I'm sick of the fucking triangulating on the samesex marriage rights issue

[Telly Savalas]

It's completely stupid that Democrats feel the need to pander to the bigots on this issue. Our message should be firm and straightforward (no pun intended):

We Democrats stand for the civil rights of all Americans. If for the case of the government recognizing same sex marriage, this makes some of you uncomfortable, then consider this: the Republicans are plunging our nation into debt so that the rich may have huge tax cuts. 1 in 6 children are living in poverty, and our bold Republican leaders aren't even talking about it much less doing anything about it. Our healthcare system is a trainwreck, with 45 million Americans uninsured. Our schools are being assaulted by the GOP's inane "No Child Left Behind" initiative. Our young men and women are being killed daily in a war based on lies. This list of Republican failure and neglect could go on forever.

So the decision is simple: if your distaste for two people of the same sex getting married overshadows all of these things, then go vote for Republicans and enjoy our descent into another Dark Age. If on the other hand, these extremely important issues outweigh your hang-ups about homosexuality, then vote for a party that will provide solutions.

Let's quit fucking around. Rather than appeasing bigots, we simply need to sell the rest of our agenda properly. Then the public will be left with two choices: (1) a set of policies that work or (2) the Republicans. If the electorate chooses what's behind door #1, then gay marriage comes along with it and everyone's just going to have to deal with it.

If it turns out that the majority of the electorate is so filled with hate that they'll knowingly vote for people who'll wreck the nation, then we're all fucked anyway and no amount of triangulation will save us.

Furthermore, does such triangulation even win us any votes???

"I would have voted for the Democrat if she had supported only civil unions, but because she holds the extremist position of backing gay marriage I felt compelled to vote for the more moderate Sam Brownback." Gimme a fuckin' break.

It's one thing to cede some ground on gun control or hold back from offering a universal child-care plan in the interests of compromise, but on this issue basic civil rights are at stake, and it's disgusting that "compromise" is even being considered.

[jab105]

1. Unfortunately, the democratic leaders would rather have it both ways...

and lose out becauwse of it...

I agree with you, for what its worth:)

[w4rma]

2. Tough. Convince another 20% of the nation that gay marriage is good and

then it'll get a plank. Until and unless that happens, it's going to be civil unions, not gay marriage.

[Telly Savalas]

4. So for 1 in 5 Americans...

if the Democrats support gay marriage instead of civil unions it would be the sole factor in losing their vote?

[Occulus]

5. I support our government ONLY giving out civil unions

Let the religious call it a marriage. It's a sacred institution, after all.

Let the government give us all civil unions, between any two unrelated, consenting adults.

Problem solved, and for all time.

[benevolent dictator]

30. Actually, marriage is a governmental institution

that religion decided to take. It isn't a "sacred institution" it's about (property) rights. Women were property, signed over in the contract of marriage to men.

[mmonk]

3. I agree

Whatever happened to principles?

[MisterP]

9. principles bad!

flee screaming before their vicious lies can reach your ears!

[ruggerson]

6. Right On

I've been saying this for months.

The vast majority of people in this country are pro choice. But we've elected, what, three anti-choice presidents in the last thirty years. Why? Because they took a PRINCIPLED stand and the majority, who disagreed with it, respected it nonetheless.

That is the route the Democratic leadership should take with same sex marriage.

1) Make it clear it's about civil marriage only - that churches would continue to marry or not marry whomever they wish. THIS WILL NOT AFFECT CHURCHES OR RELIGION IN ANY WAY.

2) Make it equally clear that the support of civil same sex unions is based on principle and that it's wrong to go against principle to win elections. And add to that you are aware that the American people currently are not ready for same sex marriage, it is NOT something you will make a priority or actively push for. But you do support civil same sex marriage, because you believe in equality and justice and liberty and you believe in the constitution. And you WILL actively oppose any effort to amend the constitution with discriminatory amendments.

[Pushed To The Left]

7. I agree!

What if politicians wanted to "compromise" on interracial or interfaith marriage? Unfortunately, I think a major reason some Democrats are caving on this issue is what I call the "stupid vote". Stupid bigoted people vote, and politicians are afraid of losing those votes.

