Gays are not asking for politically difficult things

[dsc]

I will conceed that marriage equality is contraversial and not supported by a majority but virtually everything else we are asking for is.

"Now I have a few questions about the situation for gay men and women in this country and the issue of gay rights. Do you think there should or should NOT be ?"

.

Should Should Not Unsure
% % %
.

"Legally-sanctioned gay and lesbian unions or partnerships"

12/3-4/08
55 36 9
.

"Legally-sanctioned gay and lesbian marriages"

12/3-4/08
39 55 6
.

"Adoption rights for gays and lesbians so they can legally adopt children"

12/3-4/08
53 39 8
.

"Inheritance rights for gay and lesbian domestic partners"

12/3-4/08
74 20 6
.

"Social Security benefits for gay and lesbian domestic partners"

12/3-4/08
67 27 6
.

"Health insurance and other employee benefits for gay and lesbian domestic partners"

12/3-4/08
73 23 4
.

"Hospital visitation rights for gay and lesbian domestic partners"

12/3-4/08
86 10 4
.

"Gays and lesbians serving openly in the military"

12/3-4/08
66 29 5
.

"Equal rights for gays and lesbians in terms of job opportunities"

12/3-4/08
87 10 3
.

"Equal rights for gays and lesbians in terms of housing"

12/3-4/08
82 13 5

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

Hate crimes isn't address in this poll but gays in the military has 2/3 support, gay civil rights are in the 80's. Specific rights associated with marriage in the mid 50's to the 80's. The simple fact is we gave Clinton time back in the 1990's and it backfired when we lost Congress. If we can't pass ENDA, hate crimes, and gays in the military when we have huge majorities in Congress and approval ratings that start at 2/3 when the Hell will we? This isn't a pony. This isn't asking for the sun, moon, and stars. We are asking for politically popular things. The fact is we also deserve them.

[chill_wind]

1. K & R. n/t

[Kajsa]

2. Yes,you do!

And it's damn time you get them.
Long overdue, imho.

I won't shut up either, and I'm a middle aged
straight lady.


:kick: and R

[baldguy]

3. The govt has no business telling people who they can and cannot fall in love with.

The state should get out of the marriage business.

[Chulanowa]

4. Just one question...

How can someone be "unsure"? I mean ultimately, it's not complicated. You don't need to consult your astrologer. Gay marriage, yes or no? What is "unsure"? You support sorta-marriage for gays, or you support marriage for sorta-gay people? What's the deal there?

[Sebastian Doyle]

5. I think some people get hung up on marriage as a "religious" thing.

They get this idea (which is encouraged by the Robertson/Dobson/Hagee types) that all the gays are going to line up outside their churches and demand weddings the minute the law changes.

The two most obvious flaws in that rhetoric....

1) Any ceremony performed in those churches still requires the minister to sign a marriage license issued by the state. It's not issued by the Vatican, or by the Southern Baptist Conference, or by the bishop of the local LDS ward. And any state license should apply equally to all citizens.

2) What gay couple would want a wedding ceremony in a church that discriminated against them, in the first place?

[ruggerson]

8. politicians deliberately obfuscate the issue

"My religion tells me marriage is between a man and a woman."

Well, so what? What does their religion have to do with it? The issue is CIVIL MARRIAGE, not religious marriage. If civil marriage became the law of the land, nationwide, churches could still refuse to marry gay couples, if they so chose.

[QC]

14. My religion says that one should wash people's feet on Maundy Thursday,

but I haven't yet pushed for a federal law requiring everyone to do it.

I think the whole "my religion says" argument is bogus and the people making that argument know it good and damn well.

[muffin1]

44. The religion argument

is the same argument that was used to promote same race marriage.
The religious freaks in this country will try to hold on to power any way they can. :puke:

[Proud Liberal Dem]

6. The BIG problem is the political will to do so

I guess most of our congresscritters still think it's 1994 and they're going to get bludgeoned in the polls if they dare speak out in favor of equality for GLBTQ individuals despite the fact that social/religious issues seem to be losing a lot of their potency- it sure didn't help the GOP the past two elections anyway. Aside from marriage equality-which on it's face shouldn't bother nor threaten RATIONAL people but which seems to still lose (largely) at the polls for some strange reason-I can't imagine that there's going to be a serious political threat for voting for workplace equality or, at this point, even allowing GLBTQ individuals to serve OPENLY in the armed forces- at a time that we can ill afford to turn well-qualified people AWAY from military service. We've had over a decade during which GLBTQ individuals have been ACKNOWLEDGED as serving in the military, albeit largely closeted- and they haven't destroyed unit cohesion and/or harmed morale. Besides, if the military can lower its standards enough to let skinheads and/or people with serious criminal records into the service, then allowing GLBTQ individuals to serve openly really shouldn't be too hard to do, should it? :shrug: All it will take are some courageous individuals to push this stuff through Congress and I don't have any reason to believe that Obama is going to veto it once it gets to his desk. In fact, I'm pretty sure he will gladly sign any equal rights legislation.

