3.08% of the total electorate in 2004 were LGBT voters who voted for Kerry

[dsc]

Kerry got 48% of the total vote so a bit over 1 out of 16 of his votes came directly from LGBT voters. Add in family and friends and I am sure we are more numerous than Nader voters were in 2000. Biden blew the answer, not because of the fact he restated the campaign's position on marriage equality but because he kept the framing of that question.

He should have brought that question back to issues such as ENDA, hate crimes, and DADT all of which favor us and all of which are substantial differences between McCain and Obama. After all, the right to marriage is pretty useless if you can be fired for exercising it or killed for exercising it.

We supply many votes and even more money and time. We have every right, and yes responsibility, to critique our candidates when we feel they are wrong. We won't shut up. We won't stay in one particular forum. We stupid queers, we selfish homos, we won't shut up.

[terrya]

1. AMEN. Recommended

To those assholes here at Democratic Underground who refer to us as "the gays" and demean and trivialize us and our concerns and would try to push us to the back of the bus....FUCK YOU.

I agree with your post. And I hope Senator Obama, who will encounter this question during the next debates, takes your advice. I don't know if I can listen to "marriage is solely between one man and one woman" again from our nominee during the next debates. It was hard enough listening to him say it at that Saddleback Forum a few months back.

[yourguide]

2. Ok, and I am sooooooooooo sure that McCain-Palin will...

be a better choice for you.

Seriously. Your agenda cannot and will not hold the entire party hostage just because you dont have everything you want in a candidate. Obama/Biden arent perfect but far far better on LGBT issues than any republican out there.

I am sorry Biden didnt answer the way you thought best but I can assure you his worst is far better than Palin's best.

Critique all you want, here's hoping you dont vote against your own self interest in November.

[terrya]

3. Why is our simply demanding equality an "agenda" to you?

You're parroting the same damn words as the bigoted fundamentalists. Exactly.

[davidpdx]

6. Actually it looks like to me that there is some kind of coordinated

attack based on the number of threads that are unconditionally bashing people. I've reported a couple of them already.

[Zuiderelle]

9. I agree. I've seen a LOT of gay-bashing threads here in the last 24 hours.

[QC]

11. Yep, hard not to wonder if it's a coordinated campaign. n/t

[yourguide]

16. I would suggest YOU are the one

parroting the same damn words as the bigoted fundamentalists. Exactly.

The same ones hollering about right to life, rattling their sabers, threatening to with hold their vote if they dont have someone that wants to abolish roe v wade. Sounds similar. Just insert your own issue here _______.

The bottom line is, no candidate is perfect. I am very against nuclear power but I am certainly not foolish enough to rattle around the percentage of voters also against nuclear power suggesting that perhaps, as in the case of those who voted for Nader, that perhaps my counterparts will also shift to a 3rd party if he doesnt immediately change his stance on nuclear power.

Equality is indeed important, but there is a huge difference in working toward that goal and taking the progress in stride rather than hinting at some veiled threats of going third party.

You are heard. It will not happen overnight, every day, every week, there are steps forward (and some steps back) and perhaps a bit more patience will suffice.

Everyone on BOTH sides have issues VERY important to them.

[terrya]

20. WHERE did I say that I was voting third party?

WHERE did you read, anywhere in my post, that I was voting third party or Nader or whatfucking ever?

And don't you fucking DARE to compare me to the bigots.

[yourguide]

24. With all due respect...

how dare you fucking compare me to the bigots? I actually gave you a pretty good example of how extreme your post read.

Then why bring Nader into your OP? Why such an aggressive post? Why all the screaming WE WILL BE HEARD?

For fuck's sake, you are heard! Again, it keeps moving in the right direction. Look at the big picture and look at which of the candidates will work on behalf of your interests.

Again, nuclear energy is very important to me yet I am not on this board screaming that the percentage of people who are against nuclear energy is larger than the percentage of people who voted Nader, inferring that perhaps my vote could go 3rd party if I dont get my way.

This election is far too important for this nonsense, we should work together to change things and look at the candidate again more likely to moving things in the right direction. And you see what all of that rattling got us in 2000...

[Fran Kubelik]

112. First of all, you are confusing Terrya with the OP.

And don't you fucking dare tell me you think THE GAYS lost the election for you in 2000.

[Zuiderelle]

7. No one is saying they won't vote for Obama. We're saying that our votes are important.

And that our representatives should do a better job of representing our interests, our civil equality.

You pulling the word "agenda" into this conversation is insulting at best.

[yourguide]

18. Your votes are important.

And perhaps using the word agenda was a poor choice.

My point is everyone has issues very important to him/her, I for one do not expect my candidate to be perfect and line up with my beliefs 100%.

However, in the primary, I voted Kucinich. Kucinich didnt make it, I think it's clear between obama and mccain who is more progressive when it comes to equality issues. No, it's not perfect but it will keep things moving in the right direction.

[Zuiderelle]

35. But see, that's not the question. There's no question that we all want Obama to win.

But for the past couple of days around here everyone is ignoring our concern that one of our candidates has just said something very un-democratic in a national debate.

