Don't Trample on LGBT Americans for Partisan Gain
Posted by on June 2, 2006 at 02:44 PM(GLLC Executive Director Brian Bond sent an e-mail to folks asking them to support our efforts to tell President Bush and Senator Frist to not use discrimination for partisan gain.)
Imagine for a moment that you're Republican Bill Frist, the Senate's Majority Leader, and you have the power and awesome responsibility to control what issues the Senate considers and when it considers them. Knowing everything you do about the crises facing our nation and the things that most concern Americans, would your top priority be to:
A) Force the administration to change its failed strategy in Iraq
B) Help consumers walloped by $3.00 a gallon gas and take steps to reduce our oil addiction
C) Pass the first minimum wage increase in 10 years and develop plans to create good jobs in America
D) Expand educational opportunities for college by providing relief from skyrocketing college tuition
E) Ensure access to health care for every American
F) Amend the Constitution to deprive gay people of equal rights under the law
As someone who cares deeply about this nation, its problems and its future, you probably said A, B, C, D, or E. But Republican Majority Leader Frist chose F.
Why? Because it's an election year, and Republicans are in deep trouble. So they've decided that instead of addressing the things Americans really care about, they're trying to change the subject and using wedge issues in hopes of distracting from their failures and dividing Americans to win elections.
This time, LGBT families are the pawns in their political game. And this time, the American Constitution is their political playing field.
Majority Leader Bill Frist plans to bring up the "Federal Marriage Amendment" as the first order of business when Senators return on Monday. And to drive the message home, President Bush will host a Rose Garden event that same day, to reiterate his support for this divisive, unnecessary and diversionary attack on LGBT Americans and on our Constitution--even though his own Vice President opposes the amendment and his own wife says it's wrong to use this issue as a campaign tool.
This is a sad moment in American history. Over two hundred years ago, our nation's founders and framers thought guaranteeing rights and protections was so important that the first ten Constitutional amendments they proposed, which the states soon ratified, were an explicit Bill of Rights for individuals and for states.
Now, in an unprecedented move, Bill Frist and George Bush hope to convert this bedrock document that confers liberties and freedom into one that erases them. They want to deny equal rights under the law because of individuals' sexual orientation--and they want to deny to states avenues that would allow them to recognize and extend equal rights and protections to the LGBT community and their families.
This is shameful and wrong. It hurts LGBT Americans and their families, and it is inconsistent with the constitutional values that set us apart as a nation-and with how we do things in America.
Democrats are committed to equal rights for every American; we oppose discrimination in all their forms. We think it's wrong for the federal government to bar states from extending rights and protections to all their residents. We believe no church, synagogue or mosque should be told by the government whom they may or may not marry. And when it comes to government services and benefits, every citizen and taxpayer should receive equal treatment.
You can show Bill Frist just how wrong he is by signing this petition to stop this divisive amendment and tell him to put the Senate to work on the things that really matter to America and to Americans. Sign on here, and your message will be delivered the day the Senate begins debating the issue:
http://www.democrats.org/lgbtdiscrimination
Republicans have intentionally put divisive, anti-gay initiatives on the ballot in many states as well, and no doubt many nervous GOP Congressmen hope they can get reelected by scapegoating LGBT Americans instead of dealing with the challenges confronting our nation.
But for the first time in our party's history, we are fighting them everywhere. Through our 50-state strategy, we are providing state Democratic parties with needed resources, training and message assistance to fight these measures. At the national level, we are working closely with the leadership of key groups to magnify our capacities. And, around the nation, we are aggressively recruiting volunteers to take a message of equality, tolerance and results on issues that matter into every community.
Sending a powerful message to Bill Frist and George Bush that legislating discrimination defames good people and defiles our Constitution is an important first step in turning our nation around and in beating back efforts at both the federal and state level to scapegoat Americans for partisan gain. But our success depends on you -- so please take part in this action, and learn about what more you can do in the weeks and months ahead:
http://www.democrats.org/lgbtdiscrimination
With hard work and the participation of every American who has had enough, next year we could have a Majority Leader in the U.S. Senate whose answer to our opening quiz looks a lot more like yours.
Thank you,
Brian
Brian Bond
Executive Director, GLLC
Democratic National Committee
Comments - 47 »
Comments - 47 «
What can you say...the pugs have their fingers on the pulse of America???? no.....the pugs put America first???? no.....the pugs are interested in bringing the "Golden Rule" to politics????? AGAIN NO!!!!
IMPEACH CHENEY FIRST!!!
IMPEACH STUPID SIDE KICK NEXT!
GET RID OF THE PUG MAJORITY!!!!
If, however, the dems do take back America, they had better be looking out for all of America and no "special interest groups"....like those on K street!
Posted by momoaizo on June 2, 2006 at 04:36 PM
When are you going to realize that none of these issues matter until we clean up our elections?!!!
NONE. OF. THIS. MATTERS. WITHOUT. FAIR. ELECTIONS.
None of it. So stop letting them side track you with side shows about race or gender or immigration or gay marriage or courts or wars or famine or unemployment or the economy or anything else. None of it matters if we don't have a say in how they are decided. They pull the strings and we all bounce in response like perfect little puppets.
CLEAN UP OUR ELECTIONS FIRST!
Come up with a plan to monitor and fight any election fraud in 2006. That's the ONLY issue worth fighting for right now.
Don't be so easily distracted by the Republican puppeteers. Put our American Democracy first, and then worry about all the other issues second.
It's one thing to be manipulated, but why are you so easily manipulated? You're always reacting to their nonsense. Come out and fight for the only issue that matters now. Election protection. Election Protection! ELECTION! PROTECTION!