This is why it is CRUCIAL to protect the filibuster. I think marriage equality has a pretty good shot at winning in the Courts if we have non-partisan Justices in there. This is why the right wing wants to stack the courts with right-wing ideologues.

[noiretextatique]

8. it is completely stupid

unless of course these democrats are bigots themselves.

[fujiyama]

10. You're underestimating

how much of an impact homosexuality has on the electorate.

The GOP has been able to turn this wedge issue into one of the most pressing concerns affecting certain voters.

It was especially effective in mobilizing right wing churches to get out the vote.

That said, I'm not at all interested in pandering to bigots and we certainly shouldn't compromise in atleast first getting all the rights under traditional marriage to gays and lesbians.

That said, there is something about the word "marriage" that sets many off. I don't get it myself. I personally support gay marriage 100%, but as another poster said, it'd be better changing all marriages to civil unions and leave "marriage" as a matter of religious definition.

[kenny blankenship]

25. That other poster had misplaced his head

up his ass: "changing all marriages to civil unions" would represent such a disestablishment of marriage that the RW-Fundies could argue that gay marriage proponents HAD DESTROYED marriage, as they had secretly wanted to all along. They could argue this--and actually be correct as far as the destruction of legal marriage was concerned.
It wouldn't matter a bit that "civil union" was exactly the same as what it replaced--you had "abolished marriage".

However, you would never be allowed in the first place to implement this radical idea. If you think getting gay marriage approved is difficult, I can tell you that this alternate plan is SIMPLY IMPOSSIBLE. Where do you fight this battle? In the 50 states, getting 50 victories where even 1 would be unlikely? Then your law is sued to death in Federal courts. If you try to abolish marriage in favor of civil unions at the Federal level, you are using the Federal power to eradicate the oldest of laws in each of the states and impose a new formula prescribed in Washington. I don't know if that could even be done short of a Constitutional amendment. It would be many times more easy to--for example--abolish the Supreme Court's authority to review laws, or to abolish the U.S. Senate than to disestablish legal marriage in this country, either as an institution or as merely the NAME for this institution. Most of the Constitution is a matter of indifference to most of the population but once you propose to fuck with marriage, which is scarcely even alluded to that document, you are inviting Ma and Pa Kettle to come to town with their pitchforks and torches, to tar and feather you and burn down the capitol buildings. All things considered it would be much easier to establish the legal interpretation that, under their 14th Amendment rights, gay couples have an equal right to get married and form stable households, and that they have had this right all along but were barred by invidious legal and social discrimination, and that maintaining these barriers constitutes a stigmatization of the homosexual as belonging to a unequal and powerless group.

[fujiyama]

28. You have a good point

I didn't think of the fundies able to portray this as a matter of "destroying marriage", even though it would just change the wording.

Largely it's a matter of semantics, but as we've seen that makes a difference.

I suppose the best approach is to first establish civil unions (meaning all the rights given to straight couples would be given to gay couples), and go from there.

[Behind the Aegis]

11. Religion

The reason this is still a problem is religion. It is that simple. Look at the number of right-wingers motivated by pure hate and bigotry fanned by their religion. Then, look at the Democrats and other "liberals" and the 'excuse' is the same...religion.

"I don't support gay "marriage" because it is sacred institution that dates back to ancient times." That statement is from some liberals. Yes, it would be nice if ALL 'marriages' were civil unions and marriages were preformed in houses of worship, and then, all people could get "civil unions." But, I hate to be the bringer of bad news...that shit ain't going to happen! SO...unless these "civil unions" come with ALL the SAME rights of marriage, then I am not interested and any Democrat that doesn't support it and I fell that person is a bigot (at least toward gays)! Call it the "ooga-booga" for all I care, I just want to know that my 'ooga-booga' allows my partner and I the right to make medical decisions for one another, that it is recognized from state to state, we can adopt (that ain't gonna happen for us personally), we can file joint tax returns, and his fucking insurance covers me and visa versa!

For all you "plank people" worried about how this will mobilize the "right," I have news for you...they are already mobilized. Fuck their homophobia, it's the homophobia in the left and Democrats that concern me more. So, 'plank people,' which rights are you willing to sacrifice for the greater good?

[BrendaStarr]

12. We need to take this message to the rest of America

Our leaders hand are tied by the tendency of Liberals to hide in specialty forums.

