We need to be prepared to bolt from antigay Democrats

This is a very important time. With the victory of a virulent anti-gay bigot (and Democrat) in Virginia, and the likely victory of virulently anti-gay bigot Casey in the PA Senate race, the new line is "conservative socially and liberal fiscally" is the path to victory in "red" areas.

The prevailing assumption from Democratic strategists is that we have nowhere else to go and our votes are owned by the Democratic party. Let's ensure we make plenty of noise and give them a final opportunity to prove their value in opposing the upcoming anti-gay ballot measures. If they fail us this time, it's important we withhold our votes or vote elsewhere to send them a message.

It's no good electing a Democrat who is going to pass an anti-gay constitutional amendment, or sign a bill banning domestic partner health benefits and same-sex contracts, or lobby for laws banning gay adoption.

I want to know what Hillary will do to rectify her husband's mistake before I decide whether to support her in 2008.

You'll be hissed and booed for "talking about special interest politics."

Of course, supporting ANTI-gay stuff is "what we need to win."

I've had about enough of it.

...got hated for it.

It's like they love us as long as we're good little boys and girls who never ever EVER attempt to define our own political legitimacy; as soon as we do we're accused of "ruining it for everyone."

I was so mad at Clinton for DOMA (especially considering that he rode into his first term on the gay vote), and at the Dems (MY PARTY) for supporting it, I voted for Nader just as a protest (it's okay everyone, it was in CO where, even if every Nader vote were given to Gore, * still would have won by 300,000).

I am going to be a LOUD 'special interest' pisser on every homophobe's parade, rethug AND Democrat, ESPECIALLY in 2008, and I encourage all of my sexual minority siblings to join me.

Please, please, please don't let us get used again!

to support anti-gay discriminatory amendments in 11 states during the 2004 campaign that relegates us to second class citizenship. It's bad enough hearing the Democratic Nominee (Kerry) parroting the same "Marriage should be between a man and a woman" crap that Bush did. But it's disgusting to find out that Bill Clinton was advising Kerry to support the anti-gay marriage amendments on the ballot in 11 states. To his credit, Kerry didn't do that.

I have zero respect for "Big Dawg" or whatever the fuck Clinton's nickname is around here after I read that. Our "gay friendly" President is absolutely nothing of the sort.

Fuck Bill Clinton. And I suspect that Hillary shares the same political views. So, fuck her too.

:applause:

...who signed DOMA while getting blowjobs from someone other than his wife.

:applause:

We should be focusing on the lunatics who want to ban divorce. People are getting very sick of the preposterous, bitter, anti-gay stance of the Repukes.

...in each of the 19 states that has passed anti-gay-marriage amendment.

It would serve the fuckers right!

:grr:

but I live in NY State. If I were in one of the 18 Hate-States I would be out there pounding the pavement with an anti-divorce petition right now.

on the way out.

Fuck 'em. We have a tent big enough for all who wish to be tolerant and respectful of people but not for those who would harm others.

There are enough gays in the United States, especially combined with our true allies (those who would stick with us through thick and thin), that we should be able to command some authority as a voting block.

Even in Red States, Democrats win by slim margins. Do they really think that a few thousand gay folk withholding their votes or voting for a third party is in their best interest? It might not be as effective as in Blue States, but I think we could (and SHOULD) hold Democrats hostage in close elections.

:applause:

but democrats who willingly take donations from gay groups and then hang us out to dry get no support from me this time.

been there done that.

Not giving money to the national Dem party when that money is going to homophobic Dems.

Not giving my time, money or vote to homophobes. Period.

And no, I do not believe that most Pukes want to execute me. :eyes: Voting puke is that last thing I want to have to do, but I may have no choice.

the vast majority of Repukes aren't our friends

If it's a race between a dem and a puke and the dem is homophobic and the puke is "live and let live", that laissez-faire position is a strong selling point.

If it was a race between, say, Dem Ruben Diaz and Puke Mike Bloomberg, that's a no-brainer.

I'll gladly sit out that election

...vote independant of Green. If you have no other choice apart from repuke of Dem, then don't vote! Why give your vote to the enemy? That is the point of this entire thread. Dem's who vote against us are the enemy. Repukes are the enemy all the time.

Not sure I can make it any plainer to red democrats.