Come on, guys. What's the matter with you? We have NO power while they retain all the power to steal election after election after election and we don't fight back. Figure it out already, will you?
=pdub
Posted by pdub on June 2, 2006 at 04:40 PM
The Republicans don't even have the numbers to pass this thing in Congress. It's just pandering to the fundamentlist base who apparently now see right through it, too.
It's getting to the point that the LGBT Americans and their families have more in common with the evangelicals than the Republican party. Maybe the family values movement should look at the moral character of these LGBT families instead of condemning them out of hand?
Committing to marriage and raising happy, healthy children is what the good Lord wanted...not for His followers to discriminated against any of His people.
The Republicans want to divide the family of God and destroy our Constitutional rights in the process...for pure political gain. It's so obvious.
Why can't the good church-going folk in this nation who are so upset stop and look at the Truth? It's right in front of their faces in the New Testament. It's time to quit lettting the Republians manipulate your souls.
Posted by SandyH on June 2, 2006 at 04:45 PM
You are welcome to blast me for my comments. I am a loyal Democrat and abhore what the Republican party and W are doing to our country. However, the DNC doesn't reflect my views or the views of seemingly the majority of Americans of the issue of gay rights. I am adamantly opposed to recognizing gay marriage and always will be.
If you are willing to alienate party members (I am a member of my county's democratic party) over these issues, so be it. I will not vote for a Republican, but I will withhold my vote from anyone running on this issue.
You have your right to your opinion; however, you do not have the right to castigate people for their views.
Let's work on fair trade, jobs, universal healthcare and other important issues, not throw these issues in peoples faces who are opposed to them on moral grounds.
Posted by tideroller52 on June 2, 2006 at 05:19 PM
You have your right to your opinion; however, you do not have the right to castigate people for their views.
And there in lies the problem. Can we take away inalienable rights from some citizen because of a religious or moral dilema? I don't think this will be any easier than slavery to resolve.
Posted by SandyH on June 2, 2006 at 06:13 PM
You have your right to your opinion; however, you do not have the right to castigate people for their views.
And there in lies the problem. Can we take away inalienable rights from some citizens because of a religious or moral dilema by others? I don't think this will be any easier than slavery to resolve.
Posted by SandyH on June 2, 2006 at 06:15 PM
Sorry about the double post. This computer doesn't compute sometimes and neither do I.
Posted by SandyH on June 2, 2006 at 06:16 PM
Posted by tideroller52 on June 2, 2006 at 05:19 PM
i have the right to my opinion, AND i have the right to castigate people when thier views affect my civil rights. keep your "morality" out of my constitution. the republicans, not the democrats, are making this an issue. the democrats have a choice to make...defend the constitution and the rights of all americans (even us morally offensive gay americans) or take bill clinton's advice to john kerry and jump on the "gays are icky" bandwagon.
i certainly agree that there are much more pressing issues than the non-existant threat of gay marriage.
so let me tell you again, i certainly DO have the right to castigate you for your views...it's called freedome of speach. it's a feedom enshrined in the constitution. it's one of many freedoms so enshrined. freedoms that republicans want to deny me based entirely on my sexuality.
it's discrimination. it's unconstitutional. it's wrong.
if you withhold your vote based on this one issue then you are wrong too.
Posted by marsh on June 2, 2006 at 06:19 PM
however, tideroller, i don't think either of us has any real worry that any democrat is going to "run on this issue". run from it, perhaps, but not run on it.
Posted by marsh on June 2, 2006 at 06:22 PM
Whoa,
Don't allow the enemy to choose the battlefield!
Gay people do add factors to the equation... this is because they are different from mainstream society... being different doesn't make them inferior... but lines must be drawn somewhere.
We should allow gays to marry and to honor their relationship just as much as any other loving couple should have the right to do.
That recognized union should come with the full protection of our government.
But... (I personally despise this word), but if we want to win any of these arguments we must explain our positions better and/or sometimes understand that the arguments against some of our positions hold too much merit for us to completely discount the position of the opposition.
There are reasons why breaks were given to the children and spouses of working people, when it came to insuring their family. Sure, gay marriage should be recognized but what protects the insurance companies once it is, what protects traditional married couples and their children - we already have too many uninsured in this country - including my family and I.
There are reasons that gays should not be in combat. These are the very same reasons women should not be in combat. A person must be equally devoted to everyone on their team - and this breaks down when there is a possiblity of sexual attraction between two members on a team, regardless of their sexual orientation.
Gays should be treated equally, and they should be free to follow their dreams. But a truly enlightened homosexual will be the first to tell you they are different and have different needs - primarily not to be summarily discounted at every turn.
Insurance is not the only factor - and admittedly it is the weakest argument I can think of against gay marriage as the premiums are determined upon the risks of the entire pool group and therefore the rate increases due to this change would be minimal, if they increase at all.
There is increased family leave pressures, there is factoring in the 'fairness' of maternal leave... and the list goes on.
If we as Democrats present the nation with a responsible bill which allows for gay marriage, but also recognizes that gay individuals are different, as they don't have children in the traditional sense, they become infatuated and fall in love with people of their own sex, and other factors which I may not be aware of, and that for these reasons the same rules don't apply to them concerning maternity leave, serving in combat, and other obvious areas of concern.
Then back this bill up with the understanding that while other factors such as emergency family leave, serving in the military, and insurance rates, while discriminating and essentially wrong are issues which need to be addressed over time as they would impact the traditional families of America to some degree.
Gays, are not looking to stress the American system to the point where it injures their heterosexual parents, brothers and/or sisters and their families. They just want it to be fair or at least more fair. They just want to shout out how proud they are to be Americans, how much they love God and that their right to marry the person of their choice should not be dictated by Government.