*In regards to marriage equality, I really think that it is ultimately going to be a state-by-state effort. As more and more states legalize marriage equality and more people notice that those states haven't been reduced to a pillar of salt, then I believe that it will eventually be legalized in the rest of the less enlightened states (like mine). I'm not sure that it will be resolved at the federal level, however. Everything else seems pretty doable IMHO however.

[ruggerson]

7. It's because the politicians on our side are cowards

I've said this before:

Ronald Reagan et al took an unpopular, but "principled" position on abortion. But, because he was upfront about his opposition to abortion rights, American, THOUGH THEY DISAGREED WITH HIM, respected the fact that he took a stand out of conviction and stood by it.

All a Dem leader has to do is stand up and be principled - equal marriage rights are MORE popular than banning abortion was when Reagan ran for President.

Americans would embrace a politician who took a real stand on this instead of "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman, but I support civil unions," which is nothing but a cowardly way to straddle the issue.

The media and the politicians make this a third rail issue, when it isn't.

[Egnever]

9. but virtually everything else we are asking for is.

Then the question becomes for me why not take what is supported and work on the rest as we go forward? For the life of me I can not understand the resistance to taking civil unions and the rights they offer simply because of what they are called. Take the rights and work on the label going forward would be the smart move IMHO. Instead both sides get hung up on the label and leave the rights behind. Its stupidity on the part of the GLBT community IMHO.

The time is coming when Gay marriage will be approved but that time is not yet. Why deny yourselves the rights in the mean time it make4s no sense to me.

[dsc]

10. and just what has happened on any front so far

Obama has told us that it would be until at least 2010 until we get the military, he hasn't uttered a single word on behalf of ENDA or hate crimes (despite the first anniversary of the Lawrence King murder). Obama could easily, by executive order, end the FDA ban on gay blood and he hasn't done that either.

[Egnever]

24. I don't know what has happened?

I know he has appointed some openly gay people to cabinet positions. Aside from that I don't know. There are huge fish to fry at the moment, I think he will get to it in time.

I don't think it is a priority for him, and thats a shame but it is what it is, and you knew it wouldn't be a priority for him from the get go. I do think he is interested in seeing equal rights. I don't think it is a battle he wants to face with everything on his plate. He cant do it alone.

Meanwhile you didn't address my post at all.

[dsc]

29. He has done no such thing

There are zero, count them zero, openly gay cabinet members. He has appointed openly gay sub cabinet positions. No one is asking him to do this alone but just to do it. And as to the idea that it isn't a priority for him, when I said that in the primaries I was called a racist and liar. Funny that now that very same idea is used as an excuse as to why he won't do diddly. As to civil unions vs marriage. There is zero evidence that civil unions work either as policy or as politics. Every state that has civil unions has had problems with getting them treated like marriage and there seems to be zero difference in the referenda between ones which do and don't ban civil unions.

[Egnever]

32. So which was it

were you right in the primaries or is your revisionist history right now?

It doesnt matter what you were called in the primaries, point is you knew the priorities then. Why are you acting surprised now?

as far as civil unions goes I never claimed it was a perfect solution but it is a step forward. Just as people learning that friends and coworkers were gay has helped to reduce the level of fear/prejudice/hatred to the point were discrimination is outlawed in most places so should civil unions advance the idea that allowing gay marriage isn't a scary prospect either.

Your stance and that of many in the GLBT community seems to be if it aint perfect we don't want it. All that gets you is nothing. Why not take something and keep working for more?

[dsc]

34. what revisionist history

Gays provided money and votes to this man. We are owed these things.

[Two Americas]

46. it is not about a label

Opposition to marriage equality is a stalking horse for bigotry. It is not a battle over a label.

You are describing rights as though they were privileges here.

Gay marriage does not need approval. This has nothing to so with anyone's approval. The battle is not to win anyone's approval. The opposition has nothing to do with disapproval.

Things do not improve by postponing the battle, they always get worse. You stand up to the bullies, or they get stronger. It becomes less likely that people will ever stand up to them when it is postponed. At issue is whether or not people will stand up - now. Now is the only time to stand up. Far too few are. Things move more quickly when and only when more people stand up. Saying "I would stand up, or will stand up but now is not the time" is a way to refuse to stand up and deny that one is failing to stand up. The only reason that it could ever not be the right time is because people are not standing up. The only thing you can do is stand up - or not. The only time to do that is now - that is the only way that it will become the right time.

