I'm very glad to read this. I'm also going to post it on General Discussion, because I think a lot of other folks will also be glad to hear this as well.

http://www.advocate.com/new_news.asp?ID=14285&sd=11/05/04

Kerry refused to take Clinton's antigay advice
Friday, November 05, 2004

A new report from inside the John Kerry campaign suggests that in the final weeks of the campagin former president Bill Clinton advised Kerry to come out in favor of ballot measures that wrote antigay marriage discimination into the constitutions of 11 states. According to the latest issue of Newsweek, "Looking for a way to pick up swing voters in the red states, former president Bill Clinton, in a phone call with Kerry, urged the senator to back local bans on gay marriage. Kerry respectfully listened, then told his aides, 'I'm not going to ever do that.'"

The advice is not inconsistent with Clinton's record: He is the chief executive who signed the 1996 federal Defense of Marriage Act, which forbids the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages and leaves gay and lesbian couples legally married in Massachusetts since May 17 in legal limbo. The federal DOMA also prevents those couples from acquiring access to the Social Security and other benefits that other legally married couples have.

Similarly, Kerry's response to Clinton's advice is consistent with his position on same-sex couples. Kerry, who voted against DOMA in 1996, told The Advocate that although he believes marriage should be between a man and a woman, he favors the establishment of civil unions that included all the rights and responsibilities of marriage and opposes the federal constitutional amendment to ban marriage that President Bush supports.

Good. Clinton gave great advice, but this is not part of it. Gays are taxpaying, voting citizens. There is no way that they should have rights taken away from them. They do nothing to bother us. Leave them alone. Kerry would have lost the gay vote with that and gained a very small amount of those southern voters, if any. Kerry is a smart man.

If this is accurate, I must say that embracing those discriminatory ballot measures would have hurt Kerry greatly. He would have lost his LGBT and LGBT family support. (Yes, we do have moms and dads and brothers and sisters and uncles and aunts and kids -- and they vote too.) He would have further solidified his -- in my opinion -- undeserved "reputation" as a "flip-flopper." And he would have tarnished his record as a person who has fought for equal rights under law for all Americans.

Again, if true, I'm proud that he did not follow this advice.

But he could easily have given a non-commiting answer like * It is not in the interest of the govement to inteferer in States constitutional rights*

I'm very much against any discrimination of minorities sexsual or otherwise, but the Q remains, would it not have been better that he gave a *non-answer* so either the repugs had to blair out to the world what raving hypocrites they are in their attempt to get a yes/no answer from Kerry, or they would lose maybe 5-10% of the vote they got on that Q.?

I am proud that he stood by his principles. I am not that surprised that Clinton would propose that, but I certainly hope that Kerry would not do so. The man has principles.

I have a message for Hilary: If you hope to have LGBT support for your political career, you better not take such advice either.

Our party will never win the presidency by out-Bushing the Bush Republicans.

I know this is not going to be a popular opinion on my part but I think Clinton was dead right. I have a Republican friend who voted for John Kerry. She told me, after listening to me sob for hours on the phone, that after 9/11 Jerry Falwell came out and said that 9/11 happened because America was being punished for homosexuality. She went to some Bible study where all the people there honestly believed this. Apparently the people there believed that by opposing homosexuality we would stop being punished by God. She thought this was assinine and quit the Bible study goup. But it seems the "morality" voters may have actually been voting the "terrorism" card after all. Their idea of fixing the terrorism threat is to outlaw homosexuality. These people are cooky as hell. But Clinton seemed to have his pulse on what was going on behind the scenes in the religious right.

What strikes me as unbelievable is that Jerry Falwell can get so many people to believe that God is punishing our country because of homosexuals. If this is true, then every further punishment bestowed on our country (economic depression, war, further terror attacks, etc.) will all easily be attributed to homosexuals, etc


I hope you all know I don't agree with this in any way, shape, or form. I'm just tossing out one possible opinion...

I hope people will watch the movie "Saved!" It is an excellent view into the world of religious right Americans. We need to better understand what makes these people tick.

Except that nobody would have believed that Kerry was honest with this statement. And I am happy he chose to remain honest. I am fed up of Democrats that think we have to fall for people worst instincts.