It's not just an issue that's important. It's civil rights. It's equality. It's one of the things this country is supposed to have been built on. I'm not black, but black civil equality is very important to me, AS important as my own civil equality. I'm not a straight woman, and I've never had to choose whether or not to have an abortion, but the right to make that choice is very important to me, AS important as my own civil equality. The problem is that both of those things are not being as ignored or maligned as my civil equality.

Our candidates support universal healthcare, lowering taxes on the middle class, fixing our economy, ending the war in Iraq, preserving a woman's right to choose... but they are "against gay marriage." That's the issue. The ONLY non-democratic thing that are candidates agree with the other side about seems to be that marriage is supposed to be between a man and a woman, and that I do not have equal rights in that regard.

Yes, we're progressing. That doesn't mean that we don't have a right to discuss how irritating and hurtful it is for OUR civil equality to be pushed to the back EVERY SINGLE FUCKING time. There's always something more important, so important that we need to actually REJECT civil equality for gays... not just ignore it. REJECT IT.

[yourguide]

40. I'm not suggesting that you dont have a right to discuss it

But you do have to admit inserting Nader into the OP definitely inferred "we will take our marbles and go home". That's what I have issue with.

Believe me, I get it. I think the OP took a very combative tone with this post and instead of it opening a discussion it came off as a veiled threat.

I understand, and yes it IS important but apparently the country isnt there yet. What is important is things moving in the right direction. Rights for same sex partners will I am sure lead to marriage being accepted as well, as much as we'd all like it to change overnight, just as in the case of many many issues it takes a bit of time to turn the tide.

[PeaceNikki]

25. The people who are upset are the people working hard to help Obama win

every day. They are donating time and money to make sure it happens. This is WHY they feel disappointed and hurt about their civil rights being so easily dismissed. How many of our GLBT friends would ever cross the party line? Really?

[yourguide]

28. Thanks Nikki

I do understand, I just dont like the undercurrent of whats inferred by bringing Nader into this post.

I dont disagree with the poster, I do disagree with any singular person or group's issue or agenda holding the party hostage. This election is about ALL of us, we all have issues important to us and they are not necessarily in the same order of priorities as others.

I understand that it's disappointing, I am disappointed about other issues as well but would I even suggest I am going 3rd party, would I suggest that my voting block, based on my issue could in fact move another direction if I dont get my way. No.

The truth of the matter is, for the most part GLBT issues are moving in the right direction, although slower than anyone wants. Patience is what's needed and making sure we vote someone in committed to moving things in the right direction.

[justiceischeap]

54. Nader and Misunderstandings

Just to clarify for you, I believe the point of bringing up Nader wasn't an implied threat, it was used to show an example of our numbers. One can type 3.08% but that doesn't mean much to some people. You say that the gay community was equal to the amount of votes Nader garnered then you get an idea the real numbers.

Every gay person I know is upset about the way Biden answered that question at the debate. In all honesty, if you really knew anything about the gay rights movement, you'd know it was his BIGGEST gaffe of the night, if not the campaign thus far. Every gay person I know wants Obama to win but that doesn't mean when our candidate lets us down that we don't get upset. It doesn't mean when people belittle our community and say our call for civil rights is an issue that's better left unspoken, you may as well walk up to the next black person you see and tell them to get in the back of the bus or not to use that public water fountain.

When our progressive brothers and sisters sound so much like the fundies on this issue, just with nicer insults, it's disappointing to us because we support your big issues that don't have much to do with us.

[yourguide]

63. Then why bring up Nader?

The percentage is out there, no clarification needed. I disagree.

Sorry, social issues for me this year are taking a back seat to everything else for me. And you have no idea what "big issues" I support so I am not sure how you can assume that you all support my issues.

As for your fundie crack, right now I am concern most about life and death issues Iraq, health care, rights of trial for prisoners at gitmo. All of my social issues have taken a back seat to not seeing another dead soldier or civilian on EITHER side in Iraq.

The point is, everyone's issues are prioritized differently. You put that issue ahead of other issues because it's more important to you. I put health care and Iraq as my priorities because my boyfriend is uninsured and my cousin is in Iraq. Everyone is different yet apparently those who dont have LGBT rights ahead of other issues important to them apparently are dismissive and fundies to you. Give it a rest.

[justiceischeap]

79. Okay

The point is, everyone's issues are prioritized differently. You put that issue ahead of other issues because it's more important to you. I put health care and Iraq as my priorities because my boyfriend is uninsured and my cousin is in Iraq. Everyone is different yet apparently those who dont have LGBT rights ahead of other issues important to them apparently are dismissive and fundies to you. Give it a rest.

Since when is CIVIL RIGHTS an "issue." You say you care about health care... well guess what so do I. I care that I can't get health care through my partner's job because we're not seen as important as you are. You care about Iraq, well so do I. My partner is in Iraq and dies, and I get no benefits. See where I'm going with this? Probably not.

LGBT rights isn't an issue it's CIVIL RIGHTS wrapped into every day issues and most people don't stop to see how intertwined everything is.

[yourguide]

82. With all due respect

Lets say this issue is the only issue that changes. Does the right to be married change the number of soldiers dying in Iraq? No. Will it change the number of people getting health care other than those receiving benefits because they are wed? No. A revamped health care system benefits us ALL, not just you and your partner. Us getting out of Iraq benefits us ALL, not just you and your partner.