Posted by mrmjwilson on June 2, 2006 at 06:25 PM
run from it, perhaps, but not run on it.
and those Dems sure are good at running from it. Rumors has it B. Nelson from Nebraska will be voting for the amendment
**a nod and wink**
Posted by PeppermintLizzy on June 2, 2006 at 06:30 PM
Sorry Brian,
I agree strongly with the previous comment of tideroller52.
This is not a Republican vs Democrat issue this time. The Marriage Protection Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is a BIGGER issue than partisan politics.
How many Democrats value traditional marriage??
I’d say >75%.
How many Democrats value freedom of worship?
How about >90%.
How many Democrats value freedom of speech?
Very close to 100%!!
The 1% of American adults that are practicing gay and lesbians have received tolerance and love and understanding from Democrats more than from members of other parties, because of a “live and let live” approach.
However gay activists have now openly declared war on the 90 – 100% of Americans that wish to speak and worship according to their own beliefs. See the following links to understand that the New “Shot Heard Round the World” was fired by gay activists.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0605260218may26,0,1316250.story
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/191kgwgh.asp
These activists DO NOT REPRESENT the millions of Americans who are Democrats. Gay activists have become just like rabid Republicans, who are obviously crazy.
Anyone who attempts to disenfranchise those who believe differently (leaving their opponents without any vote or voice in their own country) is a traitor to liberty and the U.S. Constitution.
Democrats will have chosen the wrong issue to align themselves with if they try to fight against Republicans to redefine marriage. Dems will vote their Democratic Leaders out of office like never before. And that would be a tragedy.
The best strategy for beating the insincere fascists in power, is to support the Marriage Protection Amendment without question, make it a non-issue, and THEN TO REFOCUS VOTERS on the REAL BETRAYALS that the neo-conservatives are committing in the U.S. and worldwide.
The Democratic National Committee itself may become irrelevant to the millions of party members that value freedom of religion, freedom of speech (ie. freedom from being accused of hate speech crimes) if it does not now choose its battles wisely.
Posted by for_FDR_and_the_Founding_Fathers on June 2, 2006 at 06:32 PM
Posted by mrmjwilson on June 2, 2006 at 06:25 PM
well, god bless 'em, those poor insurance companies do need protectin. tho i think global warming is doing them more harm than married gays ever could.
it's an interesting argument, if not an exceptionally logical one. certainly no more logical than the assumption that gays or women shouldn't serve in combat.
finally, we don't need a bill, or law, or proclamation, or approval, or any of that to be allowed to marry. we simply need to let judges fairly interpret the constitution as it already exists. that's what the fuss is all about, really.
current laws recently passed banning gay marriage are unconstitutional! that's the deal. any time you find a group of people wanting to ammend the constitution, that should tell you they want to do something unconstitutional.
Posted by marsh on June 2, 2006 at 06:40 PM
Why can't there be an election year campaign with candidates looking for solutions to real problems such as the funding of social security, reduction of the national debt, elimination of the Electoral College so the popular vote will count, etc? I am not going to list all the real concerns that the average citizen faces.
Pro-choice vs. Pro-life was one of the earlier emotional issues and everyone had an opinion on and still does, for that fact.
All I can say is after you learn your 15 year daughter was raped and got pregnant from that rape, then talk to me about choice.
One of my daughters was straight and married when she was killed in 1995; she was also an USAF veteran and a police officer.
My other daughter was gay and I watched her "come out" at age 14 ... it was not pretty; the discrimination was intense and the whole process was painful. I watched her try to cover her partner with medical insurance; she couldn't do that, but clinics could certainly count her income when it came time to determine the fees they would charge for her partner. They had been soul-mates for almost 10 years when my daughter passed away. Their partnership lasted longer than a lot of marriages.
One of the other bloggers commented that she would not vote for any candidate who supported gay rights. I am just the opposite ... I will not support any candidate who opposes choice or equal rights for all.
I have faced my share of discrimination, too. Top on the list is because I'm Jewish; the next biggie was being a USArmy Nam veteran and thirdly just being a woman; on an afterthought, perhaps I should add cigarette smoking to this list.
It is a shame America resembles 1935 Germany more and more with each passing day. It is terrifying. Am I going to end up like Mr. Wolfe, a WWI German veteran and survivor of the camps, who had to leave his homeland in order to live?
All I want is candidates who have clear views and who do not double-talk! Let the synagogues, churches and mosques deal with real moral issues.
Posted by Karly on June 2, 2006 at 06:44 PM
Once again, my Republican party wants me to forget that they have failed to lead. They haven't balanced one budget since owning all three branches of government. They haven't eliminated one social program since owning all three branches of government. They have expanded the department of education. They refuse to eliminate social security. They buy liberal votes with pork projects. They are soft on communist China.
Now, why should I worry about faggots getting married (something that can be taken care of in the states) when I know my Republican party will just ignore all of the other problems. And anyone with a brain knows that this is just political trickery. Sorry. In order to save conservatism, we need a Democratic congress. We need to teach the Republican party that it will respect us or pay the price.
Posted by Nasdaq on June 2, 2006 at 06:56 PM
Posted by for_FDR_and_the_Founding_Fathers on June 2, 2006 at 06:32 PM
i'm not a gay activist, i'm a gay citizen rigorously defending my rights from an all out attack by cynical politicians who really don't care about the issue any further than it can distract people from issues that have an actual impact on thier lives. i'm not crazy, but i am mad as hell.
i don't care how u worship or what u worship or when...truly i don't. so go to church, or synagogue, or wherever...light a stick of incense, kill a goat, fast, contemplate your navel, or whatever. peace be with you.
i don't care, i never have, as long as i'm not affected by your religion, have at it.
but i will not sit idly by and let these people amend the constitution to discriminate against me, or any other group of americans.
it isn't gay rights, it's civil rights, and the democratic party has a clearcut opportunity to do the right thing or do the politically expediant thing.
