himself to BUSH and says he is *IDENTICAL* to Bush on the issue:

"I have the same position as President Bush" as far as letting states decide the issue, Kerry asserted in an interview with the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.
http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/news/...004/9345796.htm

It looks like he's bragging about having an identical position as Bush on the issue (and btw, Bush said in Feb. that he also favors civil unions so I don't know why Kerry thinks if he says that after he endorses amendments banning marriage equality that his support of civil unions is supposed to suffice for something).

I guess he's trying to diffuse the situation and to prevent the Bush campaign from running ads claiming that he favors same-sex marriage equality. But I think he's going overboard with it.

and he IS trying to neutralize the issue so it can't be used as a campaign issue which would benefit Bush.

That was the right answer, from a political standpoint.

Kerry is doing exactly the right thing...

What do you want, this group of Republicans in the White House? Sorry but it more important to world security and the world's environment, and Democracy in the US that Kerry gets elected, even if he has to turn away from helping YOU at this moment.