Meanwhile Republican neocons are taking over the web by being out in the mixed forums, where even being obnoxious uninformed talking points spammers they are so ever present that sometimes what they say is accepted.

[EvolvedChimp]

13. Gays bad, war good

But polls have shown that the deciding issue for most people wasn't the war, the economy, or education. It was civil and religious problems like Gay marriages and evolution theory. Sickening but true,

[Telly Savalas]

18. Even if this is true...

we have two courses of action:

1. To passively accept this situation, pander to the bigotry, and sell out the rights of a significant portion of our population.

or

2. Attempt to change the situation.

My argument is that choice #1 isn't only morally bankrupt, but it's strategically flawed as well. Until we start hooking up with Fred Phelps and demanding that high school calculus be taught from the Book of Numbers, the arena church crowd will perceive us as a bunch of heathens. So concocting "nuanced" positions to try to woo the gay-unfriendly is just pissing in the wind. Someone who goes to the ballot box with the idea of stopping same sex marriage as their top priority is voting Republican. Period.

It is essential that we take the reins of the national debate. Me must present our issues, demonstrate why these issues are the most important facing our nation, and show how our solutions on this issues are better than those of the GOP. If we can do this, then a lot of people will vote for us even if they are a bit uncomfortable on the issue of same sex marriage. If we fail to do this, we'll forever be on the defensive and in the minority.

(By the way it's my recollection that for as much as the mouthbreathers at CNN trumpeted "moral values" as being the big deciding issue for voters, these claims were huge exaggerations of the real numbers. My memory is pretty flaky though.)

[EvolvedChimp]

29. Come to think of it. . .

I do believe it was a CNN of Fox news station report so it just lost all credibility. Your absolutely right though. We must believe there are still more people who care about our future and country then if Tom and John get married. Though we can't ignore the subject confronting it once and explaining our stance is just as good. The Midwest might be land-locked by they have to have at least a pond. There are votes there and if we do what you suggest I believe we can get them.

P.S. the calculus and book of numbers line, genius pure genius.

[dxstone]

14. Well put, Telly!

I think the essence of the poetic principle lies in finding a way to communicate the extremely complex in simple, easy to understand terms... often it's simply a case of cutting thru the bullshit and finding the kernel of truth or wisdom at the heart of a loud and busy argument...
in this sense, I find you a poet of rare eloquence...

Unfortunately, people by and large are fucking stupid...
I mean, can you believe that ANYONE in this nation would vote for this creepy rich-bitch vacuous asshole, the son of one of the biggest C-I-A-Holes in the world, and certainly one of our lousiest presidents ever?



I can't...
And yet it happened...
D

more criminal mischief at
http://presidentevilonline.com

[Lexingtonian]

15. yes and no....

I'm not sure who/what exactly you mean with 'triangulating', but the Democrats I think you are arguing with don't necessarily disagree with gay marriage. They disagree with aggressive emphases on it at this political moment.

They have a point. In fact, I think a sort of poetic/imaginative look at what the GOP is doing nationally, now that it has unobstructed power and no Democratic/liberal distraction, is redebating the issues of white American history within itself. In a sense, there's nothing else they share as knowledge, such as it is, or common inheritance- what else could they possibly be rearguing.

Right now we've done the New Start (Bush's Inauguration vulgarity and Republican full majorities celebrating themselves gleefully and vainly) and quickly got to indentured servitude (1620s) in February as the Bankrupcy Bill. We've done Conquest/Rape/Cultivation of the Wilderness as the ANWR argument, the refusal to clean up the BIA mess, and the reduction of farm subsidies and Medicare. We're into the battles of Puritanism at this point- the Mary Dyer life/death issues (1657-60) curiously contorted as the Schiavo argument, the argument about theocratic judges and rule (1663-1720s) as the 'nuclear option', the Salem Witch trial and its (too late for some victims) reversal (1692, 1693) in the East Waynesville Baptist Church business. At the present clip of roughly 1 year of American history per day, this argument will last another month or two and the present RR Neopuritanism be defeated for all practical purposes...for all time.

Even if this fun theory is wrong, empirically the Republican argument among themselves is all about theocracy and its role. Some Democrats have caught on to the overall picture- the status of the Religious Right leadership's agenda getting destroyed within the GOP- and realized that the worst possible thing to do at the moment is to give them some Democratic opposition to rally against.

