NEWS: Democrats Think Gays Can Almost Be People

POLITICS: Democrats Think Gays Can Almost Be People

Idiots on the right like to think that Democrats are liberals. That is one of the many things that make people on the right idiots. Democrats are far from liberal. One glaring example of how conservative they have become was yesterday’s forum on gay rights.

The forum was annoying. Not because of all the questions, talking and opinions but because it was held one building away from where I work. Cops and the Secret Service were everywhere, which forced me to park down the street and caused people who were coming in for meetings to be late. I’m not sure if gay rights are worth the hassle I had to go through yesterday. Luckily I survived.

It was the first time that presidential candidates of any party have appeared on TV to talk solely about gay issues. Inside the building the leading candidates were all saying the same thing.

Notice he did not say that he supports gay marriage. How very “progressive.” Obama has not yet said he supports gay marriage, like his church does. Quite the liberal hero, aren’t you Barack?

Well, that is not a surprise because Hillary is just a Republican wearing Clinton skin. Not a modern day Republican – those guys are fucking lunatics. I’m talking about a Republican from 20 or 30 years ago. Good work, Hillary. Civil unions are a nice, safe stance for your bullshit middle of the road campaign.

His position being that it should not happen, but he is from the south, so what else would you expect?

Uh, okay. Way to not answer whether or not you support gay marriage. Sure, it’s not achievable. Doesn’t make you any less of an asshole. One way to bring the country along is to support it, but that is leadership and you seem to be missing that quality.

Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel both support same sex marriage. So do I. All three of us have the same chance of being president. Even scarier, I am the least crazy of the three of us.

Joe Biden and Chris Dodd didn’t bother to show up.

Republicans were also offered a chance to have their own forum on gay rights, but for some reason they turned it down. It probably has something to do with the fact that Republicans are now religious lunatics. And Democrats are the new Republicans. Yay, America!

i remember watching the youtube debates and being thoroughly disgusted by the responses to the inevitable gay marriage question. obama tried to worm his way out of it by saying some nonsense like "i think it should be up to the individual denomination", like he's completely oblivious to the fact that the state issues marriage licenses.

i'm not a single-issue voter, but it just makes me sad that none of these candidates can pony up and admit that gay people are people.

This is the one real beef I have with Obama's politics. I generally agree with him most other places, but he's just flat wussing out here.

I do give Hillary credit for advocating the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell, which was her husband's doing in the first place.

I will admit, up front, that being straight, I may not fully grasp this issue. It's sort of the "have to walk in my shoes" thing. But I think that if civil unions were legal across the board, and included all the same rights as marriages, and were documented by the state, then all we're talking about is a word "marriage". Two people can love each other regardless of that word. My girlfriend and I live together. At this point, we choose not to get married, but we are still bound together by our love for each other. The only thing that would make us want to get "married" would be either for tax reasons (benefits of marriage) or if we decide that we need to make it official for spiritual reasons (notice I said spiritual, not religious....I couldn't care less what some priest or preacher thinks of our union).

I would think that if civil unions were offered all the same benefits, and they were recognized by the state, then that should be all that matters for two people in love. I don't know my history on marriage, but I would bet that it started as a religious thing, so that religious people could feel their union was sanctified by a higher power. In my mind, it's just a word, and as long as you have everything that goes along with that word, does it really matter?

I don't think that any church or denomination should be forced to accept anything they don't want to. It's their right to be close minded. In time, as society progresses, they will lose memberships and die off, or they will change to accommodate the times. If at this point in time they want to monopolize a word, fine. If civil unions become everything that marriage is (as far as the state goes) then that word will lose it's meaning in time. Personally, I think that straight people have diminished whatever meaning that word once had anyway.

The state, however, should have to recognize the union. Since our country is made up of mostly religious people, then we may have to call it something else in order to get everyone on board. Down the road, that could change.

As far as the whole Democrats are the new Republicans, etc., there are fringe members on both sides. Not all Democrats are liberal, and not all Republicans are conservative. But I maintain my position that it's the fringes in both parties that keep us preoccupied with divisive topics like this so that the rest of the people in power can screw us over while we're not paying attention.

Yeah, the Democrats aren't liberals and haven't been for years. But the truly liberal solution is to abolish the quasi-contractual, legal status of marriage for *everyone.* Look, if you want to have a civil contract and a ceremony and call it a marriage, go ahead, but when you start talking about a government sanctioned, role-defining, tax-enhanced "contract", you're not talking about the liberal solution anymore. You're actually talking about the feudal solution.

personally i'm completely fine with ditching marriage altogether and having states all grant everyone civil unions instead.

