How the Democrats can fight the issue of Gay marriage.

[foreigncorrespondent]

Here is my take.

The republican party and the religious right are all up in arms because of the Massachusetts marriage ruling.

The democratic party has been torn into two different groups as a result of the Massachusetts ruling. Something that has been proven here at DU since the day of the ruling.

The problem is, the SJC had the right idea when they ruled in favor of marriage rights for gays and lesbians. They worded it as "civil" marriages, which means government sanctioned marriaged and NOT church sanctioned marriages.

The LGBT folks want the right to marry. We keep telling those here who are against gay marriage, that we aren't trying to force the acceptance for marriage by any church, but rather, we are trying to gain acceptance from the government.

If the Democrats fight this issue head on saying that we are actually talking about civil marriages (as the SJC ruling in Mass said and different from civil unions), not church sanctioned marriages. If they stand for the LGBT folks in the United States, but take the wind out of the sails of the republican party and the religious right at the same time, then they will come out of this the winners, not Bush* and not the republican party.

People will see that the democrats understand the difference between civil marriages and church sanctioned marriages, and they are not willing to make it an issue because they in fact support civil marriage then they will win the LGBT vote. If the then begin talking about the state of the economy, Iraq war, jobless rate etc, people will begin to see that the democrats are actually concerned about the people of America, while the republicans are too busy butting their noses into peoples bedrooms rather than worry about the people of America, then the dems will actually win.

And the difference between civil marriages and civil unions is simple, civil marriage are covered under federal law and with that comes all the rights afforded to all other married couples, civil unions on the other hand is state sanctioned approval of gay and lesbian relationships. You register yourself on a state registrar and with that you get state awards, but not federal, (ie: no federal taxation breaks, immigration rights, acceptance in other states etc.)

Now for all those against gay marriages here at DU, are you willing to support civil marriages, and stand by the LGBT community, or would you prefer the LGBT community to take their vote elsewhere, because that is what will happen.

The LGBT community is sick of the democrats constantly milking them for their votes, and not standing next to us, like they should be.

So basically (in the words of the selected one) are you with us, or are you against us?

[kalashnikov]

1. What about giving civil unions everything

that marriages are entitled to? In other words make civil unions for gays have all the rights that a marriage would give but dont call it marriage? this would defeat the conservaticves who are clamoring to protect "marriage".

[Liberal Veteran]

2. Well let's be totally honest here. 99.9 percent don't really care about..

...the term marriage so much. Everyone I have met who claims to be against is simply against any recognition of gay relationships no matter what it is called.

This entire issue is about legislating gays into second-class citizens for those who oppose it.

[kalashnikov]

4. I think it would be easier for dems to defend

If they could say they were for civil rights but not marriage. This is what Wesley Clark has been saying.

[foreigncorrespondent]

8. In other words...

...nowis not the time, this is a wedge issue, this is a frindge issue.

When are people like you going to realize the time is NOW!

Would you like being federally sanctioned as a second class citizen?

[JohnKleeb]

12. We are at that time and FC, I hope we can do it

As my candiate put it, it is about civil rights. I am hetero and frankly the idea of gay marriage doesnt bother me, I really don't see why people are so upset by the idea, I like the idea, and it doesnt directly affect me so why should I be offended, I take the liberal and libertarian postion on this as I do with choice. Also the GOP claims its protecting morals, but there is no universal moral.

[foreigncorrespondent]

13. Like I say to the GOP.

What morals when the divorce rate is above 50%?

I don't know John, I don't think anyone will ever learn. I am really giving up hope in the United States completely. Not enough people give a shit.

[JohnKleeb]

16. Yeah the divorce rate is high

Lemme tell you this, my dad is the youngest of six kids, he is the only one in that family not to have been divorced and believe me I think he has been near it. Isn't there a lyric to a song, "when will they ever learn, oh when will they ever learn"

[BurtWorm]

28. The divorce rate among fundamentalists is among the highest

if not the highest in the country. Yeah, it's real sacrosanct with them! :eyes:

[JohnKleeb]

32. how "christian"

[roughsatori]

53. Clark also sees it as a State's Rights issue

The last time the Dems were for states rights was when they wanted to continue slavery and not make it a federal issue of civil rights. I guess the Dems have not come as far as we pretend.

[foreigncorrespondent]

3. The you are in fact...

...still discriminating against the LGBT community. This is about equality, not still leaving the door wide open for discrimination.

And plus the LGBT isn't asking for civil unions, but rather civil marriages.