I dont think these people would have ever voted for Kerry anyway.

theres a old german saying *Gegen dumheit kempf eben die gottes vergebens*
losely translatet 'Against stupidity even the Gods fights a lost battle*

And having a principle is good, Stalin once said *I like people whit princibles, they are so predictable* In other words he could screw them every time.

There is a time to keep to your princibles and a time yoiu don't. in a political election battle you don't. becourse most everything said in election campaign can be forgiven. It is what you do when you are electet that is important.

I am just looking at this from a strategy point of view. Take out the emotions and examine the situation as though you were someone from another planet. I'm not making values statements here. I'm making strategy statements. They're different.

I disagree wholeheartedly with that opinion, Alexander.

Kerry would not have profited by taking such a stand, but he would have lost the tremendous support and energy of many voters if he had taken it.

"[W]hat does it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world but lose his own soul?"
Mark 8:36

Edie,
I live my life according to the quotation you listed.

But that is not how countries are won.

I am willing to entertain your strategy ideas - ultimately that we will win the most votes by playing a clean game.

Do you have any idea if history suports that strategy?

I don't know the answer to that.

Now I am assuming the people in the South who are against gay rights, because of God's definiton of marriage, are religious people.

If they are considered 'swing voters', wouldn't some other religious issues swing their way to Bush? For example, Kerry is pro-choice and for stem-cell research. Both of which the church is strongly against. Wouldn't this just decrease the possibility of their vote for Kerry? Would that be even a wise decision for changing sides?

I agree with Edie when she said that this would add to the long list of the accusation of flip flopping. I understand that Bush changed to be for civil unions just before the election. I assume he will eventually change back, since he won, and will still remain a hypocritical flip flopper himself.

I don't think Bush or the Diebold cartel care one way or another about homosexuality. They care about power and money. Homosexuality is just a tool they use to divide and conquer. Same story with abortion, stem cell research, guns, etc. I believe they have successfully linked 9/11 to homosexuality in the subconscious minds of the religious right. Anyone remember Ronald Reagan's "AIDS is punishment for homosexuality" remarks? Ring a bell? If not, it should.

Let us suppose that Kerry had abandoned his principles on this -- let us say that he did as Clinton did repeatedly during his terms in office, and gave gay and lesbian voters and their families and friends the back of his hand.

Then what? Where would that have left him? What group would have been next?

In 1988, blacks were targeted by GHW Bush via the Willie Horton campaign ad. Would you thus suggest that democratic Party abandon blacks? My guess is not.

Many here seem ready to believe the Bush-Rove version of this campaign -- that they motivated people other than their base to support them by scapegoating people like me and my family. I caution you not to believe everything you read and see in the newspapers and on CNN my dears.

Yes, the Bushistas certainly motivated many in their base to get out and vote by touting same sex marriage as a threat to society. What did the Democratic Party do to motivate their base? How many of us worked day in, day out, six to eight hours a day on GOTV?

Not many, I suspect. And how do we motivate our base? I suggest to you that we do not do it by being more like Bush than Bush.

I was either not born or too small to remember or care. But I do know that AIDS blew up under Reagan. It wouldn't surprise me if he said it.

True but my point was more that it was better for Kerry to force the Repugs out and very loudly scream their hypocrisy about civil rights, rather than let them earn votes the way they did that is what Clinton knew. And why he suggestet it to Kerry, Not that he should support it, you are right about that and Clinton knew also that Kerry would lose more votes by taking a hard stand against gay marriage than he would gain. But that was not Clintons reason to tell Kerry that he should not stand AGAINST state legistature that would prohibit marriage. Clinton knew that Kerry couldn't do anything at that stage about it but he could take several % points of the Repugs, simply becourse it was far from all that vote to Bush that was wholeheartely, even among christian fundamentalist. so Kerry tok a stand at the wrong time.
There are times when you should bite the bullet and lose your arm or selfrespect, rather than lose your life and those around you freedom and liberty.

Edie,
How can we motivate our base, then? How can we win?
I don't want you to think that I am picking on GLBT's.
Because I'm not.

When your job is to take care of millions and millions of people you have to make tough choices. Sometimes there are nothing but poor choices from which to choose. You pick that which will benefit the most and harm the least. And when in power you take back the media and start re-programming people.