So I see the Democratic response as some combination of uninformed and wise 'don't interrupt your enemy while he's handing you the victory you want'.

[Telly Savalas]

19. I'm not proposing an aggressive emphasis on same sex marriage.

Quite to the contrary, I think the aggressive emphasis should be on issues like health care, jobs, a responsible and just fiscal policy, and a smart foreign policy. It's our job to convince straight America that these issues are more important to them than whether or not their gay neighbors who are already living together have a piece of paper from the government which recognizes those circumstances.

[MADem]

16. We need to triangulate back, using HUMAN RIGHTS as the theme

And the way to win this battle is to give SINGLE PEOPLE RIGHTS. They don't pass their benefits on when they die, they go back in the pot, even if they have a sibling or other relative who could benefit from them.

Get singles on the bandwagon, tie the issues of rights and benefits to their lot as well, and you will see a seismic shift.

Family values aside, singles are the MAJORITY of households in America, we just have to give them a goddamn reason to vote.

Then, we win.

[spooky3]

17. Ellen DeGeneres has a popular daytime show, Queer Eye is a hit at

night, many people have hair stylists they know are gay, etc. What I don't get is, when people are open enough to enjoying all of these people, why can they not make the connection to supporting equal rights for them?

[Alpharetta]

20. Suggestion: win the issue. Don't make it a tradeoff

The issue is winnable on its own. Don't cloud the issue with other grievances against the Republican Party (war, lying, stealing, polluting cheating bastards)

Win the issue on its own.

The arguments should be one of fairness:
- rights for survivors after death of gay spouses
- rights for children after death of gay spouses
- rights for gay couples to enjoy the same economic advantages hetero couples enjoy (golf club memberships, etc.)
- other rights I'm not conversant on

We are a country that deeply believes in equality and fairness. I think if we stick to the issue instead of trying to fight it in religious terms against religious bigots, we'll get more traction.

Just my opinion.

[gordianot]

21. Since when are Democrats in a position to make any of their views known?

How much legislation have they passed in the last 8 years? Democrats need control of something somewhere. Some day we may get to be in a position to compromise on something. The current Republican Party is working hard not to have to compromise. I agree that we need to get much better at defining issues. The details can come later lets not eat our own.

Lincoln that good Republican would be a good model. He really wanted to end slavery but had to tailor his message until the time was right.

[CornField]

22. Religious Rites confused with Civil Rights - film at 11

Don't I wish the media would cover the "gay marriage issue" from that perspective. They can't even muster the testicular fortitude to proclaim the truth: "equal rights are not special rights."

[Festivito]

23. They opt for the easy excuse of rhetoricized principle.

You are correct but long winded.
. Our election system teaches with bumper sticker ads
.. so we form bumper sticker thinkers.

Your points are too complicated.
. Are they true -- for the ones who have little background in debts and deficits and billions and trillions, even millions
. Why should they trust you?
-They'll just say nice words and leave you.

NO.
No matter how complicated your approach, all they have to do is calmly sit and talk about how they think that marriage is sacred, and all your truths dissapate into a sea of rhetoric with a face of calm assurance, while you wildly gesticulate detail after placated detail.

MAYBE BETTER:
(I'm still working on this, so forgive me..)
Hitler placed pink triangles on gays and would gladly had put A's on abortionist/adulterers for promoting his reich/realm.
The question I have is:
What differs a single-issue voter today from a Hitler supporter of then?

[JustJill]

24. it's the civil rights, stupid

it's the civil rights, stupid
it's the civil rights, stupid

[IndianaGreen]

26. Democrats pandered to the segregationists among Southern Democrats

for decades before LBJ came along and signed the 1965 Civil Rights Act. Why are we surprised that the party elites are now pandering to the bigots of the Religious Right when it comes to human rights issues such as women's reproductive rights and GLBT rights.

The challenge for Democrats and all other progressives is to decide whether we will oppose the bigotry that passes for religion in this country, or remain silent accomplices of it.

[Colorado Blue]

27. I agree. No compromise. This is a basic civil rights issue

and it's simply not negotiable, any more than women's rights or racial or religious or minority rights, are negotiable.