Posted by marsh on June 2, 2006 at 06:59 PM
Speaking of leaving homelands...I am now living in London and much happier. The recent passage of allowing gay marriage has been well received on both sides of the political fence, although, fortunately, there lacks the political equivalent of the Religious Right over here. I have friends here that serve in the British Army and Navy alongside US troops in Iraq. My friends can serve openly and, at the end of the day, say that their first priority is their job and don't feel their orientation has gotten in the way. In the meantime, their gay American brothers-in-arms still must serve under a code of silence. The marriage laws have allowed the same codes to be applied towards divorce, death, sickness, inheritance, taxes, etc. that have been codified for married couples for years. Amazingly, most people are fine with it and it really hasn't caused much controversy.
Meanwhile, back on the shores of my homeland, I read that Bush and his friends continue to be wimps and deflect responsibility. I continue to vote in all of the elections, but quite happy that I am currently living in a more progressive and economically booming country (coincidence?).
I had a friend once who made it clear to me one day why I should care. He is a male nurse in a hospital and day after day, took care of the sick that came in without questions of their past, their religion, their politics, etc. His only concern was to help them get better, no questions asked. He paid his taxes, he voted, contributed to his 401k, did all of the things you are supposed to do. Then, one day, when our state decided to be regressive in its treatment of the gay community, he upped and moved to a more progressive state. When asked by his supervisor, who was under pressure to keep a short staffed major hospital staffed, he explained that until his state valued his contributions and treated him with the same equality he treated his patients, he was leaving.
Although some might be quick to say escaping problems isn't dealing with them, I come back with this: yes, in an ideal world. But, as learned from other social movements in history, you only get beat down so many times before you decide to either stand up and fight, or move on where to someplace where you are accepted.
This move by Bill Frist and George Bush comes as no surprise. They ARE in trouble. The New York Times reported on the issue earlier this week. It is known to be nothing more than a political wedge for a troubled party. The main thing is we need to make sure that all Americans, regardless of age, gender, sex, race, etc. are protected with equal civil rights and civil liberties.
Let me know what I can do to help.
Kind Regards,
M. Keedy
Posted by felloship on June 2, 2006 at 07:08 PM
Posted by pee-wee on June 2, 2006 at 07:38 PM
bill frist is a pathetic sellout who will do anything to keep his job.
bill frist is mindless drone who couldn't care less about the gay marriage issue.
bill frist is only trying to follow his supreme deciders command by adhering to the supreme deciders number one political adviser rove.
bill frist only knows what the republican election strategy is.
bill frist doesn't have the slightest clue what is in the best interests for American.
Posted by Benji on June 2, 2006 at 09:38 PM
The main thing is we need to make sure that all Americans, regardless of age, gender, sex, race, etc. are protected with equal civil rights and civil liberties.
Posted by felloship on June 2, 2006 at 07:08 PM
Right on!!
Posted by dumpw on June 3, 2006 at 08:14 AM
I think it is totally outrageous that the a**hole Frist is not addressing the issues that are important to everyday Americans.
Frist is a complete a**hole. The next thing you know he will be going for a constitutional amendment to stop people from swearing. In the meantime more and more Americans are falling into poverty because the minimum wage hasn't been raised. From all reports, Venezuela is building a pipeline to the Pacific coast so they can ship their oil to China. Chavez has been making noises about cutting off our oil. Ahole frist should be worried about a crash program to produce Ethanol and forcing Detroit to produce nothing but Flex fuel vehicles. If he cared about anything but his religious freak friends, he would do something about Ethanol now. Otherwise we will face a calamity in the next year or so. I am so pissed off I could chew nails and spit horseshoes.
Posted by dumpw on June 3, 2006 at 08:27 AM
I am in favor of all people having equal rights. My view is that marriage is between a man and a woman. I find that the bible is very clear about the morality of gay sex. That is a personal issue between those people and God. They have to answer for it, not me.
Homosexuality is listed with other sins and I do not hold it as being worse than adultery or other countless sins.
What you do behind closed doors is your own business as long as it is legal.
When you ask me to pay for it, it becomes my business. I feel the same way about abortion. Don't ask me to pay for it. I can not and will not support anything that asks me to pay for it. If you do it and it's legal, it becomes an issue between the individual and God. The individual has to answer for it. If you don't believe in God and the bible then you are home free. No problem.
I can take the heat for my views and possibly the word castigate was not properly used. What I object to is someone trying to paint me as some type of a bigot and evil person because I happen to believe in God and the bible.
Everyone should have health care based on their being a human being and citizen of this country.
Everyone should have equal rights against discrimination as an individual and citizen.
I don't feel marriage between same sex partners is a right. I don't feel that spousal coverage should be offered to sam sex couples any more than it is to heterosexual couples who are not married.
Posted by tideroller52 on June 3, 2006 at 08:44 AM
Tideroller, i just have a couple questions about your opinion on what the bible says about other sexual situations...
Deuteronomy 22:13-21
If a bride is not a virgin, she must be stoned immediately
Deuteronomy 22:22
If adultery is committed, both people must be stoned to death
Mark 10:1-12
Divorce and Remarriage of those divroced are strictly forbidden
Mark 12:18-27
If a man dies childless, the wife must have sex with all of his brothers until an heir is created
And, with homosexuality, that word did not even exist at the time the bible was written...The distinction of homosexuality versus heterosexuality was not even classified until the late 1800s. Therefore, God did not mention homosexuality, our human reinterpretation changed the words into homosexuality.