THIS IS MY LIFE AND FREEDOM! I am a lesbian in a 20-year partnership with my beloved, whom I cherish.

So when you talk about biting the bullet and giving up my self respect for your life and freedom, I think you are forgetting something. I am not a number. I am not a statistic. My beloved is not a number or a statistic. We are real, living, breathing people, with ideals, beliefs, worth, and value. We deserve the same rights as every other American.

We will not hide in a closet so you can feel comfortable and safe.

Well, they could just do Hitler's solution. Send all the gays to the 'ovens'. That or public stonings.

This president in this term is going to set gay rights back 50 years. Back to the closet boys because homosexuality is the absolute worst thing happening in the world today.

This is from a gay man. I see my rights trampled on. We aren't 2nd class citizens, we're 3rd class. We can be fired from a job, lose housing and don't even qualify for hate crimes protection in most of the country.

I was raised to treat people with respect. Respect me and I'll respect you. Do on to others as you would have done on to you.

I am intrigued by your reasons that Clinton may have urged Kerry not to stand AGAINST state laws prohibiting gay marriage. What good would taking several % points from the Repugs do? What do you mean Kerry took a stand at the wrong time? I can see that you are getting somewhere and I want to understand what you are saying. Would you please clarify this for me.

I know you guys are feeling vulnerable now. I don't want you to. I really don't. I feel like a heel for even being a part of this discussion but I want to get this out into the open. I think it is a very dangerous position BushCo is putting you in. I also agree GLBT's, just like every other American, have Civil Rights that need to be protected. The issue is HOW to achieve that goal.

Here are just a few of the 1,049 federal rights that same-sex partners are typically denied because we cannot obtain a civil marriage through our state governments:

* Inheritance from a partner under state intestate laws (which take effect when one dies without a will)
* Denial of community property rights in community property states
* Being able to make medical decisions for our partners in emergencies
* Being able to get wrongful death benefits as a surviving partner through wrongful death suits (gay people whose partners died in 9/11 have been fighting this battle in NY)
* Lack of access to the federal Medical Leave act benefits
* Inability in many states to adopt the children of our partners
* Denial of shared federal benefits like Social Security and Medicare
* Inability to avoid estate, inheritance, and other taxes that married couples are not assessed
* Visitation rights should our partner be hospitalized

These are a few of the rights I believe my partner and I should be afforded.

As for feeling vulnerable -- we ALL should feel vulnerable. As long as my partner and I are targets, you are too. As easy as it is to target LGBT Americans, it is just as easy to target liberals, Democrats, Independents, moderate Republicans, or any other group you'd care to mention.

Ask not for whom the bell tolls . . . .

You dont have to tell me you are not a number. I statet the fact that it is better to compromise than lose everything.
All that i have learned about Kerry tells me that he would in no way or form support any form of laws that would rip apart families like the one you have whit your partner.
But he had NO possibilty EVEN as president to interffered in state law, he could only do that indirecly by nominating judges.
So what would like. comforting words or real action that help't you and your partner, Teenage mothers who don't get sex-ed anymore, former felons who have served all their time for check fraud and the like, but are permanently banned from ever be a whole citizen again. These like you are all losers, and people that new judges could have helped becourse the legistation that prohibitis these 'losers' in society from getting a even chance is unconstitutional. (but there is no votes in them)

I'm tierd so excuse me if i babble

How should I compromise, Alexander? Kerry committed to us during the campaign that he would seek equal rights for those in same-sex partnerships. That is all I asked.

True but the only way he could fullfill that promise was indirectly, by placing judges that would take the constitution before anything else.
He would'nt have broken his promise to you by saying that he would not inteffere in the states legistation that would prohibit you and your partner from enjoying your life together under the protection of the law.
He simply has no possibility to do anything about state law, so he would only have statet the obivous, but the nimvits who votet Bush in is probably not aware that neither Kerry nor Bush can have any influence on state legistation. So if they thought that he supportet them whit such a staement then more power to Kerry.

