It's time to review one of Skinner's Best. Posts. Ever.

[Sapphocrat]

In full, from November 4, 2004, in GDP -- http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=1324374

Start quote:

A few words about the discussion of gay rights and related issues.

We find ourselves in a rather unpleasant situation here, because events outside of DU have raised a rather sensitive issue: How does the issue of Gay rights effect the national electoral prospects of the Democratic party?

I will spare you a long discussion about my point of view, and boil my opinion down to one sentence: I believe that some potential Democratic voters are turned off by Gay rights, but on balance I believe that the issue helps us more than it hurts us, and I believe we can win nationally without abandoning our support of equal rights for all. But the purpose of this post is not to tell you my point of view.

The purpose of this post is to remind everyone that Democratic Underground has rules regarding anti-gay bigotry. We expect *all* of our members to support equal rights for all Americans, regardless of sexual orientation.

We have very few litmus test issues on DU. We permit members to be pro-life or pro-gun or whatever, provided that they are generally on our side.

But this is a litmus test issue, because we are talking about REAL PEOPLE, our fellow members of this community. I simply will not tolerate the idea of some DU members arguing that other DU members are not deserving of full and equal rights. This is a moral issue. If DU had existed back during the civil rights movement, I hope that we would all agree that this was not the place to discuss whether blacks deserve civil rights.

But I also need to make something else clear: Democratic Underground is a message board dedicated to the discussion of political issues, including how political issues affect the electoral prospects of the Democratic Party. It is not homophobic to discuss whether the issue of Gay rights cost us votes, provided that you are not discussing the issue in a homophobic way. But it is homophobic to scapegoat gays and lesbians in an effort to answer an extremely complex question like "why did we lose?"

So, where is the line drawn here? What is acceptable discourse and what is not? I wish there were easy answers. I would prefer not to have to make calls like this, because invariably someone gets pissed off, but it comes with the job description.

Keep the following guidelines in mind:

1. We expect all of our members to support equal rights for all people, regardless of sexual orientation. That includes the right to marry.

2. If you want to discuss this issue, you need to do so in a manner that is sensitive to the values of this diverse community. Be as clear and as non-inflammatory as possible in everything you say.

3. If you are opposed to gay rights, you are a homophobe. Don't share that particular point of view here or else you're going to get banned. You've been warned.

4. If your explanation for why we lost is based entirely (or almost entirely) on gay rights, then you are scapegoating and you're probably a homophobe. You might get banned.

5. If you are arguing that the party needs to abandon support for gay rights entirely, then you might not be an outright homophobe, but in my opinion you are not sufficiently supportive of equal rights.

6. It is not homophobic to point out the obvious truth that there are large numbers of people in large regions of the country who are opposed to gay rights. ON EDIT: It also not homophobic to point out that political candidates, particularly those running in conservative areas, may have to compromise on the issue of gay rights for the purposes of political expediency.

7. I believe that we need to focus on the question of how our party can be competitive nationally without abandoning this core principle. I believe that gay rights is not a make-or-break issue for a majority of voters in any state. The opinions of hard-core homophobes notwithstanding, my impression is that most Americans are supportive of the idea that people should be able to live their lives how they like. How do we convince potential voters that they need not be afraid? How do we convince potential voters that they should care more about their job and their health care and their children than about who some stranger falls in love with? These are the questions we need to be asking.

We are right on this issue, I have no doubt. In 40 years, we are going to look back at opposition to gay marriage as something as bigoted and anachronistic as opposition to interracial marriage.

I am sorry if some of you feel I am putting too much restriction on the discussion of this topic. I am also sorry if some of you feel I am not restrictive enough. My goal is to create a place where we can discuss the issues in an atmosphere of mutual respect.

End quote.

[xchrom]

1. skinner is wonderful. period.

[calimary]

95. Agreed wholeheartedly!

He gave us this site, didn't he? Reason enough, then and there.

[ninkasi]

2. Thanks, Sapphocrat

for reminding us. Skinner is, indeed, great. There is no room here for anybody who doesn't support human rights for all of us.

[blm]

12. Recall the time, to cover for election fraud corpmedia pushed "values voter"

meme with constant attacks on Dems and gay values.

Shameless. Completely shameless - all in an attempt to cover the facts behind the REAL exit polls. Gays were just another convenient target for a COMPLICIT MEDIA.

[Lars39]

3. K&R

[helderheid]

4. I didn't see this before - THANK YOU!

[glitch]

5. Thanks, I missed this the first time around. Well done. K & R nt

[Coexist]

6. very well put.

thank you for re-posting this.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

7. Thanks. K&R!

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

8. Though I agree with Skinner on the issues here,

and though I have no doubt his intentions are the best for the board and for the REAL PEOPLE involved on the board, and though I have no doubt he hopes to save people from pain and frustration at DU, I find the tenor of the post a bit chilling. I do. Sorry.

[Bunny]

13. Chilling?

Can you explain how you've come to be so terrifed by what Skinner said?

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

21. "Terrify" is probably not an accurate definition of "chilling."

"To produce anxiety, alarm, fear" is more accurate than "to terrify."

But I didn't necessarily mean any of these either, though now that I think about it, his post did produce "alarm" in me.

No, I meant "chilling" as in "to depress, to deter, to discourage." And I think this was Skinner's stated intention. I just disagree with the approach and the rhetoric used. That's all.

I think the tenor of Skinner's post will do this very thing to discussion on this topic. There will be "alarm" on the part of some posters, I imagine, not to say the "wrong" thing, lest he or she be branded "homophobe," a label I'm sure no one here wants to be branded with. This may have the unintentional effect of deterring thoughtful, respectful, and TRUE debate.

I just see this approach as squelching potentially fruitful exchanges (which is what I think Skinner hopes for in point #7). Sometimes in political give-and-take (even with people with whom one agrees) noses get bloodied in trying to define parameters.

I didn't want to pick a fight. I was just stating my reaction to the rhetoric employed. I'm sure Skinner was completely justified in composing this post. I'm not trying to throw stones.