And I am not seen any more important than you are. In some states same sex unions are recognized and partners can receive benefits. My BF and I dont believe in marriage, I dont know of any state or any company who would afford him health care without us being married, what about our rights too?

Sorry, right now it's all or nothing and I am in favor of ALL.

I support LGBT issues but again, right now I have different priorities that favor everyone, not just one segment of the population.

[justiceischeap]

87. And according to you your priorities are much more important than mine

And just as an FYI, in some of those same states that afford marital rights to gay couples also afford rights to straight committed relationships but it's still not the same thing.

If your BF is sick and in the hospital you can still visit him, if my GF is sick and in the hospital, they can LEGALLY tell me I can't visit but apparently, that's okay with you.

As far as your Iraq argument, maybe if the Fed. Government hadn't fired all those Arabic translators because they were gay, there would have been less deaths in Iraq because of it.

So ultimately you are an issue voter who puts your certain issues above all. Well guess what, I support ALL your issues you've stated but you have yet to support mine as equally important when you say "I support LGBT issues but again, right now I have priorities."

[yourguide]

93. This statement

"If your BF is sick and in the hospital you can still visit him, if my GF is sick and in the hospital, they can LEGALLY tell me I can't visit but apparently, that's okay with you."

Is false. The truth is neither one of us would have the same rights as married couples in this situation and you know it. Legally, I would not be afforded any different visitation rights than you simply because I am straight. You know it and I know it.

I do support your issues, I just dont prioritize them in the same manner that you do. My issues are more important to me because I feel those issues help EVERYONE, not just one segment of the population. You feel that your issues are important to you because of the way they affect you and your partner. I am also very against Nuclear Power but I will not allow that to change what I feel are THE most important issues to me.

And this statement "As far as your Iraq argument, maybe if the Fed. Government hadn't fired all those Arabic translators because they were gay, there would have been less deaths in Iraq because of it." although it's possible that it's TRUE still doesnt get us out of Iraq.

As I stated before, comprehensive health care reform helps us ALL, not just you and your partner. The US out of Iraq helps us ALL, not just you and your partner.

I dont have the same rights as married couples because my BF and I dont believe in marriage, however that is not MY first priority although it is indeed a priority for me.

[justiceischeap]

96. A Correction

"If your BF is sick and in the hospital you can still visit him, if my GF is sick and in the hospital, they can LEGALLY tell me I can't visit but apparently, that's okay with you."

Is false. The truth is neither one of us would have the same rights as married couples in this situation and you know it. Legally, I would not be afford any different visitation rights than you simply because I am straight. You know it and I know it.

http://www.local10.com/news/16707923/detail.html
A lawsuit has been filed against Jackson Memorial Hospital after a woman whose partner died there claims she wasn't allowed to see her for nearly eight hours because she was a lesbian.

I don't know that it's false!

[yourguide]

98. The operative word is LEGAL

Legally I wouldn't have the right to visit my BF in the hospital either if they were only admitting family. I would not be recognized as family either.

We have the same LEGAL rights in this situation unless you are in a state recognized civil union and/or POA. I am not saying it's right, but your assertion that if you are LGBT that there is some law in place suggesting that straight GFs & BFs can visit but gay partners cant then that is incorrect.

What they did was ILLEGAL by not recognizing the the paperwork sent over. That's why there is a lawsuit.

[PeaceNikki]

99. The huge gap in your arguement is the "GF & BF" terms

Gay couples can never move beyond "girlfriend" or "boyfriend" and GAIN the legal right.

[yourguide]

101. No, that is why civil unions & domesic partnerships are recognized

and allowed visitation at hospitals by LAW.

Again, with a civil union, DS, and/or POA, LEGALLY LGBTs have those rights too. This hospital chose to ignore the law, thus the lawsuit.

[PeaceNikki]

102. Due to the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA),

same-sex couples in marriages, civil unions, or domestic partnerships in the U.S. do not have the 1,138 rights that a married couple has under federal law.

The federal government does not recognize these unions, and under the U.S. Defense of Marriage Act of 1996 (DOMA), other U.S. states are not obliged to recognize them.

You know all of this, though, right?

[yourguide]

104. Yes I do.

But having POA trumps all which is why I mentioned it and is ultimately how the woman was able to see her wife on her death bed. And as a straight person, who does not believe in marriage, I would also have to have a POA to compel the hospital to allow me to see my BF.

In fact, in a state like Vermont, I would be afforded NO visitation if they were limiting visitors to family while a couple in a civil union would.

[Zuiderelle]

72. Nicely said.

[justiceischeap]

81. If I had the time I'd list the 1,138 civil rights

Straight people are "granted" upon marriage but even then I think it would be lost on most people.

edited to correct the amount of federal rights to married couples.

[yourguide]

84. I think THIS speaks for itself.

http://www.960werc.com/cc-common/mainheadlines3.html?feed=104707&article=4346631

Biden responded, "Absolutely...In an Obama-Biden administration, there will be absolutely no distinction from a constitutional standpoint or a legal standpoint between a same-sex and heterosexual couple."

[justiceischeap]

89. And I think this speaks for itself

http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE49212F20081003

Palin, Biden agree on gay rights at debate
Asked if he would support gay marriage, Biden said: "No. Barack Obama nor I support redefining from a civil side what constitutes marriage."

