DU has radicalized me on gay rights

I used to be one of the gays that was willing to wait for the rest of the country to come around. I used to be content with what little progress was being made for equality.


Then I joined DU. Then I realized that the majority of my so called comrades do not support gay rights. I realized that I was being used for votes and money, with NOTHING in return.


Let me state this clearly: If you are not for full equality, including marriage, you are NO FRIEND OF THE GLBT community. You are a homophobe. You are a bigot. You may not be an out bigot like Warren, but you are a bigot none-the-less.


I will not tolerate anyone telling me to be patient. I will not tolerate anyone that wants me to wait for my rights. I will not tolerate anyone that tells me that I am overreacting.


To paraphrase Dubya, you are either with us, and support full equality, or you are against us.

Where do you stand? Behind us, with your full support, or against us, with your opposition or qualified support???

Take a stand. But be honest. If you are not for full equality, admit that you are bigoted. Then maybe you can realize that your position is wrong.

Poll after poll shows that the majority do support gay rights. Some are strategic about it and some aren't.

to it, our rights are expendable.

Makes no sense.

We do convert

:shrug:

Well done.

:rofl: :rofl:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Since Warren has already stated that he will not compromise on equality.


Here at DU, I would hope that most are pre-disposed to equality.


Not so with Republicans and evangelicals.

:wtf:

Are you trying to say that you think Obama is completely naive?

And at one time this was a place you could do both and feel like the people you supported would support you back.

Strategy cannot be Radical, QED, etc.

Never mind that such a position has never been known to any radical group that actually had to organize and accomplish stuff. It's easy enough to say it.

I'm also seeing this word "radical" and "radicalized" a lot here today. I think many of the radical GLBT groups, who quite rightly fight heteronormativity in all its guises, would be interested to see the current marriage position being put forth as "radical." It is certainly reformist and necessary, but it is not at all "radical," at least not according to any history of GLBT activism I've ever seen.

out of a Civil matter rather nicely.

since marriage ceremonies are often tied with church services and you can't legislate the church.
But I guess since I support that, I'm a bigot. I love broad, simple-minded generalities.

Many people are married with no church involvement whatsoever.

there would be nothing stopping their movement.

Just as the far rightwing religious wackos realized their strength in the 1980's, then proved their strength in the 1992 presidential election.

In 1992, the religious right sat out and Bush the Elder lost.

If the GLBT community ever sat out an election, the Democrats would lose.

There is political muscle there.

Flex it.

Pick a race in a strong Democratic California district in 2010 where the curent congressperson does not fully represent the GLBT community. I'm sure you can find one out there. Then have a movement where the GLBT community sits it out.

That would make the Democratic party so fearful of your community they would never ever tell you to sit down and shut up again.

take a seat that gives lukewarm support and hand it to the party that is openly hostile.

Wouldn't it be just a tad more effective to offer up primary challenges to the lukewarm dems and replace them with people who give strong support to GLBT issues?

Nobody EVER gained ANYTHING by boycotting elections.

It's called strategy.

to prove political muscle. The GOP did not beleive the religious right had political muscle until the religious right were willing to sit out a presidential election. They've never stopped catering to every whim of the religious right since that election.

No Democrat can win without the support of the GLBT community.

Not a one.

If the GLBT community proved that point, they'd get more support.

And a single House seat is the least damaging to the GLBT cause.

You would make your point, make it effectively. And do as little damage to your own cause as well as to other worthy causes in the process.

Simple. Elegant. Brilliant.

This is a plan worth pursuing.

It's how voting blocks have gained notice throughout our history. You have to flex the muscle of a voting block to be effective, and the GLBT block is certainly large enough to tip the balance in most elections.

The religious right traditionally NEVER voted en masse prior to Bush 1, when Jr began organizing them. And since then, they've never stopped voting as a block. There was never a time when the RR 'sat out' an election since then.

And if the gay block is so all-powerful, why isn't every fucking city San Francisco?

You are deluding yourself about the strength of the gay vote.

To win respect within the party. Filth like Warren get respect because they command a whole bloc of voters.

I will devote all my energy as an activist to helping rebuild some national GLBT organization, NOT helping the Democratic Party.

I have soaked up the hundreds of Warren threads and taken it all in. I support gay rights 100% and think that there should be no distinction in the civil rights between gays, heterosexuals, people of color, etc. However, I may not be horribly educated on this issue as a whole, I find it curious that the civil rights movement of the 60's had major figures, men and women we can easily call out 40+ years later however I can't name a single figure of that magnitude in this fight for civil rights.

Your mention of becoming radicalized on this issue made me think of this and I wanted to know if there truly is someone of that stature that speaks out suck as Dr. King did and who organizes in that way. I would be interested to read anything they may have written or an analysis of organizing efforts that have been made, events, etc.. I am hopeful that the lessons of the civil rights movements of the 60's are being utilized today.

1) The Civil Rights Movement "leaders" is more or less a myth concocted after the fact, according to our favorite "Great Man Theory of History." Most of the organizing went on below the surface among thousands of anonymous workers who organized at the local level.

2) The African American civil rights struggle could rely on a) a definitive and recognized "identity" together with b) clearly demarcated communities and community structures. It's not a surprise that most of the putative 'leader figures" came out of well-established religious organizations, that is, already established community structures. The problem for the GLBT movement is precisely that the identity is under siege for individual members (i.e., it's still not easy to 'come out" for many, many GLBT people), and that the community structures are fairly recent in their emergence. It's not, then, surprising, that you would see the strongest organized elements of a GLBT movement in the places where GLBT communities have flourished (i.e., in specific urban areas). But it still makes it difficult to organize.

3) Historically, the African American civil rights struggle had the advantage of narrowband media, so to speak: you still had something like the emergence of national figures in opposition movements then. With today's broadband media, the attention space of public opinion is much more scarce, so it's more difficult to put forth some definitive voice or even several definitive voices, which may be just as well (shouldn't we all be sick to death of the Leader Principle anyway?).

The MAIN lesson of the African American civil rights struggle is that you have to be attentive to specific historical conditions, and you cannot merely import some past model as if it will work equally well today. In other words, the lesson is to take that which seems to work, while abandoning the strategies that were specific to THAT occasion, and INVENTING new strategies. The African American cicil rights struggle was actually remarkably inventive. It didn't just rely on tropes and tactics from other struggles. It invented new ones that were more appropriate for its occasion.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Alert on me.

From the rebukes that have dished out to me, one would consider a tombstone to be the very least I deserve, likely followed by a public thrashing.

If I, and those who share my views are as patently awful as we are made out to be by this poster, and so many others on so many threads, then we must be destroyed.

So I issue the open invitation: destroy me, I'm past caring.

But it' not up to me.

But this little chip has broken off.

}(