It is not possible for people to deny themselves rights. You are talking about privileges again, not rights.

If the label does not matter now, as you claim, why would anyone work on it in the future? It would become less important, not more, if your framing of this is correct and it is merely a label. You are saying "don't ever fight for it."

You say "both sides get hung up" as though the opposition were a legitimate "side" that needs to be considered, and as though the resolution of the battle between the "two sides" were something you were watching from the sidelines and as though there is some third party, neutral and benign and in loco parentis - who is asking the children to please stop fighting in the back seat so the parents can drive the car to the destination.

There is no such middle ground on the subject of rights, as you would have us believe. One recognizes them or one does not. This supposed neutral stance in fact supports the status quo, and that acts to deny rights, and that promotes and defends bigotry.


...

[pilsner]

11. I support civil rights for gays but hope Prop 8 is upheld

48% supported gay marriage in California. It's so close to being won at the polls. I think gay marriage would win if it were put on the ballot again.

Having judges grant gay marriage would energize the fundies to organize politically in 2012 to elect Romney or Palin to block more "activist liberal judges" from being appointed to the bench.

[Caliman73]

12. I disagree

NO minority should have to rely on a ballot to exercise a constitutional right. Judges would not be granting gay marriage, they would rightfully be deciding that people cannot amend the constitution to deny fundamental rights to a minority group.

[pilsner]

15. Prop 8 is certainly an injustice

But, politically-speaking it would be much more preferable for gay marriage to be won at the ballot box rather than in court.

On the whole, America would have been much better off had the Supreme Court not handed down Roe. Abortions would have been made available in most states and it would have kept the fundies from have having the issue to organize around nationally.

[Zhade]

17. Fucking bullshit. My rights aren't up for a fucking vote.

NT!

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

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

[Sgent]

23. Sure they are

All the civil rights acts of the 60's gave thousands rights they never would have gotten if not for congressional support.

Without them it would have taken decades longer with fewer rights than are enjoyed by minorities today.

[Solon]

43. Both correct and incorrect, the SCOTUS forced the issue of desegregation in the 1950s...

The President at the time(Ike) then used the National Guard to make sure the Supreme Court Decision was upheld. Other, Jim Crow laws, were then addressed by Congress, but only after some arm twisting by Johnson. None of these rights were put up to referendum by the populace of the states most effected by such legislation, if it were, many of them would have had legalized segregation for much longer than they actually had it.

[bullwinkle428]

38. So screw all of the women living in states where abortions would not

be legal (assuming that Roe v. Wade never happened)? Thank you for your support of civil rights for all.

[ruggerson]

13. When interracial marriage bans were struck down by the USSC in Loving Vs Virginia

70% of the country thought interracial marriage should be illegal.

Should that have been brought to a popular vote, too?

The Judiciary is the third branch of government. It has a purpose. One of the reasons it exists is to protect the minority from the tryanny of the majority.

Regardless of how Republicans want to politicize the judiciary, they are doing exactly what they should be doing and we should not be buying into the bogus defamation of what judges' roles are in our society.

Conversely, we should be loudly defending them.

[pilsner]

16. You make excellent points

But 48% is so damn close. Most people say it would win next time.

I would think differently if say only 40% supported it.

Again, it would be much sweeter to win it at the ballot box. If the fundies want tyranny of the majority, we'll shove it down their throats and then some.

[dsc]

19. The 48 percent is inflated

we had every advantage under the sun going in and we still got stuck at 48. We outraised the other side, we had the no side of the issue, and we had the most favorable possible wording. We almost certainly won't raise the money again, and we can't count on the wording and we will be the yes side. Those together could be about 5 to 10 points at the polls.

[pilsner]

20. Really?

I would guess that everyday in California a few thousand people die and 70 percent of them opposed gay marriage.

And everyday a few thousand people become eligible to vote (70% of whom support civil liberties).

[dsc]

21. that does likely help to some extent

but my point is that we have a larger deficit to overcome than the 48 percent suggests.

[pilsner]

22. Then gays are asking for politically difficult things

and the title of the original post to this thread is not true.

And, I appreciate your civil discourse. I have expressed these arguements here before and got called a homophobe and worse very quickly.

I really am on the side of civil rights for all. I just don't want to see many other issues lost because not enough of the country is ready for gay marriage.

And, I understand your point about the need for politicians who will stand for principles such as Paul Wellstone. He stood for keeping welfare in the late 1990's. Most Minnesotans disagreed but respected him standing for principles.

[Djinn]

27. if you waited until what rednecks were "ready for"

you could still own slaves.