What you posted and then what he followed with NEGATED what he originally said and that is why we are all so upset. He could have answered that question much much better.

[yourguide]

94. Do you really believe

That McCain/Palin agree with Obama/Biden on gay rights?

Stop.

[Zuiderelle]

97. So many people just don't want to understand how much more equal they are than us.

[Metric System]

103. Agenda? As in "gay agenda"? I've heard that kind of talk before...

[QC]

105. It reminds me of callers to CSPAN who begin their remarks with:

"As a lifelong member of the Democrat Party...."

[1corona4u]

4. I have 3 words for all of you.

SUPREME COURT JUDGES.


Think about it.

[glowing]

5. What are you going to do? Wake up every morning and hopefully put two feet down.

Life sucks, then you die.. but in between we get to complain or we get busy.. the world is changing...maybe not fast enough for some, but it is... by the time my children are parents, I would hope my old ass isn't complacent and stupid enough to hold people down..

Like with women's rights, I was born with choice, with the recoginition that college was a must, and that women went to work alongside their fellow man... That didn't happen overnight, but it sure did change since my grandmother was a little girl... that's how it works. Time works. It sucks in between and you see the stuggle.. but you don't get to the end without the work in the middle...

AND still, as a woman, I am hearing that judges in robes want to take away my choices, and pay me less than my male counterparts.. so its a battle that you must remain vigillent in maintaining...

[dsc]

10. So if Biden said at the debate that he would support a pro life SCOTUS judge it would be fine

or how about if Biden said he supported parental conscent for abortion or getting the conscent of a husband. Somehow I think if I typed to you what you just typed to me in that circumstance you would call me a sexist pig.

[1corona4u]

19. Seriously, I have tried to stay out of this, but this is very

disturbing to me. Are you really saying that you had no idea what their position was on this? I mean, you've had almost TWO YEARS to find out where they stand on this.

As I said yesterday, this reminds me of the republicans bitching about Gwen Ifill 48 hours before the debate.

I support gay rights, but all this outrage is not good for us right now. You have a snowballs chance in HELL of getting what you want with anyone else in this election.

It's fine to be upset about it, but all the bitching does NOTHING. NOTHING but alienate a lot of people, including yourselves.

[dsc]

21. that isn't what I am saying

and if you read my fucking post, where I said REPEATED THE CAMPAIGN'S POSITION ON MARRIAGE EQUALITY, then you would fucking know that. So hopefully, when I repeat my point here, you will bother to fucking read it. My position is that his answer was poltically stupid. He should have, in one sentence voiced his support for civil unions and opposition to marriage equality, and spent the rest of his answer on issues where he was different from Palin. Now, I hope you bothered to read this.

[1corona4u]

26. You know what. I don't need to be cursed at this morning.

Now I don't give a shit what your point is.




Think about it.

[dsc]

29. then read people's post and don't call them ignorant

as you did. It isn't my fault you didn't read the post.

[1corona4u]

30. I never said anyone was ignorant.

[dsc]

31. This is what you posted

Are you really saying that you had no idea what their position was on this? I mean, you've had almost TWO YEARS to find out where they stand on this.

As I said yesterday, this reminds me of the republicans bitching about Gwen Ifill 48 hours before the debate.

I support gay rights, but all this outrage is not good for us right now. You have a snowballs chance in HELL of getting what you want with anyone else in this election.

It's fine to be upset about it, but all the bitching does NOTHING. NOTHING but alienate a lot of people, including yourselves.

end of quote

What would a person, who in two years didn't know their position on an issue they cared about, be other than ignorant? And again, I directly in my OP stated that I knew their position.

[1corona4u]

33. If I thought you, or anyone else for that matter were ignorant,

I wouldn't have typed all that out. I would have simply just said; this/you are being ignorant.

Seems to me, that you just want to argue about this, so I am now going to hide this thread, not because it's ignorant, but because IT IS NOT PRODUCTIVE, AND NOTHING COMES FROM IT, OTHER THAN BAD FEELINGS, FOR YOURSELF, AND OTHERS.

Hopefully, you can get past this resentment, soon.

[QC]

34. Do you think that telling people to sit down and shut the fuck up

does something other than create bad feelings?

Because that has been the standard response to concerns about GLBT issues here at DU for some time now.

[glowing]

22. Well, before it was acknowledged by the courts as a right to privacy,

I'm sure their were Democrats and Republicans even then saying "no, this shouldn't happen"... But the 70's was a good time for the environment and women.

Personally, marriage is over-rated... Marriage is something you do with a partner.. Joining a legal agreement is something you do and send to the state.... I personally beleive the contract between consenting adults submitted to the state you live in SHOULD NOT SAY MARRIAGE. The state doesn't pre-ordain my religion.. they have no rights to the marriage or the cermony.. they only have a legal obligation to recognize MY joining of legal rights to another person.

Yes, I beleive everyone should have this right. I teach my children everyone should have this right. I've even convinced my parents everyone should have this right. I will stand on any corner holding anyone's hand with a bull horn in my hand to defend your rights as a person in this United States and this world... But do I think that the older people who are a huge voting block at this time aren't ready for the changes we demand... its unfortunate.. it sucks... the right will most likely be a vote from the Supreme Court... But I also know the tolerance for this happens more and more as those old biggoted, hold to the beliefs they were taught assholes need to die before its a better world.. Time is magical that way.. the work seems long and hard.. but eventually, we get there.. eventually my child or my child's child benefits from the work done today... I'm sorry that there are still too many people like my parents... I'm sorry I can't snap my fingers and make it better... If I could, every child today would have food in its belly and a safe, snuggly bed to sleep in tonight...