Thanks for your response and allowing me to clarify.

[Sapphocrat]

47. Show me just one thread since the NJ decision...

...that's produced even a remotely "fruitful" give-and-take. Just one.

I haven't seen one yet.

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

49. I haven't followed them.

But I'll take your word for it.

[LostinVA]

51. Hmmm.... let me try to help that poster.... hmmm.... nope....

Can't find one... nope, isn't there.... oh, hey here's -- nope, not this thread, either.... Nope!

[question everything]

123. I agree with your point

While we discuss many topics here on all the forums, DU is first of all about politics. And politics is the art of compromise.

And to comment that the 2004 MA and now the NJ court decisions could drive more evangelicals to the polls - is an observation. It is not homophobia. It is unfortunately that many see these threads as such.

If we are not going to be realistic about how the voters react, how Rove plays such decisions, then we are doomed to lose. We will always stand by our principles, we will not wavier, not compromise and will end up a museum piece.

[freeplessinseattle]

134. clarification

"And to comment that the 2004 MA and now the NJ court decisions could drive more evangelicals to the polls - is an observation. It is not homophobia. It is unfortunately that many see these threads as such."

does this have anything to do with skinner's post? if you actually read it you can see that what you stated is incongruent with what he wrote.

[Sapphocrat]

15. Why do you find it chilling? n/t

[LostinVA]

29. Sorry you find equal rights for all Americans chilling

Kinda scary that you do...

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

36. Please reread my original post.

I explicitly said that I agree with Skinner on the issue. I take issue with the rhetoric employed.

No need to use demagoguery.

I really don't get posts like yours.

[LostinVA]

37. I did --and I absolutely don't get posts like yours n/t

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

39. Hmmm.

So because I think that Skinner's post may dampen unvarnished openness on the issue, I find equal rights for all Americans chilling. O.K. We probably won't get anywhere in an intelligent discussion.

Again, I can fully understand why Skinner would propose such a policy. I just don't like it (or at least the rhetoric employed).

An yet again, I don't get your post.

[LostinVA]

42. Hmmmm..... don't care that you don't get my post

I'm through "dialoging" about my rights with ANYONE, ever again. This isn't an abstract game in "freedom of expression on DU, " etc. My rights have been battered in the real world, and have been puked all over here on DU the last few days.

Guess what? I don't care that you think disallowing homophobic SHIT is "chilling."

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

46. Ahh, this post gets to the heart of the matter.

You did read my original post.

"Guess what? I don't care that you think disallowing homophobic SHIT is "chilling."

Fair enough. I can accept this response because it actually responds to my post. Our disagreement will be over the rigid application of "homophobic shit." I think Skinner's post perhaps dampened debate because the use of "homophobic" was so vague and so widely applicable. I'm just afraid that DU is the best place to ask honest, unvarnished questions and to receive honest, unvarnished answers (like yours above).

By the way, I always vote for your equal rights.

Cheers.

[Garbo 2004]

65. Skinner's post is two years old, it's nothing new. If you've been unaware of it

and DU policy to date, or haven't been concerned in the past, then it apparently hasn't had quite the "chilling" effect that you now profess "alarm" about.

Perhaps you weren't here in Nov 2004 and are unaware of what prompted Skinner's post, but there was a reason for his post and language at the time. You've been posting under these two year old guidelines, whether you've been aware of it or not. But now that you know about the two year old guidelines you're "alarmed?"

[LynzM]

9. Thanks for the repost, Sappho

I missed this, and it is well worth reading!

[mopinko]

10. i also say thanks for the re-post.

i did not see it earlier. and thanks to du admins.

[TankLV]

11. Thank you for this post.

WE will be watching and reading carefully to make sure the rules are obeyed...

Be forwarned...

[gully]

14. I think another issue is how gay rights should be afforded.

For example - Do we extend partnership rights via "marriage" or "civil unions?" Do we extend partnership rights on a state or national level? I'm not even sure progressives agree on the "how."

http://www.pollingreport.com/civil.htm

"There has been much talk recently about whether gays and lesbians should have the legal right to marry someone of the same sex. Which of the following comes closest to your position on this issue? Do you support FULL marriage rights for gay and lesbian couples; do you support gay civil unions or partnerships, BUT NOT gay marriage; or, do you oppose ANY legal recognition for gay and lesbian couples?"


. Column 1 = full marriage, 2 = civil unions 3 = neither 4 = undecided

#1 #2 #3 #4

% % % %
ALL adults 24 26 40 10
Republicans 9 27 58 6
Democrats 34 23 33 10
Independents 24 32 33 11
Trend:
5/13-14/04 28 23 43 6
2/19-20/04 23 24 45 8

[Sapphocrat]

16. What part of...

..."equal rights for all people, regardless of sexual orientation (including) the right to marry" is unclear?

There is no negotiation: Either we are fully equal, or we are not. (See also: "a little bit pregnant.")

Nor are equal rights something to be "afforded" -- and certainly not something to be "afforded" piecemeal.

[gully]

18. I would ask what part of only 24% of Americans agree with "gay marriage"

is unclear?

I'm part of the 24% who agrees that full marriage rights should be afforded to ALL - by the way.
But, we're still in the minority unfortunately.

[Sapphocrat]

25. Not a thing.

Of anyone, I know people are bigots.

What bothers me is that, while you may support full equality, it sounds like you're too willing to compromise, too quickly, based on the lowest (or in this case, highest) common denominator. In other words, why lower the standard you're willing to accept to what the (current) majority will accept -- whereas I'm of the mind that no one has even begun to attempt to bring our opponents' standard to a higher level first, before either side commits to any compromise.

That's what I'm hearing in your post, anyway. You can tell me I'm wrong. I don't bite back too hard on Sunday mornings. LOL

Btw, that was only one poll, and the framing was restrictive:

"There has been much talk recently about whether gays and lesbians should have the legal right to marry someone of the same sex. Which of the following comes closest to your position on this issue? Do you support FULL marriage rights for gay and lesbian couples; do you support gay civil unions or partnerships, BUT NOT gay marriage; or, do you oppose ANY legal recognition for gay and lesbian couples?"