I want the right to be able to marry the woman I love, and have that marriages accepted by the government of her country (the USA) and my country (Australia.)

Civil marriages is what is morally right.

[kalashnikov]

5. But what if you had all the rights of a marriage except it was called

something else.

[foreigncorrespondent]

6. Civil marriage is called something else isn't it?

It is called civil marriage (notice the "civil" in front?)

[kalashnikov]

23. I agree that it should be legal, but

when 60% of americans are against it than you have a losing issue. Better to get your rights now and not insists on calling it marriage. Wait until the younger generations grow up and start voting, then youll get the techniality.

[JohnKleeb]

24. I heard somewhere that in the early 60's that 2/3s of the population

was against giving black equal rights or something like that. Just sayin, you know.

[kalashnikov]

25. Maybe in the south, but not nationally

And civil rights were becoming a federal issue.

Besides I want to give gays the same rights, I just disagree over what one should call those rights.

[foreigncorrespondent]

26. If you want to give gays...

...the exact same rights, then shouldn't they called by the same thing? Anything else wouldn't be the same would it? Which leaves the door wide ajar for people to come and tell us they are "special" rights.

On edit: And BTW, gay rights is a federal issue.

[kalashnikov]

36. Sure. But you shouldnt force

Democratic cadidates to take your position on semantics that will likely lose them the election. Is it technically the right position? Yes. Will the Democratic candidate who takes that postition lose the general election? Probably. Is a Democratic president much more gay friendly than Bush? Hell yeah.

[foreigncorrespondent]

46. In case you haven't noticed...

...we haven't forced the democrats into anything. The REPUBLICANS are the ones making this an issue, now we are looking at the dems, either they are going to support us properly, or they are going to milk the LGBT vote and do nothing, yet again!

[JohnKleeb]

27. I dont know, I think I heard that most did not support legislation

[roughsatori]

55. How nice that you want to "give" me my Constitutional rights

As if they were yours to hand out. I can only wonder what it must be like to be so entitled as to say such a thing.

[Booberdawg]

9. Aren't civil unions "church sanctioned" as opposed to gov't sanctioned?

[foreigncorrespondent]

11. No.

The church was against civil unions as well. As is Bush*.

[Booberdawg]

17. Then I misunderstood your original post.

I read it twice because I wasn't clear with the difference between civil union and civil marriage.

That's why I followed up to kalashnikov post #1 the way I did.

[Booberdawg]

7. I'm behind you, and differentiating marriage between

church santioned and government sanctioned is a indeed a way to get the religious busy bodies and their noses out of it.

BUT - and I support your position 100%, mind you, I think rebubes would STILL fight this tooth and nail as a morality issue - I just don't think they want to give in and give equal rights, i.e. benefits, to LGBT citizens.

I don't know why Democrats wouldn't support it. They don't have any excuse. Homophobia??

[foreigncorrespondent]

10. The trouble with the dems is...

...they have been milking the LGBT community for votes, and so we don't give them backlash awarding us with little rights here and there. The trouble is the majority of the LGBT community are sick to death of being treated like second class citizens by both sides of the political fence.

I know so many queers who have left the democratic party and have chosen the green party, because of the way the dems have been treating them.

The democratic party is costing themselves the votes by not standing up for what is morally and ethically right.

[Booberdawg]

22. I feel so conflicted and beat to death by the Green vs. Dem issue myself

Frankly I DO have issues with the Green Party and "a few" Green members and the divisiveness it causes with the liberal side of the spectrum, but none of them have ever been concerned with LGBT issues. But this is neither the thread nor the topic to bring any of that up.

Maybe we disagree on this, but this is one of the many issues for which I think it's SOOOOO important to first get a Democrat in the White House - making the USSC replacements, other high level gov't appointments, and on to getting to the business of getting other state level Democrats elected, so WE HAVE A FRICKING CHANCE of even getting issues like this addressed!

As long as Republicans keep winning the battles and gaining ground, replacing judges, replacing governors, stealing elections, stacking the deck, then far more than LGBT rights are getting set back 50 years.

You DO have a point though. I'm not saying you don't. The WHOLE Democratic Party could stand firm on LGBT issues. Some of the current Presidential candidates are PUSHING the dialog in that direction. That's why I think it’s foolish for people to suggest any of them drop out at this early stage - because even those that have no chance of getting the nomination ARE pushing the dialog to some degree.

