The Democratic party should support equal rights for GLBT people.

[Padraig18]

Poll question: The Democratic party should support equal rights for GLBT people.

GLBT = Gay, lesbian, bisexual and trans-gendered, for those who were confused by the acronym.

:)

[Bertha Venation]

1. I hope that whoever's voted no will explain.

Good poll, Paddy.

[Padraig18]

4. So do I, Bertha.

Thank you, love! :hi:

[LuminousX]

2. It shouldn't even be a debate, the answer is obviously yes

[IrateCitizen]

3. I think the following is a more accurate statement

The Democratic Party should support equal rights for ALL people.

[hlthe2b]

10. Yes... Have all forgotten that the Equal Rights Amendment was NEVER

passed? Thus it is gay men and ALL women who do not have equal rights.

[blondeatlast]

29. As hard as I worked for its passage? Hell, no, I haven't forgotten!

I never will, either.

[ByRillYAN]

13. absolutely!

what we REALY need is to have another go at the ERA. an amendment that simply states that ALL citizens are equal in this nation.

[HFishbine]

15. All citizens in this nation?

or all people?

[Bertha Venation]

54. Agreed, but a question for you, to make sure I'm clear:

Do you imagine that the fact that we GLBT folks are fighting so hard for our equality means that we somehow don't care about others'?

[terrya]

5. Yes. Postively. Absolutely. Unequically.

The platform should support ENDA, repealing "DADT", AGAINST the FMA, supporting adoption rights for gay and lesbian couples.

Terry

[ByRillYAN]

6. tja! of coarse we should.

we ARE the party of civil rights. its only natural. Who said no? why?

[MrSlayer]

7. Absolutely!

Equal rights are a basic part of the constitution. That we even have to ask this question is ridiculous.

[Padraig18]

11. It's even more ridiculous that some folks are voting 'no'.

Must be some Free Republic visitors. :shrug:

[no name no slogan]

31. Or they're just being dilholes (nt)

[BurtWorm]

8. No

brainer. Of course they should! ;)

[Exultant Democracy]

12. I think it's criminal

that we don't all see it that way. It is everyones constitution.

[maddezmom]

9. yes

[NoPasaran]

14. Of course the answer is yes

I cannot imagine why anyone would vote no.

[Padraig18]

16. Kick for equality

[mitchum]

17. Of course, yes

[joshcryer]

18. Who voted no?

And why?

[RetroLounge]

20. Maybe John Kerry has a DU account?

eom

[Feanorcurufinwe]

27. It is absolutely false to charge that Kerry doesn't support equal rights

for GLBT people.

[MAlibdem]

51. Kerry voted against DOMA

To charge him as anti GLBT is false.

[Bertha Venation]

55. For Feanorcurufinwe and MAlibdem: Kerry does not FULLY support

GLBT equality -- nor does any other viable candidate. I will look for the link and post it when I find it, but I remember him saying several months ago that marriage is only for a man and a woman because marriage is for the bearing and raising of children.

:wtf:

Mrs. V. was so incensed that she immediately withdrew her support for his campaign for the nomination. (I've always backed Dean.)

I know that no one but CMB and DK (or was it CMB & AS?) had the balls/ovaries to back our full marriage rights, but for Kerry to have said "marriage is for children" is the same kind of blind and ignorant crap we hear from the radical right.

I agree with Retrolounge.

[Bertha Venation]

57. Here's the quote, and one column about the statement.

Senator Kerry's Marriage Contortions
By John Corvino, First published October 1, 2003, in Between the Lines

In a recent Advocate interview Massachusetts Senator and Democratic presidential hopeful John Kerry told reporter Chris Bull that, despite his otherwise strong support for gay rights, he could not bring himself to support gay marriage.

In a previous Washington Post interview Kerry had stated, “Marriage is an institution between men and women for the purpose of having children and procreating.”

Whoops — wrong answer. If marriage is for procreating, what's the story with Kerry's current marriage (his second), which is childless?

Having been confronted on this point, Kerry backtracks in the Advocate interview: “I don't make a procreation argument. I was explaining the historical background. Someone was asking me where my opposition came from, and I said it's basically from an old religious belief of what defined marriage. Procreation has nothing to do with my argument.”

Whoops again. Religious belief? <snip>

[corporatewhore]

21. whoever voted no can kiss my queer ass

[Padraig18]

22. Probably Freepers

I can't imagine a progressive would vote 'no.

[corporatewhore]

19. If they are against GLBT =rights im afraid that they are against nonwhites

having equal rights GAY RIGHTS + CIVIL RIGHTS DONT LET THE DREAM DIE

[arewethereyet]

58. what makes you think that ?

It sounds like stereotyping more than reasoning.

For many people its a faith derived stance with scriptural justification. Racial matters are only irrational with no basis in faith.

Now there are people who are against both but those camps do not overlap totally.

I'm not sure casting bigorty of one kind against bigotry of another kind is the most productive course.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

23. Since every candidate supports equal rights for GLBT people

I don't understand what the point of this poll is.