As we know all too well by now, the word "marriage" is a hot-point trigger (and "FULL marriage rights" gets a lot of idiots believing that includes forcing their churches to marry same-sex couples). Change "the legal right to marry someone of the same sex" to "the same legal rights as everyone else," and the results will be remarkably different.

(Yes, I understand the poll question focused on same-sex marriage. But the semantics point bears mention.)

[gully]

30. Nope, that's not what I'm saying at all.

I'm touching on the political aspects. And, on the fact that unfortunately our democracy does include everyone, including the "lowest common denominator." Also, as you mentioned the word "marriage" is indeed a hot button, so how do we proceed? Of course "gay marriage" is how this issue is framed continually. How do we re-frame this issue in a manner that respects gays as well as those who "fear" their churches will be forced to perform ceremony's that are against their belief system? I was under the impression that "civil unions" was the proper term?

I'm willing to be educated. ; )

Post #23 sums up my feelings as well.

[Sapphocrat]

52. Well, my first suggestion...

...would be to stop using the phrases "gay rights" and "gay marriage" -- which are the domain of the Radical Right now, and very effective in reinforcing the us-v.-them mentality. "Equal rights" and "marriage equality" mean the same things, and sound more positive -- not because the word "gay" isn't used, but because they're more inclusive, and do set that higher standard (of "equal rights" as opposed to "special rights") for people to aspire to.

I have no problem at all with the phrase "civil unions" -- but I have a big problem with civil unions, period, as I know of no CU in existence that really does grant all the same rights and privileges of legal marriage. I don't care a whit whether we call it marriage, or civil unions, or handing-over-my-bank-account-and-sharing-custody-of-the-dog, as long as there is no difference whatsoever between same-sex unions and hetero unions in the eyes of the law.

Ideally, as it's been suggested many times before, I would redefine marriage as a purely religious institution, and every legal union would be a civil union. I sincerely doubt that's ever going to happen, so what's next? Making Joe Q. Churchgoer understand that his church will never be forced to do anything against its own doctrines. After all, no Catholic church will marry two Jews, no synagogue will marry two Muslims, etc. -- and that's not going to change when L/G people are finally allow to marry one another.

As for how to get that point across, I haven't found the magic formula. Boiling the concept down to sound-bite length goes a long way -- which is why I design T-shirts and bumper stickers. That "bumper-sticker mentality" is sometimes all we have at our disposal.

[gully]

66. It would appear that we need to fix "civil unions."

If we do so, perhaps we can embrace the term fully as progressives who value equality?

It seems to me that touting "marriage equality" in a national dialog tosses out the "marriage" word again, which scares the church crowd. We could go with "equal rights" as this is an issue of equality, but that term is a bit vague.

BTW, I totally agree "I would redefine marriage as a purely religious institution, and every legal union would be a civil union."

Thanks for the discussion.

[Flirtus]

104. "sharing custody of the dog" or "quality of life for the dog"

always been my benchmark for judging someone else's relationship. Seriously! Children are much more resilient.

Your other paragraph echoes my thoughts, too. Separation of church and state! But, I've never thought about your premise: "Making Joe Q. Churchgoer understand that his church will never be forced to do anything against its own doctrines. After all, no Catholic church will marry two Jews, no synagogue will marry two Muslims, etc. -- and that's not going to change when L/G people are finally allow to marry one another." Excellent argument, I'm stealing it from you!!! You pays your license fee, bang, you're married. Get somebody to bless it, or not. Just like for any body else. I love it.

It's a follow the money scenario, too. I wonder what will happen when there is marriage equality, how many more pensions will be lost to the surviving spouse (of whatever gender). I have an older disabled friend who has gone back to work when the husb's pension was cut off because he suicided (because of illness...).

[LostinVA]

33. Compromising on rights is capitulating on rights

We already discovered that "separate but equal" doesn't work -- and is unconstitutional -- didn't we? At least we did in my America.

[elshiva]

19. AMEN!

[Orangepeel]

23. what's unclear is what is the best way to achieve that goal

If we can stop the right wing from a complete takeover of the court system, my belief is that the fastest way to get the goal of equal rights for all people would be to get civil unions permitted (which would be much easier -- or, at least, possible -- and would provide some relief from some discrimination in the meantime) and then gets the courts to rule that separate is unequal, to borrow a phrase.

Other people think that "settling" for the half loaf is a recognition that gays are not entitled to the whole. Both positions have merit and the "how" should certainly be open to debate.

[gully]

32. That's exactly where I'm coming from.

It's not the "what" but the "how." We all agree on the "what."

[smoogatz]

17. We're fighting an interesting battle here in Wisconsin--

our dumbass, wingnut legislature has put a proposed amendment to the state constitution on the ballot that would ban gay marriage AND civil unions or other legally sanctioned partnerships, even between unmarried straight people. Here's the proposed amendment in full:

"Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized in this state."

It is, of course, punitive, overreaching, mean-spirited and ridiculously vague. And, ironically enough, this amendment proposal appears to be having the opposite of its intended effect here: FAIR Wisconsin has been running a very effective ad campaign against the amendement--one such ad features a Wisconsin farmer who says "I'm against gay marriage, but the amendment goes too far." The proposal appears, if anything, to be galvanizing Democratic voters in Madison and Milwaukee to turn out in opposition. I think this amendment vote is a great example of where the practical, rubber-meets-the-road interests of the gay rights community and the Democratic party can (and should) happily intersect: here in Wisconsin, because the amendment is patently unfair, punitive and mean-spirited, and (disastrously, for the Republicans) takes aim at the rights of unmarried straights as well as the rights of gay couples, it's pretty easy for Dem candidates to make a case against it--even in Wisconsin's socially conservative rural districts.