[dsc]

30. There might be five gays in the whole country who expect federal marriage rights

to be passed in the next 8 years. The fact is the vast majority of gays would be thrilled with the big three, hate crimes, gays in the military, and ENDA. Throw in ending the immigration problems with gay marriage and most would color the Obama years a smashing success for gay rights.

[FreeState]

26. Many peoples lives are destroyed each day they are not afforded equality

Its too high a price to wait for people to have common decentcy.

[bullwinkle428]

39. "Activist liberal judges" is a horseshit red herring, as far as the Iowa ruling -

the chief justice of the Iowa Supreme Court (which ruled unanimously) IS A REPUBLICAN!!!

[Hippo_Tron]

25. I think he'll get around to it, but I wonder if there will be the support in congress when he does

IMO he should be doing DADT right now as we prepare to send more troops to Afghanistan. Make it a national security issue and it will be very likely to succeed.

[Djinn]

28. just to be picky

There's more than just gay folk asking for these things. Despite my attempt to make myself gay earlier this year (I seem to have repetitively bad taste in men - thought I might pick better girlfriends) I'm thoroughly and completely straight and am sick to death of "seperate but equal"

[EmilyAnne]

31. I agree, dsc!

I have talked about this many times on Democratic Underground, but my father is a fundamentalist preacher in Texas.
He was always extremely right wing, not surprisingly.
His brother, my favorite uncle, is gay and came out to his family about 25 years ago.
My dad was not the loving, supportive brother that he should have been.
Over the years, there were many arguments between me and my brothers on one side and my father on the others side about the bullshit that we heard him say about our uncle.
We loved him. You can't fool kids, they say, and we knew that our uncle was simply a good, kind man who loved the hell out of us.

Fast forward to the 2004 election and my dad has had a total liberal awakening of sorts.
He supports gay marriage. Not civil partnerships, but MARRIAGE.
He says he hopes that my uncle and his partner can get married and he would be his best man.
He actually drives five hours one weekend to their house to officially apologize about his asshole behavior in the past and to reconnect with them.
Its astounding.
I don't really know why or how.
It can't just be because of my brothers and me because closed-minded people are always being challenged by their more liberal children.
I think there is a lot to simply considering the rights that you listed. They are so basic that it just makes sense to anyone who takes the time to look at them one by one.
If more people would, they would eventually come to realize that allowing gay partnerships the same rights afforded to straight partnerships is simply the right thing to do.


Anyway, my whole point in writing about my father is that if people like my parents can finally see the absurdity and hatefulness behind the anti-gay movement in this country, I truly believe many more will wake up.
I am trying to get my father to write a book because he is an excellent writer and extremely bright.
He's a nobody as far as having political power, but it certainly would be nice if there were even some very small voices taking on the Rick Warrens that keep getting a forum.

[Celeborn Skywalker]

33. Absolutely!

At the very least, Obama could issue and executive order ending DADT.

[dsc]

35. No he can't

DADT is a law as is the prohibition against sodomy.

[Celeborn Skywalker]

36. I didn't know that.

For some reason, I always thought it was an aspect of the military that the CIC could change without the legislature.

[doctor jazz]

37. You should say "as -was- the prohibition..."

Of course you are correct wrt DADT
:-)

[dsc]

40. that hasn't been litigated yet

the military is permitted to have different laws than standard society in many areas (banning Jews from wearing yamakahs for example).

[doctor jazz]

41. Oh my bad, didn't realize you meant UCMJ

:blush:
I certainly should have, given the context.

[dsc]

42. No problem

There is a great deal of legend and misinformation out there and it is hard to keep the facts straight.

[ieoeja]

45. There's a GAY working at the Dairy Queen where I grew up.

A population of 2,500 made my hometown the largest in the county. We didn't have the county seat, but we did have the only stoplight in the county, which made us considerably more cosmopolitan than the all the stupid hicks.

Several employees at the Dairy Queen told the young assistant manager that the one employee she was so fond of was a lesbian. Raised in a very strict religious group that keeps their children isolated from people of other backgrounds as much as possible, she did not believe them until she saw the employee holding hands and kissing another girl in the parking lot.

The assistant manager informed the owner what happened and that she would not be able to work that particular employee again.

Where do you suppose this story goes in this ultra rural, bible-belt community? The owner moved the assistant manager to another shift, and all the other Dairy Queen employees got a good laugh at the assistant manager's exposure to the real world.


You are correct. Attitudes towards "the gay" have changed greatly the past decade. Politicians are once again lagging well behind the people on this topic.

I realize attitudes still have a long way to go. Had this story involved two gay men instead of two lesbians, I wouldn't have placed bets on a non-bloody outcome for the two in the parking lot.