If we're going to handpick one type of sexual situation, then we need to look at all of these other situations in the Bible as well. So I say we start a brigade and look for any woman that has had sex before marriage and stone her to death!
It's what the Bible says! But we have to put an exception to lesbians because they're not allowed to get married therefore they don't have a choice to be virgins before marriage.
FYI...I have talked to God about my sexuality and he's fine with it. I couldn't be happier until He told me it's Ok. So you believe what you want, and I'll believe what I want. That's what makes us great about being people. We're all unique, and we're all entitled to our own opinion. Even if we disagree :)
Posted by BlueinJax on June 3, 2006 at 11:03 AM
Posted by tideroller52 on June 3, 2006 at 08:44 AM
Doesn't it says in the bible...
thou shalt not vote republican or thou shalt be condemned as a pathetic and spineless sellout?
Posted by Benji on June 3, 2006 at 11:58 AM
Posted by tideroller52 on June 3, 2006 at 08:44 AM
if you really believe in the bible you better start collecting those stones...
...cause according to the bible there's a lot of stoning to do.
According to the bible there are a lot of people who need to get stoned.
Gays should be stoned.
Sinners should be stoned.
non-Virgin Brides should be stoned.
adulterers should be stoned.
Everybody must get stoned!
Posted by Benji on June 3, 2006 at 12:07 PM
That's my point...but everybody seems to just pick on gays...if it's such an issue with what the Bible says about gays, why isn't the government and other people griping about these other sexual acts?
My biggest point about the Bible is this...Nowhere in the 10 commandments does it say "Thou shalt not be gay" so we got the Old Testament covered...and Jesus never once mentions homosexuality in the New Testament and his commandment is "Love one another as I have loved you." Again, Jesus is not spewing hatred toward anybody, including gays, so why is the government claiming the Bible/God/Jesus says this?
Just a thought :)
Posted by BlueinJax on June 3, 2006 at 12:17 PM
As one with a personal stake in this issue, I must concede the American public is not yet ready for same-sex unions equivalent to marriage. To force them on the issue is to push them toward a reactionary Republican Party they do not support in general.
Making special interest issues focal points of any election in the near future (next 4-6 years) is unnecessary and unwise.
Even so-it is important not to support any discrimination being written into the US Constitution. But that, for now, should be the focus, not whether same sex couples should be able "to marry." The Republican leadership hopes to frame the debate in the latter rather former terms. It is up to ALL OF US TO FRAME IT AS A ELECTION YEAR TACTIC THAT DISTRACTS US FROM THE ISSUES THAT ARE COMMON TO ALLL AMERICANS.
Whether you support or oppose same-sex marriage-you should oppose legalized discrimination being introduced into the Constitution. That is the dangerous precident that would be set.
So let's all focus on the issues that bind us rather than divide. The consequence of letting this turn into a "gay" issue is another 4-8 years of corrupt, reactionary, special-interest driven policy, a dismal economy, an un-winable war growing into something much more dangerous, and a small minority of "christians" using government to legislate the majority to their very-unchristian-like hatred of beliefs, fear of other religions and opinions, and intolerance of ANY group that does not rigidly expouse the same.
And yes some "liberal" activists are as "intolent" of opposing opinions and need to be recognized as such. Anyone who cannot accept the OPINION of another, although it may differ from one they hold, misses the greatness of the US Constitution and unique principles our forefathers fought for which are eroded by intolerent conservatives AND liberals.
Posted by Bam on June 3, 2006 at 02:41 PM
The issue here has nothing to do with same-sex marriages.
The issue is what can the republicans do to shift America's focus on the disaster known as the war in 'iraq'.
The issue is what political gimmick are the republicans going to try to distract the fact that republicans are owned by the oil industry.
first immigration...
now same-sex marriage...
what's next?
my guess is either tax breaks for SUV buyers or cutting taxes for the wealthy.
Posted by Benji on June 3, 2006 at 03:26 PM
If you really believe in the US Constitution and have some understanding of our nations history, then there is no reason to debate the issue of same sex marriage.
All Democrats – elected officials as well as voters – that believe in the US Constitution must fight against the proposed amendment just as aggressively as they should advocate for the right of same sex couples to be married. Fighting the amendment isn’t enough.
The 14th amendment (the equal protection clause) to the Constitution was created after the Civil War to provide guarantees of citizenship to the freed slaves. Here is the text of Section 1:
“Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment14/
It is easy to see how the proposed amendment is contradictory – as well as the actions of 19 states that have already amended their own constitutions – to long-standing decisions. It could also be argued that President Clinton’s Defense of Marriage Act is also unconstitutional because it denies equal application of laws to certain law-abiding citizens of this county.
Courts in numerous states have defended the claims of same sex couples that demand marriage by applying the language of the 14th amendment to their cases. Read the Saturday morning (6/3/06) radio address from Bush to understand that his proposal undermines the constitution and erodes our democracy by dismissing the power of the judiciary to interpret grievances brought to them by minorities:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/06/20060603.html
It is also worth noting that after the 14th Amendment was ratified, the application of its intent was withheld for 100 years. Even though the government and the courts determined that it was in the best interest of our nation to end slavery and provide full citizenship to the liberated slaves, America dragged its heels and fought viciously against recognizing the equality of African Americans. States and local municipalities passed legislation baring equal access to civil institutions for blacks, just like they are doing today against gays.
There is more than a fleeting similarity between the bigotry of the white majority of the past and the arrogance of the current heterosexual majority. We have an opportunity to avoid repeating the ignorance of our nations past by fighting this amendment and fighting in favor of same sex marriage.