[Kenneth ken]

14. I am with you

you may recall a poll you ran a while back; I worked out for myself the position which seemed most honest, and ended in support of civil marriage; because when a heterosexual couple marries, there is no obvious way to know whether ithe ceremony was performed in a church/mosque/synagogue or a city hall.

Therefore, any title other than "married" for LGBT couples would immediately flag the person or persons as LGBT and open the door to discrimination, wheter subtle or overt, and that is quite simply, wrong.

[annagull]

15. Alot of the candidates last night addressed the issue quite well

I know CMB and Rev Al spoke to the 2nd class citizen issue, and I think this is the one we should run with. Rev Al said something like "Are we willing to say some Americans do not deserve the same rights as everyone else?" Both brought up issues of mixed race marriages and how crossing state lines made these marriages illegal. But the human rights issue is the best way to frame the debate: Why are there different rights for different Americans?

[dvddrone]

18. With you - no question about it.

I've never understood the problem with it anyway. Either LGBT Americans are citizens of this country, in which case equal rights and protections apply to them, or they are not and what the fuck is the point of the Constitution or this nation?

I thought it was handled well in the debate. (Not by Brokaw - what a total asshole THAT guy is.) The Democratic candidates were clear and apparently unified. It's a civil rights issue, a human rights issue, a citizenship issue - NOT a religious issue.

Your take on this is absolutely spot-on. It doesn't have to be contentious within the Party. This one is winnable. Nobody's church will be forced to perform marriages they don't want to and nobody wants to dick around with their religious beliefs. But the fact remains that these American citizens can no longer be consigned to the back of the marriage bus. It's ethically unsound and constitutionally unsupportable.

Elizabeth

[papau]

19. 04 won't be a wedge issue values election

04 won't be a wedge issue values election


In October/November 04 we will be talking about

Iraq - and the draft, and deaths, and friends pulled from jobs to be in the military in Iraq

Life and death and ability to improve personal physical security,

Our job - how secure it is, has our kid found a job, or is a friend in danger of losing a job -Employment for friends and family - increase in wealth for the common man. The economy will be finally stopping its slide - but at a cost of huge deficits that will make the future worse because of tax cuts that have caused the recovery to falter - as it did after the Reagan tax cuts for more than a year - with too many people unemployed or underemployed, a the president not doing enough to fix it, and indeed with the 80's result of the unemployment rate that existed when Reagan took office being the same of higher when Reagan/Bush left office - indeed the first administration since Hoover to have a net job loss over its four years..

Free Trade versus fair trade that protects American jobs will mean more than "Bush is a good guy".

Social Security cutbacks planned by the GOP under the disguise of a private account push, all the while noting the GOP lie that the fact that in 2017 SS will pay out more than it takes is a crisis, when all it is an indication that taxes on the rich will need to be raised so as to repay the SS system for the money stolen to finance tax cuts for the rich

A Health care coverage bill that takes 400 billion - and then gives 30% of that to special interests rather than paying for drugs - and indeed prohibits the government from asking for lower prices for drugs sold in America.

And things like same sex unions will be either not be discussed - or those doing the talking will be thought of as idiots for having the discussion when far more important priorities are at stake.

There can be no time wasted on wedge issues that divide us when the question is how to get back to peace and prosperity.

[John_Shadows_1]

20. I think the candidates should just ...

... answer the question real quick - "I'm for it, " "I'm against it", explain it real quick and move on to the next question. Last night, Jesse Jackson came on Hardball and clearly called bullshit on the way Chris Matthews was using it as a "wedge issue", and the Dems should stick with this - there's no way that an issue like this should occupy a position of prominence in a campaign.

[foreigncorrespondent]

21. You mean...

...the dems should answer real quick and move along (nothing to see here) instead of dealing with what will be an issue in '04? In other words milk the votes from the LGBT community again?

[Turkw]

35. LGBT community has gotten no support or help from Dems at all? really?

Gosh I thought that they had supported at least some measures of legaly sanctioning equal rights and treatment.

It must be frustraiting, I understand your point. At the same time, do you really want all or nothing? Would the rights of survivorship, etc. mean nothing to the LGBT community? Would not those rights be a major victory?

I think having the issue come into the natioinal dialog and having various degrees of presidential candidate support is definetly a step in the right direction. Getting the rights equivelant to marriage would be another step, a pretty significant one.

As for the second class citizen part, well many minorities are racial, and are visiable obvious, so they still have issues relating to that. If you are part or full blooded native American (I am part) you get issued a card to prove it, no other minority carries a card. Lots of interisting second class issues out there.

