frankenforpres
(763 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Feb-12-07 04:51 PM
Original message |
who would glbt community support.... |
|
if it came down to rudy against j. edwards or hillary. is there any danger here? im just trying to map out all strategies, and i dont know if this is an obvious question or not?
|
keepCAblue
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Feb-12-07 05:07 PM
Response to Original message |
1. Talk about the lesser of evils... |
|
Not much of a choice here...
Both Edwards and Hillary are on the record as being AGAINST full civil rights for GLBTQs (both oppose marriage equality for GLBTQs).
|
frankenforpres
(763 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Feb-12-07 05:14 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
2. that is why i have some concern. |
|
i dont know where all the others Ds are. i, of course, know where the other Rs are. Im curious about richardson
|
Apollo11
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Feb-13-07 10:06 AM
Response to Reply #1 |
9. Civil unions are a huge step forward |
|
Insofar as the federal government can insist that all States recognise Civil Unions granted in other States, that would also be a huge step forward.
In England, same-sex couples have been able to get "Civil Partnerships" for the past 2 years. Most gay groups are satisfied with the situation. Very few people are pushing for the right to call it "marriage".
My guess is that Civil Unions - if they ensured full legal protection and nationwide recognition - would satisfy the needs and wishes of 90% of same sex couples.
To sum up: Yes, rights are important, but names (like "marriage") are less important - IMHO
|
keepCAblue
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Feb-13-07 01:58 PM
Response to Reply #9 |
10. Civil unions for gays. Marriage for hets. Separate but equal |
|
We've been down the road of "separate but equal" in this country (your profile says you're from Belgium) and the SCOTUS determined "separate but equal" to be unconstitutional.
|
Zhade
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Feb-12-07 05:26 PM
Response to Original message |
3. Neither will get my queer OR other vote. |
|
They both push the bullshit about Iran being a threat, so they're off the table for that alone.
|
donheld
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Feb-12-07 06:02 PM
Response to Original message |
4. Rudy will NOT get my vote - end of discussion |
keepCAblue
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Feb-12-07 06:49 PM
Response to Original message |
5. Kucinich is the only pol -- dem or repub -- on the record for GLBT equality |
|
He has been very vocal about full equality for GLBTQs...
|
Orangepeel
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Feb-12-07 07:00 PM
Response to Original message |
6. Rudy can't get the nomination unless he regresses on gay rights |
|
he won't get the nomination anyway, but the only way he could would be to find Jesus and start hating.
|
frankenforpres
(763 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Feb-12-07 09:16 PM
Response to Reply #6 |
7. i think you may be right |
|
he will probably shift his position to where he is at least as bad as edwards. i really like edwards too, but he is bad on this issue.
|
hulklogan
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Feb-13-07 12:03 AM
Response to Original message |
8. None of the candidates really care about GBLT equality |
|
So it doesn't matter anyway. Neither the Democratic nominee nor the Republic nominee will work to make any genuine progress towards GBLT equality.
So I don't think there's any reason to worry about en masse GBLT voting for Guiliani.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Wed May 01st 2024, 07:29 AM
Response to Original message |