I don't think the virulent anti-gay vote was ever going Kerry's way, so it is absurd to think they would believe him if he came out against gay marriage. In fact, he should have done the opposite and taken the stand that two adults should not be prevented from entering into a contractual aggreement just because of the views of people who have no right to impose their will on other people's private decisions. People really do respect a principled stand. We need a leader not a poll reader.

This works best whit an informed public. And Rove have proven time and again that poll reading is the name of the game, wether we like it or not.
Taking princible stand against the likes of Rove invites disaster, and if this election wasn't enough to prove that i dont now what is.
And it was not the nutty right i thought off that Kerry could have influence on. It was the people for whom the Q about gay marriage was perifable but important in their decision for chossing Bush, just a few % points of those could have made a world of defirence

I am sad to read this. I love Clinton. I thought he and Kerry had a solid rapport. Bush and his religious cronies turned peeps against Kerry because of his stance on this issue.

I too am a lesbian with a 20 year relationship. I do not deny nor do I push my lifestyle choice on anyone. Many may assume and if they should ask I would tell them the truth, in this small town very RED state none ask.

I do not understand gays who have to be so out- what is the point? If you are accepted, live where you want as you choose, are accepted at work, what is the big deal? Is you "out" worth the cost of haveing 4 more years of this guy? Would you not run back into the closet if it would remove GW?

I think it will be the media that slowly bring acceptance of gays and just look at the number of TV shows and movies addrtessing the issue. This is huge for a lot of people and I do not mind if acceptance comes slowly to them.

This can not be compared to the black struggle because we can hide, we ride at the front of the bus, have jobs, live where we please, go to white schools. So spare me the drama-

the gay issue is just the tip of the iceburg. Fact is it's about HOW MUCH DO YOU LET THE CONSTITUTION ERODE...

it's not just gays...
it's about YOUR RIGHT to choose what you do with your body
it's about whether or not Christianity is rammed down your throat and it is SANCTIONED by the State...

it's about much more than being gay. I ask how do you JUSTIFY giving way to one...without sacrificing the others?

Media will not bring us acceptance. We will have to do that ourselves. I do not believe we can do it by hiding in the closet.

As for being out -- I live my life as who I am. I am proud to be who I am. Part of who I am is gay. I am also a writer, a lawyer, a daughter, a friend, a Democrat, a birdwatcher, a history buff. I am proud of each and every one of those.

I cannot pretend to be straight any more than you apparently can be out. I do not denigrate you for being who you are. I wonder why you feel it necessary to denigrate my choice not to pretend to be something I am not.

I was out long before Bush came into office. Stop scapegoating me and those like me who choose not to lie about who we are. It is not our fault Bush got into office, and this "election" is not our fault either.

No one has told me I can not be gay. That would be a whole different matter. They are saying that they do not want a religious institution used to ratify my relationship and that is fine with me. Some of the more rabid thumpers would like to hang me I am sure but by and large I find people accept me and some even like me despite my lifestyle.

I do not denigrate your choice. As far as fault I don't think we can deny that we were used as a wedge issue and it probably did cost Kerry the election. I am just being pragmatic- our choice is true and proud and out of power or compromise a bit and regain some lost ground.

ditto!

Your quote how can 59 million people be so dumb is catching. How can they? I believe they were very well organized. Especially the Christian Fundamentalist. They travel continuously and meet and drink the cool aid. They have been brainwashed, wouldn't talk about politics during the campaign - Jesus didn't want them to talk. (I was told that by an acquaintance but today she reaches out and sends me tapes to listen to after all this time - Haven't had time to listen yet but pretty sure they are the brainwashing tapes - Don't fear. I am not inclined, just curious to hear what they have to say now that the election is over.)

I sympathize in every way with partners who do not get the same rights. However, Bush used us/you all. (I did not get a vote.) He made it an issue. He won on morality. What a joke. He now expects people like me to say to gays, I hate you, because you caused Bush to get in again. But I won't do it. It is the same with the Muslims. He does it all, and blames them. Like he did not go to Iraq for the oil. Excuse me?