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted sub-thread

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

[IndianaJones]

12. gay civil rights is still considered an "agenda" by the right and the left. nt.

[Beausoir]

77. That's what is so incredibly frustrating. My own party doesn't fully support basic human rights for

all people.
How long is this going to go on?

[Jersey Devil]

13. You are right but Biden is also human

It is very difficult to think on your feet and word your responses in a way that would best express your beliefs when you are under the gun and perhaps not fully prepared to answer questions on subjects that may never have come up during debate preparation. I am sure that if Biden had the chance to answer again his choice of responses would probably have been far different.

I suggest that you give the Obama/Biden team a chance to make up for Biden's blunder and my bet is that very soon Obama/Biden will address the issue and direct his responses in the direction as described in the second paragraph of your post.

I think their hearts are in the right place but sometimes the tongue does not cooperate with the brain when people are under pressure and they should be given a chance to redeem themselves.

[dsc]

15. that is exactly why it is our responsibility to critique his answer

Obama will be asked this question and he should say he is against marriage equality, for civil unions and spend the rest of the answer on ENDA, hate crimes, and DADT. But evidently if we say something we are evil selfish homos.

[Jersey Devil]

23. I disagree and think the criticisms are about balance

Should a blown answer in a vice presidential debate on a social issue on which you know that the Democratic candidates are far superior to the Republicans be cause for sounding alarms that make it appear it as though they had turned into hate mongers and homophobes to the extent that the entire page is overloaded with posts on this one issue?

You know where they stand. OK, Biden blew the answer. So let's move on.

[dsc]

27. How is Obama to know not to give the same answer?

Say I give a quiz to my students where they bomb but don't tell them. Then on the test they make the same mistakes. Have I helped them by not giving them feedback?

[stray cat]

17. We all have a choice - this year it is McCain/Palin or Obama/Biden

And a large percentage of voters are against gay marriage - whether I agree or not, many of those are also single issue voters and each of their votes against it is equal to any other voters.

Also, Kerry still lost with the added 3-4% - If Obama/Biden want elected they have to do better and have broader appeal

[Honeycombe8]

32. The Dems lost many votes in 2004 because it was perceived the party was in favor of gay marriage.

The country has moved on since then, but the majority of Americans still don't agree with gay marriage, and in 2004, an overwhelming majority were against it. I could see firsthand that hay was made by the GOP of the fact that Kerry was perceived as someone who would promote gay marriage. He simply wasn't believed, when he said he was personally against the "marriage" part, but otherwise okay with unions and such.

The Repub e-mails made the rounds, remarks were made repeatedly by Republicans, and independents made note of it. I am a straight woman, but one of my male gay friends even noticed it, wishing that the activists just wouldn't push the issue at the time, since it could cost Kerry the election (since it was so close).

There is a time and place for everything. It would've been better to get Kerry into office, and then push Kerry on the issue. That would have been better for the cause than getting Bush in the White House. Although I'm not sure what leaders of that cause think the President has control over in that regard. The Prez can't pass a law about marriage. He has veto rights, but Kerry was already on board with vetoing any constitutional amendment against it.

[PeaceNikki]

36. Oh, you're one of those "blame 2004 on the gays" people, huh?

:eyes:

[QC]

I just can't believe it took 33 posts for someone to throw out that old chestnut.

I guess that might represent progress of a sort.

[Honeycombe8]

42. Oh, you're one of those "I'll lie about what you said" folks. Did I say that? Er...no.

What I DID say was that Kerry lost a lot of votes because of it. He probably lost because of a combination of things, IMO. But this wasn't helpful.

In 2004, the thought of gay marriage seemed more unusual than it does now. It was unthinkable to most people. That is no longer the case. But back then, it was definitely used by the GOP, and it cost Kerry some votes.

Kerry's official position was actually okay. But he just wasn't believed, because of the talking points put out by the GOP on the subject, and the loudness of the activists, who were supporting Kerry.

You can get angry over facts. Or you can recognize facts for what they are, and learn from them.

[hulklogan]

37. GLBT Americans were not responsible for the Democratic Party's inability to win votes

from normal people.

Thank you for blaming us. Did you hear we were also responsible for Hurricane Katrina, the current credit crisis, HIV/AIDS, and SARS? Go ahead and blame us for that, too.

[Occam Bandage]

76. No . The Democratic Party is at fault. They played the issue of gay marriage poorly.

(That is to say, they simply ignored it) That does not mean that they should not keep a good eye on balance going forward.

[cboy4]

41. indie_ana_500, remind me again about how teh gays

lost the 2006 election because of the New Jersey Supreme Court marriage decision coming down in late October, about one week before election day.

Ohhhh, that's right, it didn't happen.

Remember how everyone was screaming that the sky was falling?

And look what happened. Even though gay people were thrown under the bus ahead of time in anticipation of costing Dems the election, Dems won.