It is easy to come up with excuses to avoid discussing the validity of same sex marriage (“the bible says it is wrong,” “the republicans want to distract us,” and my personal favorite convenient lie - “marriage has always been this way”). It is very important that people understand why same sex marriage is not only reasonable, but it is ultimately the very definition of what makes this country great. Same sex marriage is as American as apple pie, baseball and no fault divorce. To not advocate for the equal protections of LGBT Americans is disgraceful. Proposing a constitutional amendment to limit the liberty of American citizens is a form of terrorism that threatens our freedom.
Posted by PatrickC on June 3, 2006 at 03:44 PM
Framing:
First of all, the framing of this has to be changed for the public debate.
This should be framed as discrimination against *Americans*, not LBGT (as a strategic matter).
For example, a more effective framing:
"Why is Bush wasting time on a constitutional amendment to harm Americans, when he should be out there trying to help Americans?
This country is in crisis, with rising oil prices and the foundering war on Iraq, and Bush can't seem to focus on what's important. Maybe he should worry less about improving his poll numbers by restricting the rights of Americans, and more about improving the country."
Posted by Roletta on June 3, 2006 at 07:44 PM
I was a Democratic Party activist for decades until I finally quit in disgust this year. Despite all the talk, when it comes to action, the D and R parties are EXACTLY ALIKE except on: (a) fertilized eggs and (b) gay marriage. And I have just stopped caring about those. Give both of those to states and individual conscience and keep the feds out of it.
Posted by Gareth on June 3, 2006 at 04:33 AM
This is what a supposed, former Democratic strategist says about the current situation. (See the privacy thread that Christy posted.).
If this guy is for real, the LGBT has been used by the Democratic party for decades. If he's a republican, the LBBT issue was just a ploy by the RNC to coerse the fundamentalist vote. Neither care about the people caught in the middle.
If this goes back to the states, nothing will ever be done to protect gay and lesbian rights under the Constitution or to define tham as human beings instead of some sort of political property to be manipulated by both sides whenever the need arises.
Instead of gay pride parades, you guys better start taking to the streets like the cheap labor illegal immigrants who has also be used as political ping pong balls for decades. Hell, maybe you should join together. You both have become nothing more than slaves with no civil rights.
Posted by SandyH on June 4, 2006 at 11:46 AM
First of all, many of us in the LGBT community don't want Howard Dean to trample on LGBT Americans either, like his recent fumble on the 700 Club. It left many of us asking where we stand with the Democratic party - with everyone, or at the back of the bus?
Second, I posted "the 90 second gay marriage debate" about 18 months ago, and it goes something like this:
So you’re sitting down about to eat, or you’re minding your own business at the mall, and some Fallwell wackjob starts in on “How the gays will ruin marriage”. It’s easy to put them in their place — just ask this question:
Do you think that homosexuality is a choice, or is genetic?
If they say that it’s a choice, follow up with the question, So, since you believe that homosexuality is a choice, and since, say, a person’s religious preference is a choice, then you’re saying it’s OK to, say keep Methodists from marrying. Or Lutherans. Or Catholics. Is that right? There’s no way out of that argument.
If they say that it’s something a person is born with, follow up with the question, So you’re saying that, say a black person or a left handed person, since they’re born that way, it’s OK to keep them from getting married? Likewise, there’s no way for them to get out of this either.
Try it. It will either shut them up, or the person will get so furious that you’ve shown them up, that they will make a total ass of themselves.
Posted by walterh on June 4, 2006 at 12:22 PM
Hello Again,
There seem to be a few people who deny that it says in the Bible that being gay is a sin.
But first I would like to address a few entries.
***
Deuteronomy 22:13-21
If a bride is not a virgin, she must be stoned immediately
Deuteronomy 22:22
If adultery is committed, both people must be stoned to death
Mark 10:1-12
Divorce and Remarriage of those divroced are strictly forbidden
Mark 12:18-27
If a man dies childless, the wife must have sex with all of his brothers until an heir is created
***
The answer to many of the other inferred questions lies with the complete answer referred to in Mark 12:18-27.
Jesus began with explaining that there is no marriage in heaven.
Now let's get back to whether it is mentioned in the bible that being gay is sinful.
Well if you consider committing an 'abomination' sinful... then read Leviticus 18:22. "Thou shall not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."
Then consider this, Leviticus is the book of the Law' and Jesus taught that the Grace has replaced the Law - but also apply the fact that Jesus said "How can you believe in me if you don't believe in the writings of Moses."
Grace is forgiveness and Jesus taught us that there are two commandments from which all other commandments flow. Love God with all your might and love your neighbor.
Doing unto others as you would have them do unto you means that, as you would like to live your life without being judged by others or having them call your spirituality or morals into question - you should afford this same consideration to others.
I do love God with all my might,
I love my wife as I love my God,
I love my children as I love my wife,
I love my neighbor as I love my child,
I love a stranger as I love my neighbor,
I love my enemy as I would love a stranger...
Posted by mrmjwilson on June 4, 2006 at 12:37 PM
And it seems that many people have forgotten that the United States was brought forth on many principals - one of which is freedom of religion! We are all free to believe what we want, but we are NOT to force those beliefs on another. To use the bible to justify discrimination is to spit in the face of our forefathers.
Posted by walterh on June 4, 2006 at 02:11 PM
I am so sorry...
I guess if I am to quote the Bible at all I should finish my arguement.
Those of a gay lifestyle can still follow the two commandments set forth by Jesus and meet the qualifications for Grace if they personally believe that the life they try to lead is not sinful and that they repent from what they find to be sinful when they realize that it is a sin because it would break these two commandments which Jesus said that all commandments flowed from.
If you are Gay, ask yourself this...
Do you personally believe that being gay stops you from being able to love God with all of your might or from being able to love your neighbor.