[gully]

20. It will be interesting to see how that plays out.

.

[cui bono]

22. As a woman I MUST take issue with something he said...

First of all, don't call someone who is anti-abortion pro-life. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Secondly, how is someone being anti-abortion advocating equal rights for all? That is denying a woman her rights. Her right to privacy, her right to control her own body, her right to control her own life. And remember, this doesn't only apply to an actual abortion. The anti-abortion movement is also against Plan B, going so far as to recruit people to be pharmacists just so they can deny giving it out even though that is their job and have been ordered by courts to do so. Then there are those who teach abstinence only which studies have shown actually increase pregnancy while denying teens the right to knowledge of how to avoid pregnancy. And let's not forget the extemists who bomb health clinics and murder doctors.

While I agree with all that is said about gay rights, I, for one, will not applaud that post until equal rights are given to all groups, including heterosexual women.

[Greyhound]

27. Hear hear.

I am embarrassed by how womens issues are regularly treated here. (that they are even called women's issues is appalling)

[Xithras]

71. There are varying shades of pro-choice.

Unlike gay rights, which really is an all or nothing human rights issue, abortion is a debate that tends to have a lot of shades of grey. On the right you tend to have extremists who want to ban it outright, blow up abortion clinics, and execute women who seek them. On the left you have extremists who believe that the right of abortion extends right up to slitting your own baby's throat while you're in labor, and a handful of genuine nutjobs who believe that it should even extend to the period AFTER delivery. Most people, on both sides of the debate, tend to fall somewhere closer to the middle of the argument.

The problem with abortion is that everyone who is "pro-choice" or "pro-life" supports THEIR definition of whatever side they're on. I know tons of pro-choice women who oppose third trimester abortions, and lots of pro-life people who really don't have a problem with abortions performed in the first month or two of pregnancy.

So the question boils down to this: If you want to make abortion an all or nothing rights issue, which version of "all" are you going to support?

[cui bono]

102. I think your all or nothing premise is a false premise.

It isn't about all or nothing. It comes down to what a person is allowed to do with their own body to some degree. Killing a baby after it's born is clearly murder and there are laws for that. The fact that there are extremists on both sides doesn't alter the fact that being anti-abortion means no abortions and therefore it is a clear violation of women's equal rights, and their ability to govern their own body.

There are laws for a lot of things (some of them wrong, such as those that allow gays to be fired simply because they're gay) and the laws are there to determine at what point something is illegal. But to put the law so far as to completely rule out abortion so that a woman must carry a pregnancy to term even if it is going to ruin her and the baby's life is too intrusive.

So yes, while there are degrees on the anti-abortion side of things, if DU is about equal rights for all and has specific rules regarding this as illustrated in skinner's post, then DU should not condone those who will not allow a woman free will over what happens to her own body and life. I would like to think that most DUers are reasonable people - even though I've seen several posts here that quite surprised me - and I don't see how any reasonable person who is truly for equal rights can be anti-abortion when it so clearly violates the woman's rights.

And we haven't even brought up the reqercussions of outlawing abortion and forcing women to have back-alley abortions and such.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

129. Varying shades?

Let's see, that could include how some folks are magnanimous enough to allow for exceptions for the life of the mother, rape, or incest. But as for those SLUTS who just had sex for recreation, it's mandatory pregnancy for them!

And how much do you want to bet that there are a LOT more people on the "pro-life" extreme - those who don't support exceptions for any reason, including the life of the mother - than who embody your "pro-choice" - slit babies' throats - example?

[readmoreoften]

87. Abortion rights are not just a heterosexual woman's issue.

Lesbian bodies also get pregnant.

[cui bono]

103. You're absolutely right, although I phrased it that way because

lesbians were included in the gay rights that skinner demanded we all embrace and I wanted to add the group that wasn't included which was the rest of the women who were hetero.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

128. "Pro-life" is Anti-woman!

What is so difficult to understand about that? Replace gay/lesbian with woman in Skinner's post and it should be obvious. Sure, I'll probably prefer an anti-choice Dem over a Repug if it means majority control but I won't be quietly accepting of it. If it's my Rep or Senator, he/she will KNOW of my displeasure and be reminded of it on a continual basis.

And I DON'T understand why forced birthers are tolerated on DU!

[populistdriven]

24. It will be interesting to see how the fundies vote for gov in FL.

Will their homophobia cause them to cross party lines and vote for Davis? Or will they just not vote on the Governor's race? Considering Charlie Crist is both gay and against gay adoption/marriage what will they do? These are interesting times we live in and I am thankful for Skinner and DU where I can participate and get informed on what may be the last major battle for equal civil rights for all Americans.

[KittyWampus]

26. "rights for all people... to marry"? EVERY couple has the Civil Right To

join their households by signing a CIVIL union contract in a courthouse, thereby entitling said couple to joint legal benefits and responsibilities.

Said couples have every right to then go and get 'Married' in a ceremony/house of worship IF they choose to. Marriage should be purely optional and quite seperate from the Legal act of joining households.

Like it or not, the word "Marriage" contains a religious/ceremonial aspect as well as its Legal/Civil aspects.

And there are people who belong to religions that do not sanction gay marriage.

They have every right to belong to a religion that doesn't sanction gay marriage.

They do not have any right to keep 2 people from legally joining households.

This whole issue, especially as a wedge issue, would disappear immediately if Democrats, Gays and Americans jettisoned the word marriage when it comes to every couple signing that LEGAL CONTRACT down at the courthouse.

Because seperating the word marriage from its religious/ceremonial context WILL NEVER HAPPEN. And there will always be some people who have religious issues with associating the word marriage with gay couples.

Skinner apparently didn't have the imagination or foresight to think of this simple possiblity when he seems to insist:

"We expect all of our members to support equal rights for all people, regardless of sexual orientation. That includes the right to marry."

[LostinVA]

28. Please tell me when it became possible for ALL couples to do this:

"EVERY couple has the Civil Right To join their households by signing a CIVIL union contract in a courthouse, thereby entitling said couple to joint legal benefits and responsibilities."

