If one of the prospective Veep candidates was against interracial marriage

some of you might be a bit put off by it.

I know I would.

So, please put away your concern about people being angry with a possible Veep candidate who isn't even in favor of something as uncontroversial as civil unions.

That's not called being a single issue voter, that's called being pragmatic and clear eyed about serving the best interests of one's family.

And, btw, most gays and lesbians, if you believe the polling, will still vote overwhelmingly for the Democratic ticket, even though they are being asked to accept Jim Crow, second class citizenship by their own party.

Because the alternative is even worse.

But, it's going a little too far to ask them to be happy or content with it.

Don't ask them not to demand, continuously and loudly and determinedly, that their basic civil rights be addressed.

And don't ask them not to challenge the leaders of their own party to live up to the party rhetoric of equality and justice.

That is what citizens do. It's what Martin Luther King did fifty years ago.

You shouldn't expect any group of human beings to sacrifice their right to equality on the altar of political expediency.

They're simply exploiting gay rights. It's a canard.

are the republicans (and some cowardly democrats) who use it as a wedge issue to get elected.

Not gay people.

then it's a matter of my interests and mine alone are what matter. It's like the guy who votes for the tax-cut Republican because he'll personally benefit and doesn't care that government programs for the poor and disabled get cut.

they ARE fucking homophobes, and shitty excuses for human beings.

I'm glad, because Skinner himself has said those who don't support our right to marry are not welcome on DU.

but it's there in spirit :)

Glad to hear it. : )

don't boycott an Obama/Kaine ticket if it came down to that. I'm one of those who will overwhelmingly vote the Democratic ticket even though I may be asked to vote for someone against my own interest and my own civil rights. I am a member of the LGBT community although some DUers responded to a recent posting of mine assuming I was straight. I really believe we need a Democrat in the White House and we are in a serious, grave situation in this country and the world. It's important for us (LGBT)to work on whatever levels we can to protect our rights. Taking votes away from a Democratic presidential candidate is not going to do anything to protect our rights unless you seriously believe Kaine is going to actively engage in preventing civil unions from occurring within the individual states. His presence on the ticket (all conjecture of course) may not progress our rights, but they won't chip away at the those we have either.

if Obama choose him, he will publicly recant his position, which currently is to the right of Dick Cheney.

IT's simple enough: he can say that he was representing the people of Virginia, and now he's going to represent the entire country.

If he doesn't, it's perfectly appropriate for gay groups to keep up a constant drumbeat of pressure to force him to publicly change his position.

this election: Donnie McClurkin, Sam Nunn, Kirbyjon Caldwell, Leah Daughtry, Tim Kaine, etc. That is a new and not at all welcome development. What the hell is going on?

GLBT blamed for Kerry's loss by some. The rest are republican types embarassed by Bush who are now "democrats" (for a few months) but feel entitled to spread their poison wherever they drift

Lots of temporary Democrats, and lots of people who blame the party's gay constituency for our losses. Couldn't be the corporate whoring, the incompetent campaigning or anything like that--it must be The Homos!

Many of those posters are still on here.

It would be that simple. As for the constant drumbeat, that would be the upside of his candidacy---bringing the issue of civil unions to the forefront and letting it be known we will not have our rights ignored and dismissed.

NT!

If the VP nom has stated positions contrary to our nominee, then they have to either renounce, or state that they will work for, and carry on the position of our nominee.

that he/she can be persuaded otherwise. There is no longer any room in the DEM big tent for such narrowmindedness. These are politicians, right? They want to please the majority, right? We will just have to make our voices heard loud enough that said candidate gets the message.

There is no difference, though some on here will twist so hard to make one they'll look like balloon animals.

I won't vote for Kaine for VP.