[Honeycombe8]

46. We're talking national. I don't know anything about elections in New Jersey. I, like most other

people, do not live in New Jersey.

[cboy4]

55. Ummm, it was national. It was the midterm election where

people across the country in states from coast to coast were re-electing senators.

What does 'I don't know anything about election in New Jersey' mean?

I assume you don't live in California, yet you know about California Prop 8, right?

Here's your learning lesson for today. Glad to help.

NEW JERSEY DECISION FROM 2006:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/10/25/gay.marriage/index.html

[unapatriciated]

91. and I thought it was the pro-choice issue....

guess I have been beating myself up for nothing these last four years (most Dem's know it was stolen).
When it came to womens rights, we did not wait for the right time, we started (if you look at history some could argue the fight began much earlier) in 1848 with the world's first women's rights convention held in Seneca Falls, NY and are continuing to fight for equality today.
http://www.ibiblio.org/prism/mar98/path.html
The same can be said for civil rights it didn't start in the late fifties - early sixties, that is when mainstream america started to grow a conscious (imho). Racism is still being fought against today.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_African-American_Civil_Rights_Movement
So may I suggest that there is NO wrong time to fight against in-equality. It is something we should all be doing on a daily basis.

[krawhitham]

38. You have four choices

1) Vote for Obama
2) Vote for McCain
3) Vote 3rd Party
4) Don't vote

Bitching and whining here is not going to change those 4 options, and it will not change Obama nor McCain position on any issues


So either Vote for someone who will give you more rights
Vote for someone who thinks they can pray it out of you
Vote for someone that will not get elected and just throw your vote away
Do nothing but make sure you continue to bitch and whine on a forum because that will really make a big difference in the world

[NJmaverick]

51. Well said

:applause:

[racaulk]

83. Who here has said that they're not planning to vote for Obama based on Biden's comments?

That's right, no one has.

[QC]

106. But votes and money and volunteer time are not enough!

Only worship will do for some of the fanboiz and fangurlz around here.

[PresidentObama]

39. I'm gay and GLBT voter, and yes you should shut up--or get out of the way.

No time to argue or to give criticism of Barack Obama.

That window of time has shut.

We have one month. One freaking month.

We're in the lead, and McCain is planning to go EXTREMELY negative.

So we need ALL help, and ALL focus.

And some of you want to bash Obama, instead of going after McCain?

No way, no how.

[hulklogan]

43. No way, no how, no gays. Is that what you're saying? n/t

[PresidentObama]

45. Um no, I'm gay hun. I'm saying leave the criticism at the door until November 5th.

We've got an election to win.

[PeaceNikki]

49. Your repeated implications that expressing disappointment over this issue is hurting the ticket is

ludicrous.

I'd bet that the GLBT community is working harder than ANY other demographic in REAL life to get Obama elected.

[hulklogan]

50. Sorry hun. We can win this election even with some criticism from the gays.

You think the freepers are afraid to call McCain to the carpet for his mistakes?

[jonnyblitz]

57. some of you OBOT gays are fucking idiots. Obama doesn't even

RESPECT you as a gay person and look how fucking subservient you are to him. get some fucking dignity SOON. I will vote for him still BUT I am also going to criticize him when I feel the need and YOU can go FUCK YOURSELF if you don't like it. :hi:

[treestar]

64. Think of the effect on independent voters, though

We're all voting for Obama, but those who aren't sure who we need - well we just can't have left wing ideological purity with them.

[Zuiderelle]

73. No.

No no no no no. Shutting up is not a solution.

[NJmaverick]

48. Way to go, too bad there is no way to rec a thread

:applause:

[Essene]

44. Justice Stevens. Age 88ish. Justice Ginsberg. Age 77ish. PLEASE FOCUS

[NJmaverick]

47. There are those that would cut off their nose to spite the face

sad fact of life, and it has hurt our nation more than once

[Tutonic]

52. Stop it already. Biden has not changed his position regarding

support of gay rights for the last 25 years. Insurance, the military, family visitation, adoption, etc. And he isn't telling you to shut up. Neither is Obama. the Democratic Party does not march in lock step. The Republican Party does. They are anti-gay. John McCain is. Sarah Palin is. Insurance, the military, family visitation, adoption, etc. That's why you have the Log Cabin REpublicans conducting fundraisers in hidden rooms. It is 2008!!! Why do they need to hide? You don't hear people criticizing McCain for this. I can speak with some assurance on this last point--years ago I worked with Teddy Kennedy, and Chris Dodd. They had a friend named Barney Frank--who happened to be gay. Nobody that knew of his record in Massachusetts cared in the least bit. We all worked to get Barney Frank elected to the House of Representatives. It was only when he went to DC that his sexuality became an issue--among the homophobic Republican party. A party that is full of self loathing closeted gays--the kind that screams out derogatory remarks about progressive and committed gays on the other side of the aisle. They even tried on several occasions to have Barney kicked out of the House. And Joe Biden amongst others stood up for Barney Frank. The kind that have a seriously messed up lesbian daughter and go out on the Senate Floor rail against gays. Now those are the people that you need to be critical of. Joe Biden and Barack Obama are stand up guys. They're running a campaign.