[foreigncorrespondent]

41. Why should we take...

...pittence, while the heterosexual community has all the rights, and we are treated as second class citizens.

I am not saying the dems haven't done anything for the LGBT community, but they haven't stood by 100% either. They have been taking our votes and as a result, giving us pittence, it is kinda like hush money.

But not many people will see it that way, because those people aren't being discriminated against. It is us who is being discriminated against, and we are sick and tired of it.

The heart knowns no bounderies when we fall in love. The heart doesn't discriminate between sexes, it only tells us this person is good for us.

Damn it when are people going to understand? I am in love with a woman. When this woman looks at me, I know it is me she wants, desires, and loves. I am the person she has chosen to spend the rest of her life with, for fuck sake, I would like to know that when we get married it will be marriage and not some committment ceremony followed by a trip to the registery office in order to register our relationship, so we can get a few of the state rights we are entitled to.


And as a minority, you should understand what I am saying. You shouldn't be willing to settle for pittence, when you are a citizen of this world created by God in his image.

[Turkw]

49. but only a segment of the hetro community has ALL the rights.

I don't, not because I'm part native American, but because I'm not Christian and I'm not rich. I am a white (part NA, I got a card) male hetro with no handy caps, so I do enjoy many advantages. (I feel I'm smart enough to realise it also, I remember the stories my grandfather told me about working with people who hated indians when he was young)

What I am not saying is do nothing but shut up and vote for my guy. Look at what happened to Clinton for his very mild stance about gays in the military. Terrible policy, better than what was before if only because you now have a retired four star general advocating a more progressive policy based on other countries militaries that are not so anti-homosexual.

Clark is also laying the ground work for other advances by useing a very resonale argument: what would you want for your child if he or she were homosexual? Would you not still love them and want them to have equal protection oppertunities?

If you get this and the rights of marriage, I don't see how this is a pitance, or the end of the fight. Keep fighting, like I said these are steps in the right direction, but they are steps only. Keep going for your goals of total equality. Keep being vocal, don't accept no progress, but remember who the real enemy is.

[foreigncorrespondent]

54. Let me put it this way...

....five years ago I was a woman living in Australia. I had just broken up from a relationship, but I still had all the rights and privileges awarded to me at birth, just for being a citizen of this country.

Three plus years ago, I met a woman online. This woman and I hit it off over IM's so much so, that she had said to me if I ever got to San Francisco to look her up. I got to San Francisco a month later. I contacted her, we went out on a date. Over the weeks our feelings became clear for one another. We were in love.

I came back to Australia, only to find out that because I am in fact in a lesbian relationship, I don't have all those rights I once had.

Now I find myself still in the relationship with this wonderful woman. We are living apart because her country discriminates against our relationship so badly, that she doesn't even have the right to sponsor me for immigration.

Our relationship is now experiencing some real problems because of the distance (8,000 miles) we face. We have no way of communicating properly because we only have the phone and Internet to do our talking on.

We hardly see one another. In fact the most time we get together is 28 days last year, and 28 days this year. And at the rate we are going I don't know if we will even be together (as in a relationship) by the time our next anniversary (March next year) comes around. Why? Because we are a lesbian couple and so our needs are less important because people believe LGBT rights are a wedge or fringe issue.

Now today, I am telling them, this is one issue that won't go away, because regardless of whether or not my partner and I break up, we won't be going away. The SJC has given us a wide door to work with. DoMA is bound to fail the moment it is challenged in a court of law, the repukes know this, so they have chosen to use this as a religious issue, and force the democrats to respond. What I am telling the dems in return to do is make it a federal issue, take it away from a religious issue, take the steam our of the repukes boiler. And all I have been told back is now isn't the time. Well when will it be the time? After Sapphocrat and I become another statistic because of this damned discrimination?

If people can't push aside their feelings about the church and realize that what I am saying is actually a government marriage, then there is nothing I can do. I give up. I walk away. And all I can do is hope I can save my relationship with Sapphocrat, and the democratic party had better realize that one day, I will be an American citizen, and I won't be voting for any party that didn't stand by me on an issue, when the issue was there to be dealt with.

People keep saying that they are sick of the dems supporting Bush*, well guess what, those who are against gay marriage are in fact supporting Bush* on one of his ideas.

I am a second class citizen, because I am a lesbian. Well I am proud of who I am, and I am proud to call Sapphocrat my lover and soon to be wife! And if we gotta go to Canada to get married and have that marriage recognized by a country, then we bloody well will.