As simple as that the arguement comes full circle and you understand how a self-admitted fundamentalist Christian understands how another person may be homosexual and still lead just as righteous a life which is also just as worthy of the Grace and salvation as anyone else on this earth.
Posted by mrmjwilson on June 4, 2006 at 05:01 PM
Wow! It's getting sanctimonious in here! Has a charlatan entered the blog?
American certainly has returned to the days of snake oil cures. Just look at how easily conned our brothers and sisters in the Midwest are by threats of the second coming of Jesus. There is no reason for a political party to coddle these people and address their irrational fears by destroying the Constitution, eroding the separation of church and state and allowing for the balance of power to be bastardized.
Religious manipulation works really well for pious frauds like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell. I pray that it won’t take much longer for Robertson and Falwell to join Jim Baker and Jimmy Swaggart into ignominy. In the meantime, it is the duty of Democrats to defend secularism in order to preserve the freedom of religion.
It would be great to think that gay pride parades could be replaced with protests demanding protection from the politicians that exploit us for their own benefit. The important question is: Would any of you join us in these marches?
It should concern all people - hetero and non-hetero, Democrat and Republican - that politicians are willing to ignore constitutional protections and court decisions in order to pander to religious fanatics. Our government appears to be just as susceptible to religious zealotry as the terrorist governments we fear in the Middle East. If Bush pushes his Christian agenda and it causes the Democratic Party to cave and tremble, then we all should be afraid.
Are you willing to defend the rights of LGBT people in order to demand that your government resist the influence of religious charlatans?
Posted by PatrickC on June 4, 2006 at 08:14 PM
And, of course, what the Republicans don't get is that the Preamble of the Constitution says "All men are created EQUAL."
Then I hear that this country was founded under Christian principles. Is this true, people?
Because if we're going to have freedom of religion, then we've got to get rid of the Religious Right.
Posted by John on June 4, 2006 at 09:35 PM
This is such a joke...the DNC is complaining that the GOP is trampling on the rights of LGBT Americans? Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!
How about when Ted Kennedy crushes the hopes of Transgender-Americans to finally be included in hate crimes protections by refusing to introduce a transgender-inclusive hate crimes bill in the Senate that has already passed the House?
How about when John Kerry declares his opposition to the inclusion of gender identity and expression protections in the Employment Non-Discrimination Act in a Human Rights Campaign Presidential candidate questionnaire?
How about when the DNC finally puts the word "transgender" in its Pride Month declaration for the first time ever this year, but still refuses to include gender identity and expression as part of the Party's agenda in fighting for LGBT "equality" (in quotes because it's not really equality unless it applies to to ALL Americans, not just the wealthy elite)?
The DNC may have gotten a little better at offering lip service to our issues, but it's pretty clear that they're still playing that same old bigoted song.
Peace and Power,
Becky
Posted by Beckygrrl on June 5, 2006 at 08:32 AM
Speaking for myself, SoccerDad, marital rights are indicative of larger issues - constitutional integrity, the meaning of liberty, and the separation of powers in our government.
Yes, it would be an improvement if all civil marriages (same and opposite sex) were considered equal in terms of privileges and responsibilities (taxation, insurance, inheritance, immigration and social security). I don't particularly care what it is called. It is disingenuous to believe that the creation of civil unions for one segment of the population is a solution. That is a modern version of a Jim Crow law - separate but equal is a lie.
Posted by PatrickC on June 5, 2006 at 01:02 PM
I'll put it like this, SoccerDad. I read a comment (and I wish I could remember where) where a woman said her and her fiance were going to stand in solidarity and get a civil union instead of a marriage license (they were from CT). But they changed their mind when they realized that they wouldn't get all the perks and benefits of marriage. Plus, I don't think CT allows straight people to get civil unions, but she still wouldn't have done it after she looked into it.
Now you're probably thinking, what if the perks and benefits were all the same though? Okay, what if they were. What will you do if you go out of the country for a vacation, even just a cruise to the Carribean, and something happens to your wife? How are you going to explain that "no, I'm not married to her, but I have a civil union." They don't know what the heck you're talking about. Civil unions mean nothing to them. Marriage does. Marriage is internationally known and is a common currency for establishing two people as "next of kin."
I wouldn't care what it's called, personally, but I know there are consequences to not being able to use the word: married.
Posted by ProudSelfishHedonist on June 5, 2006 at 02:54 PM
And here's my two cents on the general issue:
All of the talk about there being more important things to worry about. I can't say I disagree, but when you're being personally attacked, there's not much else to think about. To me, my civil rights and my equality is the most important thing to me. Sorry that you guys can't comprehend. Maybe is the Dems got on board with actually defending all Americans and not going on the freakin' 700 Club to pander and lie, I could actually care about something else.
As for the religious issue:
I can find a church right now that will marry me and my partner, but it still won't be legally recognized by my state or country. Those churches who support my relationship shouldn't be penalized of their constitutional rights just because it doesn't condemn me.
Also, religion and many other groups have a chosen lifestyle but have their civil rights. Religion is a choice and it's not something you're born with. Same with marriage. Not every single straight person gets married, but many choose to. Religious people and heterosexuals get rights based on their lifestyle choice. Why should they get what I can't?
Personally, I could care less about religions recognizing my relationship. My partner and I, when/if we can get married, won't be stepping foot in a church. So rest easy, 'kay?
Realize that if you play the "lifestyle" or "choice" game that you're gonna lose.
Posted by ProudSelfishHedonist on June 5, 2006 at 03:07 PM
Hey, I have maybe a naive question
So many questions, SoccorDad. Are you a seeker of wisdon and truth...on this thread, too?