I understand your position...but it is NOT the religious institutions who are DENYING YOU THE EQUAL RIGHTS afforded by a marriage contract SANCTIONED BY THE STATE! You have to go get a license from the STATE to get married...not the church. Now when the STATE began to attach rights and privleges to the "institution"...they were simply clarifying and making uniform a "legal contract"...not a religious ceramony. THAT IS THE ISSUE. The "anti-gay marriage amendments" that the states are enacting are in DIRECT CONTRADICTION to YOUR RIGHTS AS AN AMERICAN CITIZEN. It's simple if you get the religious goo off of it.
Article IV. - The States
Section 1 - Each State to Honor all others
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
Section 2 - State citizens, Extradition
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.

(No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, But shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.) (This clause in parentheses is superseded by Amendment XIII.)

I feel he has damaged Christianity beyond repair. However the Bible says different. On these rocks I will build my church and the whatsits of Hell will not prevail against it. Talking about the Catholic one. UNFORTUNATELY the Catholic one has a large corrupt contingent in it. IMO.

Someone said 'We need a leader not a poll watcher.'' I find that hypocritical because poll-watching is what you have to do to get elected in politics. Also that sounds like the republican flip flop attack. They can do something time and again, but as soon as the left does it the attack-machine comes in, and has great encouragement from the soundbite department of CNN etc.

In the real world you fight fire with fire. You can't fight evil unless you are prepared to play it their way sometimes. Kerry would have loved to have stood for many things, but Bush had already claimed those stances, even though he has no intention of delivering them IMO. He is a deceitful character and he will get caught with his pants down.....sorry that was Clinton. But at least Clinton did not kill people, or what about Ruanda...? Can anyone in politics be trusted?

You are correct in regards to the legal protections we do not have. Many of them can be worked around through joint ownership, etc. Yes I would love to have all of the legal protections but I feel this is not the most important issue facing this country. Our country is in ruins and to me this is just not a big issue, at least not now. I grieve for so many other things bigger than this issue:


AT THIS POINT, WE CAN ONLY ACCEPT THE UNFORTUNATE RESULTS

I WAS NOT SURPRISED. ALL OF THE POLLS HAD BUSH ONE OR TWO POINTS AHEAD. EVEN THOUGH THEY WERE WITHIN THE MARGIN OF ERROR, IT WAS ALWAYS IN BUSH'S FAVOR.

SO BE IT.

ALL I WILL SAY AT THIS TIME IS THAT WHEN IRAQ COMPLETELY BLOWS UP IN OUR FACES, LET THE BUSH VOTERS NOT COMPLAIN.

WHEN THE REST OF THE WORLD REFUSES TO HELP US OUT IN IRAQ AND INSTEAD LEAVES IT TO THE U.S. TO HANDLE BY ITSELF, LET THE BUSH VOTERS NOT COMPLAINT.

WHEN THE WORLD COMPLETELY TURNS AGAINST US, PARTICULARLY APPALLED THAT WE VOTED HIM BACK INTO OFFICE AFTER HIS PAST FOUR YEARS, LET THE BUSH VOTERS NOT COMPLAIN.

WHEN, AFTER THE NEXT TERRORIST ATTACK DEVASTATES OUR NATION AND THE WORLD SAYS THAT WE JUST GOT WHAT WE DESERVED AFTER IRAQ, LET THE BUSH VOTERS NOT COMPLAIN.

AS THE NATIONAL DEFICIT GOES THROUGH THE CEILING UNCONTROLLED, LET THE BUSH VOTERS NOT COMPLAIN.

WHEN THE MIDDLE AND LOWER MIDDLE CLASSES IN THE BLUE STATES (AS WELL AS THE RED STATES) FIND THAT SOCIAL SECURITY IS DECIMATED, AND THAT WHAT SOCIAL PROGRAMS WE HAVE ARE CUT FUTHER AND FURTHER, ALL TO PAY FOR THE EXPLODING DEFICIT, LET THE BUSH VOTERS NOT COMPLAIN.

AS THE ENVIRONMENT GETS WORSE, AS AIR & WATER POLLUTION CONTROLS ARE LOOSENED AND ELIMINATED, AS GLOBAL WARMING INCREASES, AS OUR NATIONAL FOREST TREASURES ARE VIOLATED AND THE TREES CUT DOWN, LET THE BUSH VOTERS NOT COMPLAIN.

AS MORE AND MORE MIDDLE AMERICANS CAN NO LONGER AFFORD HEALTH INSURANCE, LET THE BUSH VOTERS NOT COMPLAIN.

