How big of an issue is gay marriage? (Read comments, then vote)

[funky_bug]

Poll question: How big of an issue is gay marriage? (Read comments, then vote)

Before you vote, consider this line of reasoning...

If Jim and Joe get married, Jim's factory could still close down next year.

If Anne and Becky get married, Becky's son could still end up in Iraq.

If Joe and Anne get married, Joe may still not be able to afford college for their three kids.

In the grand scheme of things, how does ANYONE getting married fix the immediate problems this country is facing as a result of Bush the Lesser's god complex?

Regardless of any of the democratic candidates' personal views on the word "marriage" the fact remains that Bush will use this as a wedge to define this election. He will rally the fears of the conservative right around one small word, and once in office, will attempt to ammend the constitution to meet his greed (um, I mean, NEED.)

Without further ado, which issue is most important for the Democratic party to make their stand on?

[slinkerwink]

1. nice to see you back here!

:hi:

[funky_bug]

3. I lurk

but I left for awhile. The "Clark Out" pic some Edward's people are posting had my panties in a bunch. I posted an alternate sig line, but decided to delete it because it was ugly-mean.

Any place that makes me go all "ugly-mean" is a place I need to walk away from for a bit.

R~

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

2. Beating Bush

is important, but the issue that will make the Dems a winner will be the economy, I think.

[DuctapeFatwa]

4. How big of an issue is equal protection under the law?

Making it an opt-in choice for states could definitely have some very business and investor friendly applications.

[historian]

5. If the dems

create some spine and show this gay marriage flap as being nothing more than a distraction and an assault on civil rights, perhaps some thick headed freepers might understand.
Then again, perhaps not.

[rfkrocks]

6. did hear what santorum said today

he equated gay marraige with 9/11 and said just like the battle was forced upon us-the battle for gay marriage has been forced upon us:crazy:

[Waverley_Hills_Hiker]

7. thats kind of scary

wether we want it or not its on the agenda.

[funky_bug]

10. Which is why our candidates' answers make perfect sense

Don't let Bush define this issue. By saying, in essense, we don't agree with the term either, then they are taking Bush's platform away from him.

If we learned anything from Clinton, I hope we learned to NOT let the Republican's define the terms they are going to run on.

Let's face it... Bush can't run on jack or shit. He has blundered everything he's put his hands to in the last three and a half years. He is trying to find a divisive issue. We cannot, CANNOT give it to him by crying foul on something as controversial as gay marriage.

I want the party changed too... but the election year is NOT the year to do it. Dean is right... we need to bring about change... but let's do that after we're in control... not while we're worrying about the moderates and independants and their votes.

[wryter2000]

8. Beating Bush is the goal

I don't think it's a stand.

[funky_bug]

11. I agree... but some have made it a point of their stumps

In deference to those candidates, I wanted to include it anyhow.

[slor]

9. I will be happy when they finally catch santorum...

undulating wildly, deep in the throes of some "man on dog" sex and boot his ass out of politics!

[rfkrocks]

13. santorum

an embarrassment to Pennsylvania-we lost jobs galore but the issue that matter to this moron is "culture war". typical tool of the rich who diverts people attention with dividing people while the whole country goes down the porcelain slide

[KaraokeKarlton]

12. You should have left out the "Beating Bush" crap

Everyone agrees that Bush sucks and everyone wants to be rid of him. However, the second you make that an option everyone ignores the issues and ultimately, the only way to actually beat Bush is by focusing on the issues. If the issues is where the focus is and Bush sucks on the issues it might be wise to focus on those things. Hell, this ridiculous "let's beat Bush" focus has already caused the best candidates on the issues to drop out of the race. Democrats lost their three strongest issues candidates (the ones that would have been palatable to a wider range of voters) because of this already...Dean, Graham and Clark. Edwards is better than Kerry on the issues, but Democrats are so damn hung up on this ridiculous idea that Kerry's veteran status somehow makes him better on the issues that matter to Americans, and the bottom line is that it doesn't. Kerry bites on the issues because he can't even figure out what side of them he's on for crying out loud. If Democrats don't smarten up and focus on the issues it's not going to matter because they're going to get slaughtered come November. :shrug:

[funky_bug]

14. See Post #11

In response to why I left it in.

[salin]

15. Personally... I think the angle you raise - is the angle that ends up

hurting bush.