Do NOT take my vote for granted. If voting for a conservative democrat is the lesser of two evils and that's the best we can do, then I won't be voting in the U.S. any more. You can keep this lovely country with it's policies on torture, discrimination against gays, pre-emptive wars, and corrupt grandstanding busybody legislators and ideologue judges who believe they should be able to tell you what you can and can't do with your own body and life.

Really, what's the point. There really ARE better countries than America. We are not number one. My ancestors came here to escape tyranny.

If it's to be tyranny now, then I will lead again and leave. I don't mind fighting the battles, but I can't fight this war for my whole life, and I certainly can't let my family or myself be a victim of it.

I live in a wingnut district, which usually means that the Democratic candidate for office is as bad as the Republican - and when our employment non-discrimination law was up for a vote this year, all the regional state reps (both R and D) voted against the measure in my state. The DEMOCRAT excuse was even WORSE than the Repuke. . .he claimed that voting for non-discrimination in employment legislation would lead to gay marriage....

We certainly don't need to be casting votes for people like that, no matter what party they are affiliated with - and we need to let the state party leadership know that we won't support candidates who have made no connection to our community.

He is in favor of laws protecting gays in employment and housing and in favor of contractual rights for gays as well as single gay adoption. He is hardly the second coming of Santorum.

He believes gays are born that way, but wants a constitutional ban on both marriage and civil unions. So we're born into second-class citizenship?

Constitutional ban on marriage or civil unions, any benefits that we want have to done by legal contract through a lawyer at our own expense.

He supports the anti-gay law Warner signed which bans all contracts, domestic partner health care benefits, and a host of other basic (private sector) stuff for gays.

He also supports an anti-gay constitutional amendment.

No thanks.

... my LGBT Democratic club will be screening candidates.

This has been a big issue for us ... if we're a Democratic Club, what do we do if a Democratic candidate is anti-gay?

After the last election I suggested we change our affiliation from Democratic to "Progressive," but that was voted down. Since I'm on the screening committee this year, I have no problem with telling candidates that if they vote against LGBT interests, I will personally work against them and that I will lobby for a "no endorsement" in a particular race. The problem is that we get a lot of candidates who will talk the talk and say all the right things to get our endorsement, but won't walk the walk once elected. There's a belief in some political clubs that if you endorsed a candidate once, you have to endorse him or her again or you risk looking foolish ... but I think LGBT groups who endorse candidates who turn around and vote against gay issues already look foolish, so way compound it with another mistake?

requires people who they endorse to list the endorsement on all campaign literature. That helps the say one thing do another problem.

voluntarily list our endorsements.

To be honest, we haven't had too much of a problem with it, but then we've only had our organization since 2002.

The worst I've seen is a Democratic candidate who screened with us and didn't want us to endorse her in public because she was in a very conservative district. She was happy for us to work the polls and do phone banking for her, however.

At the time I went along with the consensus of "she's a friendly candidate in a hostile distict so if not publicly endorsing her helps her win, we won't endorse her." Why I can see some logic in that, now I think I'm of the opinion at if a candidate doesn't want to be affiliated with us, then they better not waste our time wanting our help. (Of course I'm only one vote out of five on the screening committee ... and have a reputation as the most "radical" one.)

it honestly is. I don't know how conservative your area is but sometimes self interest requires us to work with people quietly.

Most of the candidates who represent the innercity/midtown area are very LGBT-friendly. But once you get out into the 'burbs it's a whole different story. It's difficult to make any hard and fast rule that would apply to all candidates regardless of district. And there have been right-wing candidates who use gay-baiting in their attempts to woo suburban voters. We end up handling everything on a case-by-case basis. That may not appear to consistent to the candidates, but I think most of them realize the difference between city and suburban voters.

... but that doesn't say a whole lot since the legislature is controled by the Repugs (and some nasty ones at that) so she could be only slightly to the right of Fred Phelps and still be an improvement over the Repugs.

The real test for her will be next session when its likely that the issue of gay adoption will be a hot topic.

To give one example. My local state rep and local state senator are not that great on this issue but they help provide the majority that keeps the anti marriage equality amendment bottled up in committee. Thus a vote for them is a vote for those people. Conversely I wouldn't have voted for Easley had I known he would endorse the amendment (we have early voting here and I had already voted).

*They* unwaveringly support gay rights...

....can forget about EVER receiving my vote. Period.

I don't require a candidate to explicitly support same-sex marriage in order to get my vote...however, he/she must at least be open to the concept of allowing same-sex civil unions.