AS DECENT AMERICAN JOBS ARE EXPORTED OVERSEAS AND AS WHAT JOBS ARE DEVELOPED ARE LOW END, LOW PAYING AND WITHOUT BENEFITS, LET THE BUSH VOTERS NOT COMPLAIN.

LET THEM NOT COMPLAIN. THEY WANTED BUSH AND THEY GOT HIM FOR FOUR MORE YEARS:

FOUR MORE YEARS IN WHICH TO WASTE AND SQUANDER AMERICAN RESOURCES ON AN OCCUPATION OF A NATION THAT WAS NEVER PLANNED FOR;

FOUR MORE YEARS IN WHICH TO COMPLETELY ALIENATE OUR ALLIES, AS WELL AS THE WORLD AT LARGE, WITH AN ARROGANCE NOT SEEN SINCE IMPERIAL ROME;

FOUR MORE YEARS IN WHICH TO ANGER AND SCARE THE WORLD WITH A PART COWBOY, PART BULLY MENTALITY;

FOUR MORE YEARS TO SPEND LIKE A DRUNKEN SAILOR, RUNNING THE NATIONAL DEFICIT TO HEIGHTS NEVER IMAGINED, WITH NO DISCIPLINE WHATSOEVER AND NO PLAN FOR PAYING IT BACK, ONLY SPENDING AND BORROWING FROM THE REST OF THE WORLD AND USING SOCIAL SECURITY FUNDS;

FOUR MORE YEARS TO FURTHER ELIMINATE SOCIAL PROGRAMS WHICH PROTECT THE LOWER AND MIDDLE CLASSES, AS WELL AS TO HASTEN THE DAY IN WHICH SOCIAL SECURITY IS BANKRUPTED;

FOUR MORE YEARS TO DESTROY THE ENVIRONMENT;

FOUR MORE YEARS TO LOOSE AMERICAN JOBS.

REJOICE BUSH VOTER. YOU WANTED GEORGE BUSH FOR FOUR MORE YEARS. YOU GOT HIM. BUT DO NOT COMPLAIN!

The cost of constitutional bans on gay marriage/civil unions:

A few years ago, a dear friend of mine was killed by a drunk driver. It took him 4 days to actually die. His drivers license clearly indicated his desire to have every usable organ donated to save or improve the life of another.

During those four days, the hospital tried desperately to reach his next-of-kin to obtain their permission to harvest his organs. When they finally reached his parents and said, "Mr. & Mrs. Smith, we're calling about your son John" they responded by saying, "We have no son named John. He has been dead to us for 24 years. Don't call us again."

"John's" lifemate of 23 years was not permitted at "John's" bedside. He could not sign the organ donation forms. "John's" desire to save or improve the life of another went unfulfilled because people like Dubya and right-wing Christians believe they have the right to legislate the morality of two consenting adults.

"John" died alone thanks to the hospital policy of only allowing immediate family at the bedside of ICU patients.

That is the very real cost of constitutionally approved discrimination - How many people on the organ recipients list have suffered or died as a result of the inability of "God-fearing Christians" to set aside their prejudices and fear?

Is this drama? I don't think so. I'd say it's an all-too-real result of our unwillingness to stop trying to force another to conform to our beliefs by restricting their rights. It is a result of our need as a society to impose our own morals, beliefs and values upon another by refusing them rights afforded to every other adult in this Country - including those who are incarcerated. A murderer has more protected rights than a gay couple. In most States, a murderer can get married while in prison, can even have conjugal visits at the State's expense. We take care of their medical expenses, we feed them, we clothe them, we even pay them a salary if they work while in jail. We'll even get them a nice new pair of glasses, courtesy of the tax payers.

Huh. I wonder how many of these "God-fearing Christians" would refuse a life-saving heart transplant for themselves or their child if they knew it came from a homosexual?

These are the very real costs of constitutionally mandated discrimination. Makes perfect sense to me.

Not.

In what way should I compromise?

Should I and my partner be denied even the right to care for each other if one of us is hospitalized? Why? How does recognizing that right hurt any straight person, jonnap?