Because, I think there are 45+ states who allow no such thing. You are also advocating "separate but unequal." Not in my Party.

RIGHTS DELAYED ARE RIGHTS DENIed!

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

35. Yeah, that was news to me, too.

[LostinVA]

38. Guess I need to tell all our queer friends not living in MA, NJ, or VT

about this, huh? Gosh, I had NO idea I could do this is Virginia. How absolutely surprising. Gee whilikers!

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

41. And here I thought gays still had 6 months before we have real rights in NJ.

Our current domestic partnerships only give six out of the 1000 or so rights that married couples have.

I guess this whole time my friends and cousin could have just gone down to the courthouse and declared themselves a civil union. That's it! I'm calling Toni & Rebecca and Allen & John right now, so they can go down to the courthouse on Monday morning.

[LostinVA]

44. Yup, what ignorant little gays and lesbians we've all been

Fighting and dying for rights we apparently ALREADY HAVE. I feel dumb... how about you???

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

45. I feel dumb, too.

I mean, how embarrassing!

[LostinVA]

53. I may have to return my toaster over, dammit!

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

62. My toaster is pretty crappy anyway. I want the super-deluxe lesbian model.

BTW, I find it incredible that people can exist, in this day and age, without having any sense of sarcasm.

:eyes:

[LostinVA]

72. OOOOH! I like that one!

MIne is just faux stainless.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

78. I have a boring faux stainless toaster, too.

It was on sale for $8 and it hasn't burned the house down yet, so really I have no right to complain.

[LostinVA]

79. MIne has a huge dent in it from a can hitting it

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

83. Spaz.

[KittyWampus]

60. You shouldn't feel dumb... but you should stop being so dogmatic

that you can't read what someone else writes and realise the Truth contained within it.

But yeah, you just keep fighting for the right to use the word 'marriage' when the words Civil Union FOR EVERY COUPLE would solve the problem.

But again, your kneejerk response prevents you from reading and comprehending the words FOR EVERY COUPLE.

You've learned a set dialog and refuse to consider a new one that is inclusive of ALL Americans.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

64. First off, I don't feel dumb. That was sarcasm.

If anyone should feel dumb, it should be you for stating that EVERY COUPLE has the right to enter into a civil union. They don't. Gay couples do not have any rights in the majority of states. That's a fact.

[KittyWampus]

74. So you do NOT believe our Constitution and its Equal Protection

doesn't apply to gay people?

When you FIGHT for a Civil Right, it is not because that Right doesn't exist. You fight because exists but others are denying that it does.

You fight because others are denying you the chance to exercise those rights.

You fight to RECOGNIZE something that already exists.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

76. I believe that the consitution grants equal rights to gay people.

However, those rights effectively don't exist, since they're not recognized.

You're twisting my words and I don't appreciate it.

[readmoreoften]

90. Oh so GAYS are the ones who are excluding people.

I figured it would somehow be translated into being gay people's fault.

Your writing is sloppy and contradictory. You just stated that every couple can have a civil union. No they can't. Only in three states. And not even the most highly populated ones.

[KittyWampus]

58. Guess you need to decide if you believe the freedom to join households

is a CIVIL right or not.

If it is, then stop using a word that has RELIGIOUS meaning.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

63. In our society, marriage also has a CIVIL meaning.

[KittyWampus]

73. HELLO! That is my point. If it is the CIVIL Meaning that applies, than the word

used to designate that CIVIL act should be CIVIL Union.

FOR EVERYONE.

'Marriage' has two aspects.

'Civil Union' has only one. And since we are only talking about Legal/Civil Rights, then it makes sense to use the word Civil.

[KittyWampus]

55. Then you do NOT consider being able to join households with person of

your choice a CIVIL and LEGAL matter?

If you do find this to be a CIVIL Right, then why encumber such a matter with a word that has an inherent RELIGIOUS/CERMONIAL conontation?

[LostinVA]

59. Wonderful strawman -- thanks!

[KittyWampus]

70. WTF? You don't know what a strawman is if you think it applies here

either that, or it seems likely you have not read what I actually wrote and are just repeating some argument you've memorized.

[ncrainbowgrrl]

43. Nope. Civil contract, yes, the obligations/joint benefits/responsibilities...

not so much.
the civil contract is that they will (if afforded in locality) share property, and show financial interdependance
civil contract does not automatically cover power of attorney, medical POA, etc.
nor does it cover survivor benefits
nor tax issues
nor child/second parent adoption issues
nor automatic provision to do a name change so family has same last name. Instead, other venues are needed for this- some more humiliating than others....as in some locations, name change isssues are linked with trying to escape debt by changing name, not for reason of uniting a LOVING family.

and i could go on. but i won't. 'cause i will not get any angrier this morning than i already am- physical pain issues and trying to relax muscles.

but no, that piece of paper... it's sure as all heck not even "separate but unequal." it's really "separate, non-equal, and a slap in the face of my community."

[LostinVA]

61. But, we don't even have that in Virginia -- we have the opposite

I'm very surprised that the State of NC has such a law, too... huh.

[ncrainbowgrrl]

67. it's technically contract law. (ya know- for businesses)

don't know how well it would stand up in court though.

for more nc info- http://www.equalitync.org

[LostinVA]

69. The VA delegates passed a law saying we can't do that anymore -- it's invalid

Including power of attorney, etc.

[ncrainbowgrrl]

105. oh,crap, i forgot.

what neanderthals. seriesly!!1!

[LostinVA]

111. I now, it was HUGH when they did it!!111

[KittyWampus]

54. By Rights, it should be. Do you not agree with this? And if you fogot your dogma

and actually READ what I wrote, you'd find that bullshit about seperate but unequal does not, in any way, apply.

[Kerrytravelers]

131. Three weeks ago, a Libertarian tried to convince me of that same

argument. I replied that all my GLBT friends were under the strange identical delusion that they didn't have Marriage Equality. Funny that.