Factories are closing (bushies: no problem lets reclassify manufacturing to include those 'producing burgers' and improve the numbers...)

Jobs are not reemerging, and those that do - are on average at $2.00 an hour LOWER than those lost (and even then the numbers being created are lower than keeping up with population growth, and thus do nothing to make a dent towards creating enough jobs to make up for the million lost... but bushies: no problem my tax cut stimulated the economy we need another one)

The war in Iraq is not going well - the lies to get us there are being exposed - and the recognition that the cost of going there is problematic economically... AND took a toll on national security (by diverting funds, intelligence, military resources from the international effort to disrupt al qeada and 'get' obl; bushes: we have OBL on the run... and iraq was important even if we did lie to you (the public) to get us there...)

Credibility of government is taking an even bigger hit (bushes: We Need an Amendment to the Constitution to Prevent Gay Marriage...)

The points you make - about how gay marriage has NOTHING to do with any issues facing Americans... and that all of the resources that would have to be expended on this - just prevent these folks from doing the peoples' business (i.e., a SHAM to get votes) is the way to wedge back at the GOP. Make it about GOP behavior - and suddenly some of the tepid supporters of bush on this... start waivering again.

[Shopaholic]

16. We've got to concentrate on more than just Beating Bush

We need issues to beat him with and the economy is the perfect vehicle to get at him with.

[salin]

17. I don't disagree... and do not think they are unrelated

each time the question comes up to any democrat (running for president or not)... answer with the question - of why this suddenly became the primary issue of bush when x, y, z (list economic issues) are doing more harm to families each day.

Moves the conversation back to the economy. Wedges the current action of the administration against THEM. If done correctly can illustrate (and connect to voters) multiple ways the state of the economy has a direct impact on their daily lives. win - win - win.

[Scott Lee]

18. How important is equal protection under the constitution to you?

Because that is the issue; whether or not you'll stand by as the fascists and many in your government try to codify some of our citizens into second class status merely because of their sexuality. But let me ask you some similar questions....

How important is free speech?

How important is your right to privacy?

How important is your right to free assocation?

How important is your constitution?

[salin]

20. While I don't disagree with you on any issue that you raise

I suggest that we extend our strategic arguments on the issue. Every thing you raise is right on point and legitimate. But it will only win progressive and libertarian voters.

I do not believe, as some do, that this is a wedge that stifles the democrats. I do believe, however, that we need additional ways of framing the issue to capture more voters attention.

Indeed the starting post on this thread laysout the way - although it does not intend to. It works from the premise that we will lose - and thus it may not be worth the cost at this time. I would say that if we translate that message in the right way (which I do not know yet - but think that as a "think tank" we can come up with many) - the whole issue can be neutralized as a wedge, and can even begin to work as a wedge for Bushco - for all groups except the religious right.

Talk about the costs (those you state... and others in terms of issues NOT addressed) by pursuing this effort. Talk about the threat to the "sanctity of families" of the current economic issues - AND the national security issues... and ask if the push for the current amendment is just obfuscation so that the adminstration can keep screwing us each way from eternity and back.

Our discussion should include multiple ways of framing the fight against this that will appeal to multiple groups of voters. That is not to say the issues you raise are not correct - they are spot on HUGE. But in terms of elections, messages and media spin - they (sadly) only have an appeal to SOME of the voters. Broaden the argument - and the issue goes away as it only appeals to a portion of the voting public.

[funky_bug]

21. How important is the term "marriage" to you?

Do you really think that just because a candidate embraces the term, that churches will follow their lead? If so, you might want to take a the rift in the Episcopal Church right now.

No "word" guarantees a damned thing. Civil unions guarantee every single need any couple would require. This "word" you think we should all embrace could lose us the election. At least our candidates are clever enough to figure this out.

Wanna watch Bush win another election by appealing to the "reclaim our country for the Lord" platform? 'Cause I sure as hell don't.

[Dhalgren]

24. How important is where on the bus you ride?

I mean, you get to ride the bus, right? What possible difference could it make where on the bus you have to sit? I and many of my friends have often riden in the back of the bus - no harm to me, so what's the big deal? Be glad they let you on the bus, at all and just keep quiet - if you make a fuss over something so unimportant, we might not be able to get those "center" votes (you know, the votes from people that don't like you).