[funkyflathead]

29. This issue should be ignored until the Democrats regain power

In a lot of battleground states people are uneasy about g/l/t marriage.

So once we regain WH control, then we can force on the US.

[foreigncorrespondent]

30. In other words...

...LGBT's should be shut away in the closet until the dems have been able to knock Bush* off his thrown, and then just maybe, the dems in power will consider this issue.

Yeah right! This queer has no intentions on going in the closet just to keep the likes of you, happy.

[funkyflathead]

33. I never said that!

I said the issue of gay marraige should be ignored until the Democrats win and then bring to the front burner.

Your issue is not popular, like it or not.

[foreigncorrespondent]

34. By saying that...

...the rights of gays and lesbians should be ignored IS saying that!

[Liberal Veteran]

43. It's only a fringe issue because of attitudes like yours.

Everytime you say we need to wait until we are in power and it's a losing issue for the dems because it's outside the mainstream, you are doing two things:

1. Alienating a very strongly democratic contigent.
2. Allowing the republicans to frame the issue as an extreme fringe issue.

In other words, how bout we just grow a spine and do what's right?

[Liberal Veteran]

31. My civil rights should be ignored?

That doesn't really work for me.

So basically the democratic party should be afraid to take a principled stand for human rights and instead should be the milquetoast party of compromise that they are now?

How's that working out for our party so far?

[foreigncorrespondent]

37. LV, I think we are fighting a losing battle my friend.

When something big happens for the LGBT community it seems that there are some in the democratic party that turn very republican-like in their speech.

It is unbelievable!

[Lydia Leftcoast]

38. I've often wanted to ask fundies and others

opposed to gay marriage, "By what mechanism does gay marriage harm heterosexual couples? How will the substance of your marriage be affected if same-sex couples are allowed to have the same rights?"

I'd love to watch them squirm for an answer.

[Booberdawg]

39. I don't agree with that either

If Democratic politicians stood together on this issue, and made this a government sanctioned issue as opposed to a church sanctioned issue to remove the religious right arguments and thus the teeth out of the Republican dog in this fight (did you even read the original post on this topic?), then this issue could take equal standing with others in the Democratic platform that concern the people of America. (state of the economy, Iraq war, jobless rate etc)

[funkyflathead]

40. It's a losing issue. Period.

The GLT community makes up a small percentage of the US and most NATIONAL polls show it is not popular right now.

If a Democrat gets in it won't be because they supported/opposed gay marriage.

[foreigncorrespondent]

44. It is only a losing issue...

...if we make it one. If we let the repukes control this then it will indeed be the downfall of the democrats, but if we control the issue, then they are the ones who will lose out.

[Liberal Veteran]

45. Bingo! By allowing the republicans to frame this as a fringe issue...

...instead of a principled stand for human rights, it only makes matters worse.

[funkyflathead]

47. Both sides need to ignore it

There are bigger issues at stake.

Like overturning the abortion ban, getting out of Iraq, and reviving the economy to name a few.

The Dems should say they are for it and then drop it until later.

[Turkw]

51. I disagree, don't ingore it, stratigize (sp?)

Look at the long term goal and figure out what steps you are willing to accept on the road to geting there. Push for the big goal, but be willing to compromise when you are getting advances. The right wingers haven't been able to gut the environmental policies, threaten abortion, workers rights, have government fund religion, etc. by going strait for it. But they also didn't leave these issues silent either, and pushed small measures when they could.

[Booberdawg]

52. It's not if framed properly

It's the way Republicans are framing it that makes it divisive. If framed in a way as described in the original post, with the curch taken out of it, and thus the teeth of the Republican argument, it could be given equal standing with other issues in the Democratic platform (read - not "special" status)

I don't put much stock in those polls. The results depend on how the questions are phrased - and are often phrased intentionally to produce desired results.

And I wouldn't write off the GLBT community so quickly.

Interesting though that you say in your last statement:

If a Democrat gets in it won't be because they supported/opposed gay marriage.