I can't believe I'm reading this on DU.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

31. Every STRAIGHT couple has that right.

Not so much for the queers.

:eyes:

[donco6]

80. No they don't.

Where'd you get that?

[boolean]

81. Homophobe alert!

OMG THEY CAN'T CALL IT MARRIAGE IT OFFENDS ME!!!!

[GeorgeGist]

34. Political expediency...

always makes me feel so warm and fuzzy; otherwise there wouldn't be a US of A.

[kentuck]

40. It depends on what the definition of "is" is...

I think this one issue has the potential to break apart the Democratic Party as we now know it. Gay marriage = equal rights? I personally support equal rights for everyone, including gay marriage- if gays wish to marry- however, I do not support the sacrifice of other "important" issues at the expense of this one issue. I understand that gays may consider this the most important issue in their lives. This is not a life or death issue to me, personally.

One more election where the gay marriage issue might be blamed for the defeat of the Democrats will not be acceptable for many in the Party. They will desert the Democratic Party in droves, I would suspect. It would be because of this one issue. Is it worth it? I know some will say that is impossible or highly unlikely. I would say much of it depends on the results of this election.

This is just my opinion, but I think we are treading on very dangerous grounds as a Party, even though I agree with Skinner that we may look back 40 years from now and see "opposition to gay marriage as bigoted and anachronistic as interracial marriage". But maybe not? We may look back and say what happened to the Democratic Party? That is my fear.

I value the survival of the Democratic Party more than I value this one issue. It is not by itself a definiton of "equal rights". There are many facets to equal rights - on the job, legally, and the right to not be discriminated against in other areas of life as well. "Marriage" by itself does not define "equal rights" in totality.

Again, I will repeat that I support equal rights and gay marriage but I caution everyone to understand the implications from a national perspective. Do we need gay marriage more than we need the Democratic Party? Most or many may think I am exaggerating the impact of this issue, but that is my opinion. I have faced the slings and arrows before on this topic.

[Sapphocrat]

84. I'm sure you know by now what it all means to me, kentuck...

...and I won't rehash everything, but I was rather struck by this one question in your post:

"Do we need gay marriage more than we need the Democratic Party?"

It caught my eye and made me think about how I would answer: If I am not granted the same marriage rights as heterosexuals, I cannot marry foreigncorrespondent, which cancels out any chance that the two of us will ever be able to live in the United States. Thus, I will move to Australia (which is the plan as it stands now anyway), and thus, even though I will continue to vote Democratic from the other side of the planet, the impact of anything the Democratic party ever does again, on my life, will be practically negligible. Despite the Internet, I won't be privy to the day-to-day, real-life information bubble I now take for granted, and chances are slim to none that I will have any face-to-face contact with other Americans on a regular basis -- and even less that I will come in contact at all with other liberal (or even politically aware) Americans.

The short answer, then, is: I need marriage equality more than I need the Democratic party in order to proceed with a complete and fulfilled life in my own country.

Ironically, in order to have the American dream that the Democratic party promises, I'll have to leave America to get it.

So, while you -- "you" being the Democratic party as a whole -- may not need me, you are going to lose me. Or at least, a very big part of me.

OTOH, it seems to me that all the party really wants are my votes and my donations. So, perhaps abandoning the land that I love is the only way to make both of us happy.

(I'm confident you understand what I mean by all this, kentuck -- but I'm bracing myself for a torrent of "Fine! Then LEAVE (the party/the country), you selfish, ungrateful, single-issue jerk!" replies from those who don't.)

[kentuck]

110. Perhaps I am naive?

I think I understand where you are coming from, although I don't know if "marriage" would be that important to me if I were not "married" to my wife. We would not love each other any less. However, no one should be denied the rights of property or inheritance because of such a relationship, if we were not married. And I would feel that way about anyone else. I would not feel that I would have to have the legal bind of "marriage" to be happy. I absolutely would not leave the country because of it. Obviously it may have more significance to you than I? That said, I would not call you "ungrateful" or a "single-issue jerk". I respect your opinion and your feelings.

[readmoreoften]

91. Good god! Gays rights is going to destroy the Democratic Party???

Oh for pete's sake. Come on, buddy. Don't be a hetero-drama-queen.

[AntiFascist]

114. Here's my opinion....

I haven't given a dime to the Democratic Party this year (except via PDA) because of some comments made by Howard Dean several months ago in an interview on a religious program regarding gay marriage, which I and others didn't particularly appreciate. I realize that he mainly did this for political reasons and has since attempted to appease the gay community, even appearing on the cover of The Advocate magazine. I'm sure at some point I will decide to support the Party financially once again when I feel they have their act together. Just my "two cents".

[nashville_brook]

48. NJ supreme court ruling on gay marriage & skinner edit

ON EDIT: It also not homophobic to point out that political candidates, particularly those running in conservative areas, may have to compromise on the issue of gay rights for the purposes of political expediency.

the NJ ruling crated a flurry of hand-wringing posts worrying that Dems would suffer "value voter" retaliation (would drive social conservatives to the polls) and therefore the Dems would be worse for the wear of gay rights on our collective sleeves.

in response to those threads i witnessed some of the most uplifting DU moments where posters piled on to refute the retaliation theory -- i.e. -- we aren't going to throw our values out the window for political expediency.


while it's NOT homophobic (per Skinner) that political expediency be put before unwavering support of gay rights, i think it's DISAPPOINTING. it's time the Democrats STAND FOR SOMETHING. i was proud of fellow DU'ers who refuted the Value Voter Retaliation Theories of a few days ago.

sure, you're not HOMOPHOBIC for making those arguements. you're SPINELESS.

[LostinVA]

57. I actually think it's spineless AND homophobic

And am wondering what changed Skinner's mind between 2004 and now to cause that edit.

And, no, before some clever little poster accuses me of this: I did not call Skinner spineless and homophobic.