This is civil rights, period. There is no waffle room, no way to tell American citizens that they can just ride the back of the bus and be quiet, like good 2nd class folks. This isn't about a word, this is about what kind of people we are. I know where I stand and I know where Kerry and Edwards stand - it ain't the same place.

[funky_bug]

27. Not at all the same

I'm sorry, but racial discrimination and religious differences are not at all the same.

Telling someone where to sit on a bus cannot be equated with varying terminology for a legally binding contract between two persons. Unlike denying a person a bus seat, civil unions do not deny them anything.

Marriage is a religious term. It is not a legal term. Again, under civil union rights, two same-sex persons can obtain a license which legally recognizes their union. Where they go from there is up to the church/minister that performs the ceremony. Making gay marriages legal will NOT force the church to perform the ceremony.

[maxanne]

19. yup

sticking up for civil rights has become darned inconvenient for Democrats. Is same sex marriage the most important issue on the table? Maybe not - but it's an issue of civil rights and discrimination and should not be swept under the rug by wussy Democrats.

It may not be important to you, Wifeof - but I assure you it's darned important to a number of people I love dearly.

If the party continues to back down at every opportunity, it only serves to underline the widely held view that there isn't much difference between the 2 parties.

My best friend's sister is in the National Guard. Her unit landed in Kuwait on Wednesday, for 2 weeks of training before shipping out to Iraq. She's an engineer - she'll be building roads and looking for mines. My best friend is extremely concerned about ending the war, ASAP - but she'd be amongst the last to tell you that gay marriage isn't important, and should be shoved under the rug.

Democrats used to stand for something besides cowardice. We used to stand for civil rights and against injustice. We won elections more often back then.

[funky_bug]

22. Once again...

I will restate what I have said in the previous responses to you on another thread.

THIS ISSUE IS DAMNED IMPORTANT TO ME. Four of my closest and dearest friends are gay, and in committed relationships ranging from 2 years to six years of length. Every single one of them has more right to the religious term "marriage" then I do, as I ran screaming from the Episcopal church when they got their panties in a bunch over the ordination of a gay priest. The equal rights of my friends to unite and share their lives in a legally recognized way is very very important to me. The word "marriage" however, is not.

What does the word "marriage" guarantee them, that "civil union" does not? Is the terminology so important? If we are clever enough to see behind the terms "homeland security" and "patriot act", then we should be clever enough to look beyond the word and embrace the meaning behind "civil union." Even Shakespeare knew that words were just that... words.

I would GLADLY trade the word "marriage" with them, coining the term "civil union" for myself. I didn't need to get married in a church, but I chose to. Any couple with a license can easily find a gay-friendly church to bless their union, and then they can call it whatever they want to. Making "gay marriage" legal, does NOT guarantee that non-gay-friendly churches will HAVE to marry same-sex couples. The word changes NOTHING. But it could become a rallying point for conservatives and evangelicals. If you think Monica's drycleaning bill cost us by a narrow margin, wait until the democratic party starts stamping on the religious right. Christ Almighty... they still swear this country was FOUNDED on their principles, even though John Adams clearly stated it was NOT.

[Dhalgren]

26. Marriage is not a religious term.

People say that it is, but it isn't. It is a term denoting a state of union between two people. If marriage were religious, only, then there are plenty of churches more than willing to marry gay folks - the "religiosity" of the term is a smoke-screne for bigotry.

[funky_bug]

28. Biblical marriage, as GWB's platform will say

"is between a man and a woman." You want to argue biblical terms with a faction of this country that still believes America was founded on Christian principles? Take away the word, and you take away their right to deny it FOREVER. Constitutional amendments scare me a LOT more than varying terminology.

[AntiCoup2K4]

23. "Beating Bush" means absolutely nothing, if you replace him with...

...someone who is sold out to all the exact same criminals.

[jansu]

25. What, we are a one issue Party? We can and must fight them on all

issues! We have the ability to "walk and chew gum at the same time". They are the ones who can't put two thoughts together on sound thinking and then articulate them. If they keep speaking on this "marriage" issue, they just look worse and more un-American! It is about Civil Rights and that is something we should all embrace and always correct, now. The polls are already changing in favor of this in many states.

Overwhelm the Republicans with as many issues as you can! Can you imagine Bush being able to answer more than a couple in the debates?