[NJmaverick]

53. Attacking (or to use your term critique) is ONLY helping McCain and Palin

that's the reality in an election. You want McCain/Palin ruling our nation, keep up the attacks.

[hulklogan]

56. blame the gays blame the gays blame the gays

blame the gays for everything!

Of course, it will be all our fault if Obama loses, just like every other disaster in the past 200 years. :puke:

[NJmaverick]

58. I don't blame the gays, I blaim this OP

strawman constructs are a dishonest debate tactic.

[marimour]

65. this victim stuff is getting ridiculous. What are you personally doing to change things?

My parents marched, got beaten by cops, and devoted years of their life to getting their civil rights. To all the people complaining on a message board about what the candidates aren't doing WHAT ARE YOU DOING? What grassroots organizations do you consistently devote your time outside of work to that further this cause. What demonstrations are you participating in or organizing on a regular basis. I live in a large gay section of a city with one of the largest gay populations in the country and I see almost nothing going on besides some things around the time of the Pride Festival each year. For all the people complaining about Biden's answer, what have you sacrificed in your life lately in furtherance of this cause?

[hulklogan]

67. We shouldn't have full equality because we "haven't sacrificed enough"?

Thank you, straight person.

[dsc]

100. since you asked

I came out at work to the faculty and sponser a gay straight alliance at that school. I have lobbied, in every way possible, my legislators to pass an anti bullying bill in my state (NC), and I have given money to HRC, equality NC, and several other organizations. In the 1980's I spent the night in Cook County Jail for protesting in Chicago.

[QC]

59. Do you honestly think that comments on DU can swing a presidential election?

Sorry, but no one could possibly be that deluded.

[NJmaverick]

61. Why do you bother to post here?

your deluded comments suggest that you believe it to be a complete waste of time

[QC]

70. I come here to commune with fellow progressives and take part in intelligent

political discussions.

Too bad we don't get to do those things much anymore.

[Fran Kubelik]

71. I post here because I wanted to feel a sense of community with like-minded democrats

Yeah. Feeling a little less of that.

[PeaceNikki]

62. THIS is the part I don't get!!

People are so blind that they don't see that the GLBT community is out there in DROVES on the ground in REAL LIFE, giving time, money and every ounce of energy to WIN this election more than any other demographic in the party's big tent. The party should be criticized the fact that their civil rights are being dismissed. This is everyone's issue.

[Fran Kubelik]

68. Gay people can make all sorts of bad things happen

Seriously. We have that much power. I bet it's our fault the economy is tanking too - and it's probably because a gay person posted on the Motley Fool site or something.

[QC]

74. Constantine said that we caused earthquakes.

Hmmm, was he a DUer?

[terrya]

78. Basically, we control the real levers of power in this country.

Which is why we don't have legal same-sex marriage in this country. And also why we don't have ENDA passed, the Matthew Shepard Act passed, why we don't allow gay and lesbian servicemen and servicewomen to serve openly in the armed forces. It's really easy to understand.

[treestar]

60. If the fundies treated the repub party that way, that party would be done

Look at it, after having both Congress and the President for several years, abortion is still legal and some states have gay marriage. There's still no religious test for office, and the Senate isn't made up entirely of preachers. From their view, the repub party is just as much a failure.

But they have the sense to keep supporting it and the energy and they don't complain about it. That's one thing they have on us, they are more practical and less idealistic.

As a woman, I don't expect to see in my lifetime a woman running for office and entirely escaping comments about her clothes and appearance. Or see universal healthcare and child care. But things have come a long way since I was a kid, and while I might take time off to lament things aren't perfect, I know they won't be made perfect by attacking the people who are on my side.

[hulklogan]

66. The fundies keep supporting the republick party because they're foolish

not because they have made a logical decision to support a party that promises them everything and does fairly little.

There is a huge difference between attacking and expressing disappointment. I would be surprised if any of the LGBT people who have spoken out around here the past couple of days will vote for anyone other than Obama/Biden. We don't have to be rapturous about it, though.

[Occam Bandage]

69. Nope. Biden answered appropriately.

And as a GLBT individual, I find the use of "stupid queers...selfish homos" as a preemptive bludgeon in a political argument to be just as offensive as when Republicans say such things in earnest.

[Fran Kubelik]

75. You might have missed the threads where we were called that last night.

:(

[Occam Bandage]

85. Edited.

Original message:

If people were actually saying "queer" and "homo" with intent to hurt, then that casts that in an entirely different light. I suspect, though I may be wrong, that some people referenced the 2004 gay marriage push as a contributing factor to our electoral losses.

As a brief aside before we return to that issue, I obviously don't like when abusive terms are thrown in earnest, because that's dehumanizing. At the same time, I don't like when they're used sarcastically against people we disagree with on tactics, because acting like the other side is full of irrational hate is inflammatory and divisive (and leads to actual resentment). Now, back to the gay-marriage push:

I mean, I don't think you'll find anyone on DU who thinks GLBT Americans are not fully deserving of equal rights and protections. On the other hand, some people believe, with statistical justification, that the 2004 movements towards marriage equality were poorly timed; the backlash expected with social change movements hit in the final stages of the campaign, and Republicans getting elected sets all of us backwards (not to mention the number of discriminatory laws passed at referendum). On the other hand, it's difficult to hear that without hearing an undercurrent of blame involved, and such blame is unfair and dehumanizing. Blame suggests the blamed event shouldn't have happened; telling GLBT Americans that their halting steps towards equality should have been indefinitely postponed for the sake of political expediency carries a patronizing and discriminatory tone, and one that might be difficult for outsiders to recognize in their voices.