[Garbo 2004]

86. Skinner's post was edited same day it was posted, Nov 4, 2004. Within an hour

of the original post, not two years later.

[LostinVA]

97. Ah, okay

I read the one post as it being edited within the last week. Thanks.

[Sapphocrat]

85. I couldn't agree with you more. n/t

[Kurovski]

50. I agree that Skinner got it just right.

:kick:

[LeftCoast]

56. What a great idea, Sapphocrat!

Thanks for reposting this!

:thumbsup:

[hlthe2b]

68. I agree, but I believe that control over ones own body is also

a civil right-- an issue of equal rights. Yet, there have been times when the women on this forum had to put up with a vocal minority suggesting that our insistence on "choice" (and by extension, decisions over birth control and delaying pregancy) was "holding back Democrats." We were essentially told (again by a minority of very vocal DUers) that we needed to be more "pragmatic" and allow our own rights-- in terms of decisions over our own bodies-- to be negotiated away in order to avoid a campaign issue and possible repeat election losses. You know, the "greater good" argument that was used on our GLBT colleagues...:eyes: I guess for some, it depends on whose backside was getting gored....

I support gay rights. I support civil rights. I support human rights.

Equal rights are NOT more important for some groups than others.... Once they have been "given away" in the interest of "effective political strategy," they will never be regained.

:shrug:

[Sapphocrat]

89. Then you understand it...

...in a way I could never get across in all the millions of words I've written on the subject.

And I'm glad you spoke up. I definitely understand the correlation between the right to choice and LGBT equality. The two issues couldn't be more separate -- or more fused together, as they are just two different arms of the same octopus. What it all boils down to is the patriarchy keeping all of us non-white and/or non-hetero and/or non-male and/or (you name it) in our place. That's all it is. None of these issues has a thing to do with "morality," no matter how well it's sold to the crowd that way; that they are "issues" at all has solely to do with oppression, and how to retain it.

What kills me is how many feminists don't get that. My God, the way people whine about comparing LGBT equality to AA civil rights -- when some of the strongest, pro-choice feminists are completely blind to the way they themselves throw LGBTs under the bus, when they need us as much as we need them!

I sound like a broken record, but I'll say it again: I have NO vested interest in the pro-/anti-choice wars (and in truth, abortion would never be an option for me), but I am one of the staunchest pro-choicers you'll ever meet, because I recognize that the real issue has nothing to do with abortion: It's all about the right to control one's own body.

Yes, the bottom line is simply: I support human rights.

I'm so glad you get the bigger picture. A lot of people do, but very few take the trouble to say it out loud.

[cui bono]

106. ....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2509862#2510261

:hi:

[hlthe2b]

113. Absolutely... we simply must be both consistent and

comprehensive in our response to these issues. What happens to your colleague, neighbor, friend, may not seem to directly impact you-- until you realize that the precedent that was set can then be used to go after a basic issue of rights that DO impact YOU.

:toast: Great post, Sapphocrat. We simply must stand united on these issues.

[readmoreoften]

93. Yes but you're allowed to say on DU that gay rights is ruining the Dems.

A poster just did a few posts up and they're not banned. Nor do I want them to be. I need BOTH rights-- abortion and gay-- and so do half the other GLBT people on this board (lesbians). The pro-life debates get very heated, but they never get reduced to a large portion of DU dehumanizing women and blaming women the way people do GBLT people on this site. Skinner's right to ban outright homophobes because this board could run rampant with a lot of vile comments in a hurry as it did after the 2004 election.

[hlthe2b]

112. Actually the same issue has come up with women's repro rights

discussions, to the point that I asked that a clarification be made as to whether it was appropriate to argue that women's choice, birth control, etc. was an issue holding back the party and that we (women) needed to be willing to "wait" or "compromise," (or whatever?) I am not and do not criticize Skinner on this at all--he has to make considered decisions on policy-- but like the example you cite, these kinds of discussion may be insensitive but are allowed. I took a break from DU for quite a while after that-- I guess to "toughen up" a bit...

[Cetacea]

75. Great read

:kick:

[donco6]

77. I think we could all benefit by debating what point 6 really means.

"6. It is not homophobic to point out the obvious truth that there are large numbers of people in large regions of the country who are opposed to gay rights. ON EDIT: It also not homophobic to point out that political candidates, particularly those running in conservative areas, may have to compromise on the issue of gay rights for the purposes of political expediency."

First, let me emphatically agree that some candidates do have to compromise on this issue. Some parts of the country just aren't as enlightened as others, and that's probably just a time factor more than anything.

However, I truly believe that some candidates rush to a compromise when they probably don't have to. Or they equivocate when a clear statement would actually do them more good than harm. Have politicians forgotten that they are leaders? People follow them. They can sway peoples' opinion with their words and writing. But what usually happens is that they are asked a question (on Russert or Tweety or whatever), and instead of a direct answer such as, "Yes, Tim, I made that statement and I stand by it today," they say "Well, let me explain the context of that statment. . . . blah blah equivocate, backpedal, leave-the-affected-group-dangling-in-the-wind." I saw it with Obama last week, and this week with the Dem from Maryland.

And I have to ask, "why?" The original stand Russert quoted was something I agree with strongly, but after the mushy non-answer, I start to wonder if the candidate is really commited to that stand or not. It certainly doesn't instill confidence in the leadership.

Here's my message to politicians re: compromise. If you have to compromise because you're in a state that's heavily R and you're only winning because of the current anti-R fervor - fine, I get it. But why not take some time after you're elected to educate people about the issue, to lead people to a more enlightened position, rather than swallow every poll figure that shows you people will not accept X.

And if you don't have to compromise - don't! Take a stand! Don't flop around it like a fish out of water. Just once I'd like to see someone say - when asked, "Do you support gay marriage", "Yes, I support gay marriage because it's the right thing to do." What is the other side going to come back with? Examples of how gays have broken up straight marriage? Meteors falling from the sky? America sliding in to the sea? What?