Should we be required to pay federal taxes, yet be denied the right to pass on federal pensions to each other? Why should we agree to be third class citizens in a country in which we work hard, in which we pay taxes, and in which we conduct ourselves as good citizens?

If you want to make that choice, fine. Don't expect me to make it. I could not go back to living a lie if I wanted to. I might as well curl up and die.

You say many of the rights we are denied can be "worked around" with "joint ownership." Guess what jonnap? In those states that have enacted laws or amendments that deprive us even of the right to have domestic partnerships or civil unions, a court may decide that your joint ownership is void and of no effect.

Moreover, "joint ownership" may help you leave your house to your loved one. It will not help you adopt your partner's child. It will not help you gain access to your partner in the hospital if people there want to keep you apart. It will not make the funeral home allow you to make plans for your loved one's funeral. It will not make the federal government allow you to sponsor your foreign beloved for citizenship.

I thought this issue was truly unimportant compared to Iraq, compared to the threat of terrorism, or the threat to our civil liberties posed by the Bush administration. I don't know what to believe now. But I refuse to be treated as a scapegoat. That is my choice to make for myself, not yours.

OK, I'm going to take the opposite tack.

Kerry should have come out *against* the amendments, at least the eight that also ban civil unions. (Some went even further yet, barring domestic partnership benefits, including for unmarried heterosexual couples.)

Previously, Kerry had stated his support for the Missouri Amendment in August, which merely defined marriage as being between a man and a woman. It would have been entirely compatible with that position to oppose the other eight, especially since he has said he favors civil unions.

To oppose the other eight would have shown courage, as well as consistency. His candidacy could have used both.

BTW, it's good to be on the new forum. I had some reservations about signing on here. We are *allegedly* all progressive/moderates/independents. I think we need to agree that gays and lesbians are an integral part of the Democratic coalition and leave it at that. Regardless of what you personally think of homosexuality, we are here for good and are an established part of the Democratic Party. So that part of the debate really shouldn't even be debatable.

A REAL lesbian does not refer to her sexuality as a "lifestyle choice."


Gays cannot live where we choose. Gays are not included in any federal anti-discrimination laws, including housing (thanks to 30 years of blind support for Democrats who always compromise all of our issues away in order to push legislation that benefits other Democratic party constituencies).


Gays are not accepted at work. Federal laws against employment discrimination do not sexual orientation (not to be confused with a lifestyle). There are less than 20 states which include sexual orientation and a few municipalities here and there (which face religionist repeal efforts almost every election cycle).



A real lesbian would know what the 'big deal' is. The only person who wouldn't is either self-loathing or a bigoted troll.


What in the hell are you talking about now? Those exit polls which show 22% voted on the basis of "social issues" (while 78%-which is an over whelming majority-did not). Those so-called "social issues" weren't limited to gay marriage. They also included things like abortion.

Those same exit polls also showed 60% were in favor of some form of same-sex couple recognition, either in the form of civil unions (35%) or marriage (25%). Only 37% wanted NO legal recognition for same-sex couples.

So pandering to bigots won't help you. It will only make you lose support from people who have brains and who don't put the Party above their own self-interests.


What TV shows?

Surely you're not referring to stupid sitcoms?

There aren't ANY TV shows which have anything whatsoever to do with gay life or acceptance or anything else. They only promote stereotypes and they almost never have feature any real issues facing REAL GLBT people. They're just like racist shows from the past.



It isn't about acceptance. It's about EQUALITY UNDER THE DAMN LAW.


That's absolutely WRONG.

Many people cannot 'hide' (nor should they try!) their sexuality. Especially effeminate men.

Furthermore, people can 'hide' their religion, but I don't see anyone stupid enough to suggest we strip religious protections from the law or allow states to prohibit interfaith marriages under this idiotic states' rights mantra.



That's a load of crap!

Anti-gay discrimination is on the rise and has been for many years. The only reason you don't see as many lawsuits is because we are the only group where discrimination is still legal, and therefore, in most cases, there is no standing to file a suit.

And what is this 'front of the bus' crap? Up until last year it was legal for states to have laws which allowed the government to go into your bedroom and arrest you.

There were states such as Virginia which removed a judge from the bench for no other reason than she was a lesbian and therefore "a criminal" under state law.