Still, I think that tone, while offensive, is unintended and benign; I think those DUers are allies who are looking tactically at the electoral map with only passing consideration to the reasons they're looking at that map in the first place. At the same time, assuming hostility on their part only feeds mutual mistrust and hostility.

New message: Okay what the fuck. I was assuming this was yet another gay-marriage fight that spiraled into mutual "LALALALA CAN'T HEAR YOU" territory. Why is that douchebag still on DU?

[QC]

92. "Why is that douchebag still on DU?"

Apply Occam's Razor to the issue.

[QC]

80. Background info here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=7309174

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x7305729

Notice that the person who posted those threads is still a member of DU.

[Occam Bandage]

88. I am horrified that member is still around.

[QC]

90. So are lots of people. What it says about DU that he's still around

is not good, if not particularly surprising either.

[dsc]

95. these are quotes from actual threads

which I didn't link per rules.

[Occam Bandage]

108. See above. Outrage appropriately redirected.

[deadlyaj]

86. Its a wedge issue

[Bluenorthwest]

107. I like it when I get to hear

empathetic support. Every GLBT person I know is voting for Obama/Biden no matter what. As we did for Kerry who was similar. And even for that guy Leiberman, whom the Party felt was such a great Democrat and all of that.
Those who are really Democrats rush to offer support, knowing if nothing else that our votes are important, knowing that we are loyal Democratic voters by huge margins. These good allies in our Party, many DUers among them, understand that we work for Obama, vote for Obama, hand over money for Obama. They know such poorly framed words as Biden's make our positions as Democrats less comfortable. They know that Republicans will throw it in our faces, they know that it weakens our very strongest personal argument in favor of our ticket.
Those who see things as they are will value the voters most who remain loyal in the face of Biden's lousy words, in spite of the Party's lukewarm welcome.
Those who actually agree with the GOP Platform more than our own will accuse and diminish, demand and insult. They seem to expect that the leeway I might give to Obama or Biden for reasons of political advantage should be given to random Democrats who have no reason to mince words or pull punches. In politics, what choice do I have but to support yet again these half assed allies? In life, I have no need at all to put up with lukewarm support or lectures from those who think they comprehend things so well and fully.
So the right thing would be to say 'I'm so sorry you had to hear that. Thanks for being a Democrat anyway." Is that really so difficult to understand? Seems it is.

[TheDonkey]

109. Only 60-70% of GLBT voters voted for Kerry. That's pathetic.

ALL GLBT voters should have been voting for Kerry. Period.

[Fran Kubelik]

111. If you can get the straights up to that percentage we'll talk, m'kay?

Period.

[dsc]

115. actually it was 77%

we out performed Jews, labor union members, and pro choicers.

[No Elephants]

110. K & R. I know the OP was being facetious about this, but wanting the same very

basic human rights everyone else gets is not selfish. And that is a great post, dsc. You were even nice enough to make constructive suggestions about how the answer could have been better. I hope you are willing to call the Obama campaign with those suggestions and concerns before the next Obama McCain debate, seeing as how debate moderators seem to love the so called wedge issues more than any others.

Peace--and never shut up!

[DefenseLawyer]

113. Do you want Obama to win or do you not care one way or the other?

You have valid concerns. However, if you support Obama or at least agree that he is preferable to McCain and therefore, by default, you would prefer that he win the election, this is the wrong time to attack our candidate. If you don't care one way or the other and this is simply about you, then by all means, attack our candidate and do your best to bring him down. It's a free country. If ranting is the most important thing to you, then you will have plenty to rant about during the McCain administration, so really it's a win/win for you. Keep up the good work.

[fujiyama]

114. Kerry stance on gay rights in '04 was very admirable

For one, he disregarded Bill Clinton's advice to support statewide marriage definition referendums.

And it's worth remembering that Rove purposely sought those state ballot proposals in swing states in '04, one of which was Ohio.

I don't think Biden's answer was perfect. I know Obama and Biden don't believe in gay marriage, which itself is a confusing, and deceptive term coined by the religious right fanatics (it gives people the impression that THEIR particular church will be forced to perform gay marriages). And I agree that talking about hate crimes and don't ask, don't tell may have been a good shift. But he didn't throw anyone under the bus. He made it clear that Dems support all the same legal rights enjoyed for gay couples as straight married couples. Perhaps he could have been more forceful, but substantively this matters much more than the religious definition of marriage, which will not change to most Americans.

Obama is in favor of repealing DADT and expanding hate crimes laws...And we should hold them accountable only IF they don't keep up these promises. I think its too early to fuss about this UNTIL he's president. Right now, there is no question that Obama will be better on gay rights than McCain.

[AllentownJake]

116. I fully support you standing up for your rights!

I just hope the community understands that gay marriage is about to be a reality as long as the USSC doesn't change to more conservative.

[dbmk]

117. Isn't the LGBT part of the population estimated at 10%?

Or are we talking people declaring themselves such in polls? Which would probably bring it down quite a bit.