Look, the far right fundies have never been less virile. They've never had a more muted voice than RIGHT NOW. I say we should strike while the iron's hot and voice our support for all the progressive issues. I'll wear a big, fat LIBERAL button very proudly. And I think our leaders would be better off if they did the same.

[LostinVA]

82. Good post -- perfectly explained what bothered me about the edit

[Nicole]

88. Another quote from Skinner

in that same thread:

Allow me to try to make this as clear as possible:

Making a pragmatic political argument that gay rights don't fly in many parts of the country: PERMITTED ON DU

Arguing that you personally think gay people don't deserve full and equal rights: NOT PERMITTED ON DU

It is very important that EVERYONE HERE ON BOTH SIDES of this issue understand this distinction.

direct link to post #89 from that thread
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=1324374#132

Seems pretty clear to me.

[Sapphocrat]

92. And...?

I don't have a problem with that. I certainly understand that "gay rights don't fly in many parts of the country," and I'd never be so foolish as to think otherwise -- or try to convince a red-stater he's just imagining all the anti-gay hate around him.

The disconnect comes when people do argue that "gay people don't deserve full and equal rights" by cloaking it behind "gay rights don't fly in many parts of the country."

That's not pragmatism. That's stealth.

[Nicole]

94. And?

And what?

I said the quote was clear to me. Maybe I should have added the bold type to this?
Arguing that you personally think gay people don't deserve full and equal rights: NOT PERMITTED ON DU

I'm a red-stater & I've never posted anything remotely anti-gay on DU.:shrug:

[Sapphocrat]

96. No, no, no, wait -- disconnect! LOL

I understand what you mean, now -- what I was questioning was whether you were giving us gay folks a sharp poke in the ribs (i.e., that we were being totally blind to "the other side").

I'm sorry I misunderstood, Nicole -- I'm a weeeeee bit sensitive to all this right now. My apologies.

Mea culpa, mea culpa.

[Nicole]

98. It's o.k.

I understand how you could have thought that. The homophobia I've witnessed here this week has made me, a straight woman, sick at heart. It has opened my eyes to the hatred directed at gays. Being from a red state, I do hear anti-gay sentiments often so that is nothing new. What is new to me is seeing it from some of the posters here that I had respect for. I thought DU was better than that.

If you are feeling sensitive right now, you have plenty of reason for it. No apology necessary, but appreciated. :)

[LostinVA]

99. I can't speak for Sappho, but I can speak for myself:

THANK YOU for understanding all of this. It is appreciated, and your name won't be forgotten by me...

[Nicole]

116. Thank you.

I've got a few names I won't be forgetting either, for the opposite reason.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

100. Thank you.

It's very comforting to get backing from straight posters at times like these.

[SallyMander]

107. hugs!

There are many of us (heteros) who are behind you 100%. In my opinion this is the great civil rights battle of our time... my boyfriend and i donate monthly to HRC and talk to anyone we can about this issue. He's already said that if (when?) we get married, we're going to do so in MA (where i'm from) because he "doesn't want to be part of a club that doesn't let everybody in." Yup... he's a keeper.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

109. Welcome to DU!

:yourock:

[cboy4]

124. Yes, he is a keeper! ;)

But you know what? He's just as lucky to have you!

Thank you for your kindness and welcome to the DU family!! :pals:

[Nicole]

115. Anytime.

Especially now, when backing is so low in supply.

[Kerrytravelers]

132. You got our household, too!

I'm a straight woman married to a man. We still to this day can't figure out how your equality will somehow destroy our marriage. However, the inequality that you face does affect our marriage in that, because something that we value and hold dear is used as a means of discrimination, it cheapens our marriage- or, not our personal relationship, but the establishment/institution that we were freely able to choose to join, simply on the shallow basis of who we love.

And please, don't get Mr. kt started on equality. He can give a dissertation that will last hours. He's quite passionate!

We want this for everyone:

Mr. kt and me.

My parents. Yep- my Dad was a career military man. And, wouldn't you know it, my parents are totally equality buffs from Kentucky.

If we can do this, everyone should be equal in doing this.

[cboy4]

117. Thank you Nicole for your kindness

:)

[Nicole]

121. Hugs to you

:hug:

[cboy4]

125. Oh Nicole. You always make me so happy!

:hug:

[Nicole]

130. And you make me happy too! n/t

[Catchawave]

101. K & R

Thank you for re-posting this :toast:

[DawgHouse]

108. I missed this the first time.

Thanks for posting this again!

[Ferret Annica]

118. Brilliant and compassion post

Your policy has my complete and enthusiastic support. Thank you for your principled stand.

[Catherine Vincent]

119. Skinner's one of a kind.

He's intellectually awesome. I don't get to say this much but I thank him wholeheartedly for this website. :)

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

120. That Was Really Friggin Spot On. I'm Proud And Pleased To Know That Is

DU's official stance. I can't find a logic in that post that doesn't make 100% complete sense.

This is actually my favorite quote from it:

"We are right on this issue, I have no doubt. In 40 years, we are going to look back at opposition to gay marriage as something as bigoted and anachronistic as opposition to interracial marriage."

I think he's damn right about that, but I'm hoping it'll take less than 40 years for the realization. Guess we'll see.

[cboy4]

126. I hope you know

you're a good guy. :)

[Laurab]

122. K&R A great post indeed! n/t

[Swamp Rat]

127. GOOD! n/t

[Major Hogwash]

133. You should read this then.

From the New York Times -

In Key House Races, Democrats Run to the Right

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/30/us/politics/30dems.html?ref=politics

[unfrigginreal]

135. I agree with most of what you say but...

I don't think gay Marriage is going to be the answer. There's just to much religiosity that will prevent that from happening. I do think that we will get equal rights in civil unions. To me that's just as good as mariage.

[terrya]

136. It's kinda sad that this actually needs to be posted again

I don't think it's a big secret that there is homophobia here. I appreciate Skinner's addressing the issue 2 years ago. And I thank you for posting this.