And I don't know what the hell a "white school" is supposed to mean. Or do you suffer from some delusion that all gays are 'white?'

I am not a troll but politically incorrect and I do not accept the party line. I am pro choice (with limits), pro capital punishment, pro environment, anti war. I see truth in the Democrtic platform, Libertarian and even agree with Pat Buchannen on some issues. No one has a monopoly on the truth.

I have heard many gays say that civil unions (which was probably within the realm of possibility) were "second class". They wanted the real thing - well now we have nothing. If civil unions would give us the means to address the problems identified on various posts than go for that and forget the marriage issue. The radical gays are as impossible as the radical thumpers- neither of you will prevail. And going forward I hope the party can contain the radical elements so we have a chance.

Many of your arguments are valid and have made me rethink some positions. Looking at the overall damage caused by this president I still think our complaints are small by comparison- 100,000 Iraqis dead versus the occasional housing or job discrimination does not an equal cause make.
I weep for our losses but not once did the GLBT issues come to mind in my sorrow.

Now how to win-

As part of our attack on the right I think events such as the removal of the above mentioned judge shoud be exposed on a nation- wide basis. This is where we can reclaim some of the 59 mil voters, by exposing the outrageous behavior of the right everywhere we can find a case. Many of those same voters would be outraged at this behavior. Of the 59 mil, 40 mil are hard right- they are lost to us. Some of the other 19 mil could be reclaimed back into the Democratic fold. I think we need to expose all radical right wing comments, from TV, book, church or elsewhere to the more moderate repugs who will be horrified. I am looking forward to the 2006 election and think we can make inroads on two issues to start- exposing the radical right's hatespeech and on flagrant environmental destruction allowed bythis administration.

"Homo Sex is a Sin"...I don't care if we did lose this time, I will never compromise with such frenetically hateful people.

Even if Democrats abandon this communities (and its members, their families, friends, and general sympathizers), the Republicans will still keep pushing this winning issue during election years.

How far will they be allowed to go? Bush has made it illegal for gay men to donate sperm...a measure to "protect" heterosexuals who use reproduction clinics.

We need to stand on principle; and allow time and the burgeoning number of voters < age of 35 catch up with the Republican's mantra of discrimination.

You make some good points, situations I have not encountered. I can see where a civil union is necessary to cover all of the situations which can arise. But since we continue to live, work and generally enjoy life without these rights they still can not rise to the top of my list of concerns for this country, at least not at this point in time. But yes we need civil rights.

That is just it, jonnap -- civil unions do not address the problem. Nor do domestic partnerships. Why? Because they cannot currently give gays and lesbians the over 1,049 federal rights that straight people get when they marry, but which are denied to us becuse we cannot marry. That is why civil marriage is important -- because it is the only way under current federal law to have access to those rights.



Who is radical to you? From reading your posts, it seems to me you believe that anyone who is merely out is radical.



Let's see -- I should be happy I am treated as a third-class citizen because at least I don't live in Iraq. Hmm. Interesting argument. But, to me, it doesn't hold much water. Might want to work on that one.



I'm happy for you, and I hope that you never get beaten up, or lose your job, or experience any other discrimination as a result of who you say you are. It must be nice to be so comfortable in your little hideaway.

For me, once I came out to myself as a young adult, hiding was never comfortable or safe. I always felt as though I was betraying myself. To hide and pretend would be to deny my soul air and food and love.

I'm not gay, but have worked with gay and lesbian people over the years, and one transgender individual, come to think of it. From what I can tell, these people and I share a lot of things: worry about taxes, making house payments, how long should I drive my old car - you know, all that exotic, kinky stuff that gets the laughs on Will & Grace.

Here's the point: I'm going to be dead soon, maybe 50 years on a long shot, 40 more likely, and my father had about 30 years more than me now. We will ALL be dead soon enough!! Why can't people be left alone to find what happiness they can? Why is this so hard to do?

I've been married 26 years, and never once has my marriage suffered any damage from gay or lesbian couples getting married in Mass or Frisco. Not once! Not even a tremor. I've asked several conservatives to delineate for me the actual mechanism by which my marriage could be harmed by a gay marriage, and they have no answers.