[Padraig18]

25. See another 100+ count post on the front page.

Should answer your question.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

28. Since every candidate supports equal rights for GLBT people

I don't understand what the point of this poll is.

[Padraig18]

30. See another 100+ count post on the front page.

That's the point.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

36. Since every candidate supports equal rights for GLBT people

I don't understand what the point of this poll is.

[Padraig18]

37. Too bad.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=275627&mesg_id=275627

[Feanorcurufinwe]

40. It is too bad that people find it necessary to misrepresent the facts.

And it amazes me that folks are so eager to let the Republicans plan to use this wedge issue against us work.

[Padraig18]

41. I've misrepresented no facts.

I can't speak for what others do.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

47. It is too bad that people find it necessary to misrepresent the facts.

And it amazes me that folks are so eager to let the Republicans plan to use this wedge issue against us work.

[Bertha Venation]

59. Honey, no one's misrepresenting any facts.

Not a single Democratic candidate who has a chance of getting the nomination has ever stood up during this campaign and said "Gay Americans must have full equality, equal protection under the law according to the 14th Amendment, and that includes the right to marriage as it is known today in the United States."

That means that no Democratic candidate, including John Kerry, is for FULL EQUALITY FOR GLBT AMERICANS.

I realize that this specific point isn't the point of Paddy's poll, but it must be made clear. We've come farther now than we did under Clinton, who signed DOMA (I still can't believe he left his testicles at home that day), and I will cast my vote for whoever our candidate is, but there is no mistaking that IF any one of these men is for our FULL equality, they have not said so.

[mlawson]

24. I didn't think there was a question about it. n/t

[TexasPatriot]

26. That there is even a question is sad

absolutely 100% we should

[mdguss]

34. My explanation:

I voted other because some have suggested marriage should be a right. I can see their point, but I disagree with gay marriages.

I would support:
Legal rights to visitation for serious illness/death beds.

Tax breaks for corporations that provide domestic partner benefits.

Increased federal funding to colleges and universities that provide domestic partner benefits.

The ability to file a joint tax return--as long as the term marriage is not used.

The right to adopt.

And, if it was clearly stated that it wasn't marriage and that churces don't have to pay domestic partner benefits if they feel it is contrary to their beliefs, I could live with civil unions.

[blondeatlast]

39. Blatant discrimination--Churches are against divorce,

atheism, onanism, etc.? They can't deny benefits to their employees in those cases.

There is absolutely no difference.

[MAlibdem]

53. We shouldn't have to bribe corporations

For anything

"Tax breaks for corporations that provide domestic partner benefits."

Just make corporations provide benefits.

[blondeatlast]

32. Disturbing that the no votes don't explain themselves. nt

[Padraig18]

35. Isn't it, though?

:shrug:

[jonnyblitz]

33. not if it gets in the way of winning an election. (sarcasm) n/t

[Padraig18]

38. Kick

[Piperay]

42. Accounting for one NO vote

I accidentally put the mouse down to far and it registered no, but OF COURSE my real vote is YES. SORRY :spank:

[Padraig18]

43. bad boy!

:P

[Iverson]

44. lavender green caucus link

For those who are interested...

http://www.lavendergreens.org/

[roughsatori]

48. Thanks for the link

I bookmarked it.

[Northwind]

45. The no votes

Must be Kerry supporters who read the newest position from their great leader, and are towing the line.

[MuseRider]

46. No question.

Of course they should. I always get the GLBT all confused, usually it comes out GBLT like the sandwich! No question Padraig and it saddens me that this question needs to be asked at all.

[roughsatori]

49. Over an 8th percent have voted NO, too high to just be Freepers

Must be Dems who have not realized they ARE Freepers yet.

[roughsatori]

50. Another KICK NT

[HFishbine]

52. Let's dispell the notion

that the repukes will use this as a "wedge issue" against us. If it doesn't simply sicken you that we feel compelled to frame our principles around fear of the republicans, then perhaps some emprical data will change some minds:

Finally, in a fascinating result that speaks to the difficulties the GOP may have using gay marriage as a wedge issue, while voters overall say they do not support a law allowing same sex civil unions (53 percent to 40 percent), independents narrowly support such a law (49 percent to 43 percent).

There. Now that you see there is nothing to fear, can we return to our previously scheduled principles?

http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/9892

[tishaLA]

56. It's LGBT normally

I hate to see lesbians get second billing.

[arwalden]

60. Of Course I Answered Yes... But It Won't Happen In My Lifetime.

Queer Americans may start to see TRUE equality in about 75 years. By then I'd be 118 years old and wouldn't care too much about it anymore.

-- Allen

[Pushed To The Left]

61. Of course!

No question about it. I didn't see any responses from "No" voters (except for the accidental one), but it may have been a more strategic issue for them, fearing that the Republicans would use the issue to get the bigot vote. Bigotry is bigotry, and people should stop acting like some bigotry is okay and some isn't.