If it doesn't matter either way - then what is your beef with the Democratic Party supporting GLBT community? And scooping up that extra constituency? Hmmmm? :D

[kodi]

42. i would prefer that homosexuals not use this as a threat against dems

regardless of or maybe just because of my personal feelings regarding acts of homosexuality, i do not believe anyone should be discriminated for non-violent, personal, private behavior.

however, i am but a single person, not the nation.

most people do not consider the word homosexual and marriage to be connected. that it is engrained in western culture is obvious. that the majority of people believe the concept of marriage is and has been for time immemorial been defined as between a man and woman is obviuous.

trying to get these people to accept that "marriage" includes homosexual acts will be impossible. its not going to happen, and its not going to happen because these beliefs are grounded in the faith these people profess. they are being asked, equivalently and essentially, in their minds, to throw out one of the ten commandments by accepting homosexual marriage.

so too is it obvious that the only way to deal with such people is to hammer that the definition of marriage has to be secular, and in that sphere, equal rights is the predicate, not god's law.

and i dont care if they come up with another name for it or not. as long as the rights of homosexuals are not infringed.

if the homosexual community wants equal rights, and the full power of government to be used to provide them for all legal rights which marriage brings, i will stand with them.

however being told that the homosexual community is getting tired of lip service (geeze, i didn't realize at first draft what i had typed) from democrats, and that they will withhold their support is fairly dumb. it is dumb because only a moran would think they will get a better shake from the republicans.

i have a homosexual cousin and many homosexual friends. i want them to be happy, and will stick up for them and have when they are discriminated aganst, but demanding that people accept homosexual marriage as "marriage" instead of "civil union" is about as futile as shaking your fist to hold back the sea.

[roughsatori]

58. Not a threat a fact. Some of us will take our votes elsewhere

There is the Green Party--or the move to a country that considers us full citizens.

You throw out a red herring when you talk about us being a "Moran" if we expect better treatment from the Republican party. No one at DU has ever made such a claim. If you know of one post making that claim please post a link.

The Dem's can continue jettisoning their progressive values and claim they are doing so because "it is the only way we can beat the Republicans." I think the truth is because when it comes to gays and lesbians many Dems are not that Progressive after all.

I will NOT vote for anyone who refuses to fight for my Constitutional rights. I am sorry you would prefer that I vote for those who would acquiesce to my oppression--but I will not do so again.

The best estimates of homosexuality in the population are 5 to 6%. That might be a number some think worth tossing out to get elected. But I will smile with irony when I hear people blame me at the funeral of the Democratic Party.

Dems need to get a better message across to African-Americans and Gays and Lesbians other than "the Repukes will treat you worse."

[IndianaGreen]

48. The RW won't recognize same-sex marriages performed in church

Some Reform rabbis have performed same-sex union ceremonies. Why should that union not be recognized by the State? Why should a liberal church or synagogue be barred by the State from performing such ceremonies? That would be an Establishment of religion by the State.

By the same token, a marriage license is a civil document. The State should not refuse to issue a license to some of its citizens just because they are same-sex. Not very long ago most States refused to issue marriage licenses to couples of different races, particularly when the woman was white.

The issue is, and always has been, equality under the law. I will remind my fellow DUers that Congress has failed to provide equal protection to GLBT Americans in the workplace by its inability to pass ENDA.

[foreigncorrespondent]

50. IG...

...Thank YOU!!!!!

As alwsys, you have my respect. :)

[MrPrax]

56. Cartoonist of all stripes tend to have a sharp wit

and tend to make a good observation



'The LGBT community is sick of the democrats constantly milking them for their votes, and not standing next to us, like they should be.'

Your right...the democrats shouldn't waste they're time...the baggage is enormous and the payoff is so little as to be suicidal.

Social democrats everywhere should get off the 'identity politics' schtick...they should engage in a broader based and much more agressive 'class' dialogue and start putting much more into efforts into 'inclusiveness' of the environment and , most importantly, the Economy.

The working classes over the last two decades have been getting shitkicked from all sides

[Fleshdancer]

57. equal rights equal rights equal rights!

When we bicker over what we call this form of equal rights, then it becomes a wedge issue. Most Americans think homosexuals should have equal rights to heterosexuals.

The problem with us Democrats is that instead of taking the offensive approach, we take the defensive. We should be starting the conversation. We should be asking republican leaders point blank why they don't support equal rights. Scream it, repeat it...it's equal rights stupid!

But no, instead we sit idly by and wait for the dreaded question..."do you or do you not support gay marriage?" At that point, no one is thinking about the big picture, they're just focused on titles.

This subject annoys the hell out of me. We are the party of civil rights, women's rights...it's not like we haven't done this before. Why are we so timid this time around???

[Damodar]

59. vote "no!" to constitutional amendment banning gay marriage

news poll

www.times-news.com

username: visitor
password: tnweb

There is poll asking if you support a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Click on "Hell no!" and vote!

[foreigncorrespondent]

60. I already did yesterday. N/T