It would be great to think that gay pride parades could be replaced with protests demanding protection from the politicians that exploit us for their own benefit. The important question is: Would any of you join us in these marches?
Posted by PatrickC on June 4, 2006 at 08:14 PM
Yes, we would. The time has come to start facing the Constitutional question. Straights, even some Republicans, are beginning to understand where this debate is going. If you can pass a law taking rights away from one group, you can do it for others.
Posted by mrmjwilson on June 4, 2006 at 12:37 PM
Isn't it funny how so many fundamentalist Christians quote only from the Old Teastament...just the parts they want to use in making arguments that Jesus would never have agreed with?
It'a like Jesus is alsmost an embarrassment to them. They can't seem to get over the fact that the Son of Man spent so much time with "unclean" people and seemed to prefer their company to that of the "good people."
It's so much easier for these pro-hate advocates to feel the pain Jesus felt on The Cross than the pain they cause others. It's obvious that they don't understand the Constitution anymore than they do their own religion.
Posted by SandyH on June 5, 2006 at 04:06 PM
Let the Republicans hang themselves with the gay marriage issue. I have to think the American people will see through this tactic.
Democratic leaders would be smart to keep their mouths shut or just say, "What is more important? Rising inflation, the budget deficit, fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and terrorism at home or fighting a war against American homosexuals? In states where the majority of people really care, gay marriage is already banned. Besides, gay and lesbian groups have nothing to fear from a constitutional amendment that could never pass. Please don’t take the Republican bait let this backfire on the Republicans.
Posted by DavidNeubert on June 5, 2006 at 04:29 PM
Posted by DavidNeubert on June 5, 2006 at 04:29 PM
You are absolutely right and I couldn't agree with you more.
Posted by Benji on June 6, 2006 at 12:14 AM
The DNC and other Left Wing Extremist has called me a RACIST for:
1.) Not agreeing with them that 246 million U.S Citizens MUST learn Spanish and the 11 million Illegal Immigrants do not have to learn English.
2.) Being concerned about the safety and security of U.S. Citizens and wanting to secure our borders.
3.) Being concerned about millions of non-college educated U.S. Citizens who at risk of loosing their jobs to individuals who will work for a peasant’s wage.
4.) Not supporting creating a Peasant Work Force or a work force made up of individuals who do not have the same rights as their employers. I am concerned about the future of the United States after the Left Wing Extremist Democrats who cave to the National Camber of Commerce in creating their Peasant Work Force. It doesn’t matter what race these Peasants are, the DNC just wants a Peasant to do the jobs that they are too lazy to do.
Over two hundred years ago, the rich in this country could not find individuals to take certain jobs at low pay, so they sent ships to Africa to get individuals who would take the jobs that Americans wouldn’t take. This is happening all over again. Creating a peasant work force or one may call them “Second Class Citizens”. Now, it may make you feel better to call them by another name such as, “Guest Workers” but it is still the same.
The United States is dependent on foreign Oil and now the DNC wants the United States to become dependent on Foreign Peasants.
For disagreeing and speaking out, you have labeled me a Racist.
Well, after thinking about what you labeled me, after supporting the Democratic Party all my adult life. Supporting the Blacks, the Gays, and Women’s Issues, you have the nerve to call me a Racist. I have decided to leave the Democratic Party and support the Republicans for the first time in my life. Since you have called me a Racist, then, I shall be one. I now plan to support the Marriage Amendment, for, I am Straight, just like millions of other Moderate Democrats and have nothing to loose. For some reason, the DNC thinks that ALL Democrats are Gay and they have put the Gay issues far above any other issue without any concern for the Moderate Democrats and what they feel are the major issues effecting ALL Citizens of the United States. Now, I’m sure the DNC will spend all if it’s money and resources on supporting the Gays and not give a crap about the majority of use and the issues that we feel are important.
I’m sure you’ll find other ex-Democrats, just like me supporting their Republican candidates this November. I suggest that from now on, the DNC and all of you Left Wing Extremists start watching what they call people for you are the ones discriminating in favor of the Gays and against the Straight People and what we believe in.
Posted by AlbuquerqueNo1 on June 6, 2006 at 03:23 AM
Posted by AlbuquerqueNo1 on June 6, 2006 at 03:23 AM
Look, I don't know your history here, but you're way off base about the Dems support of the GLBT community. Oh, and that's such a bad thing? The only time the gay community and our issues are ever addressed is when something comes along to threaten us, usually something brought on by Republicans like this stupid amendment. The other time we get addressed is when Dean puts his foot in his big fat mouth and it starts poking through his butt. Dean screwed up on the 700 Club, somewhere he should have never been in the first place, and he's been trying to mollify the gay community ever since. He's put out statements about supporting equality for all AFTER he said that Dems don't support equality for all. If it wasn't for stuff like that, I can guarantee you the Dems would NEVER address the issues of the gay community. They're happy to ask for our vote and then walk away from us. Some of us have been stupid enough to give it, but I know of hundreds of gay people who, like you, have walked away from this party, including myself. You think the party supports us too much, just because we happen to get a headline on the blog, and I don't think we get supported enough because we are led by a party that speaks out of both sides of its mouth.
Do what you have to do because I am too. I just think it's a shame that you think we're supported too much when we're barely discussed.
Posted by ProudSelfishHedonist on June 6, 2006 at 09:14 AM
But they were trying to amend the Constitution. You can't "trample" the Constitution by amending it. You trample it by passing legislation that violates its provisions.
Makes no sense.
Please tell Dean that it might be a good idea to actually read the Constitution before sending out his little press releases.
Posted by Manbearpig on June 9, 2006 at 09:05 PM
« Hide Comments
Comments are now closed for this entry.