I get the feeling next thing you know, either the democrats or the republicans are going to want to impose religious law. If that happens, be prepared to pack your bags and either head north or south of the border.

Dennis Kucinich is the shit,
I live in Cleveland and i know dennis very well,
his ideas very hippe but them ideas well never win anybody over.
His the only that is there face about isseus so give him a break.
Plus, Democrats are only ones that will at must talk about this issues.

Absolutely. One can be married without the church, but not without the state. For some reason there's a lot of difficulty in people coming to terms with that fact, and politicians know that, and 'handle' the public in accord with those misperceptions.

The blame falls in two directions, but it's really mostly the fault of the majority in the public who wouldn't vote for someone who publicly supported gay marriage - the same public that genuinely believes that this is a 'Christian' nation and not a secular one.

I have that problem with him as well, but that's what politicians view as pragmatism. The bitter, atrocious, repulsive fact is that the American public will rally around preventing gays from having their rights as enshrined in our Constitution. There are so many people who are bound to see themselves as superior to gays, and are bound to see that gays take a subordinate position in society that no pro-gay rights candidate can win.


The public bare a huge portion of responsibility, here. It's fairly disheartening.

This assinine cowardice, while disgusting, will soon be a thing of the past as more and more people step forward and not only support candidates who take a strong stance in favor of sponsoring gay marriage, but also withdraw their support for the diet-Republicans... pardon me... Democrats... who continue to try to dodge the issue.

Afterall, it was about 40 years ago (1964-ish) that some some 80% of Americans polled favored an amendment that would make interracial marriage illegal.

Times change despite the best efforts of politicians to deny this inevitable fact.

Civil unions could give gay people some measure of equality but it would still keep us separate and apart. I'm honestly pleased that there is progress and that at least civil unions are well supported, but I would prefer marriage. Yes, its just a word, but if its the same thing why can't it BE the same thing. Whats the point of keeping gay people separate?

I agree completely. It would take away all the religious aspects (separation of church and state....) and anyone who would want the religious aspects could go to their respective Churches which a lot do anyway.


anyway I really think that Hillary has the best chance at repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell. She knows the policy very well and I think she can really get rid of it. I think it would be an issue she wouldn't forget once she was actually President while other candidates might not care about it.

agreed. make marriage a religious ceremony, with no legal status. everyone gets civil unions, insofar as the state is concerned.

its exactly that american pubic that makes us the laughing stock of the world, and makes me want to move to either leave the country or go live in a very secluded area.

The problem isn't with the governmental system, it's with the castrated, cowed, blobs which live here and do what the government says.

if we as a people demanded it, then it would be done.

marriage certificates are issued by individual states,not the federal government. the feds can put in regulations about the financial laws regarding a status of married, but they cannot sign certificates.

Why we're not badgering the heck outta congress to get the laws passed and in stead relying on straight presidential canidates who can't support anything with more strength than a wet noodle is beyond me.

If you don't have Logo (and I think there are only about five people nationwide who do), you can watch the forum online at VisibleVote08.

Some random thoughts:

Of the "top-tier" candidates that did the "no same-sex marriage, yes same-sex civil unions" tapdance, I have the most hope that maybe Obama might consider the "turn civil marriage into civil unions across the board" solution, especially after hearing him say things like

This event was a fucking disaster of epic, giant meteors smashing into the earth proportions for Bill Richardson. The lowlight of his squirm-inducing performance was the following exchange:

Remember folks, this man has been employed as a diplomat. I really expected him to leave a slug-like trail of flopsweat when he left the stage.

Hilary Clinton was stubborn enough to defend both "Don't Ask Don't Tell" and the fucking Defense Of Marriage Act as being good things. While you can argue that "Don't Ask Don't Tell" is a smidge better than "Hunt The Fags Down And Courtmartial Them", saying that DOMA helped prevent the Republicans in Congress from approving the Federal Marriage Amendment is laughable. She also said that marriage should be a "states rights" issue, since wow, that worked so well for interracial marriage.

Dennis Kucinich was in full-bore Creepy New-Age Shaman Of Peace And Love And Unicorns mode. Speaking of other completely unelectable candidates I actually kinda agree with some of the time, it was nice to see that Mike Gravel stands for more than the flat tax, throwing rocks, and his Howard Beale-ish "I'm on stage with a bunch of morons" persona he adopted for previous debates.

Oh, and apparently there are debates that Ron Paul wants to be excluded from.

Can we be clear here that "marriage" is a religious tilte that is given to a contract between two people that gives them certain tax advantages and joint rights.

It is the contract that is important, not what it is called. All civil union is a secular name for that contract. Any two people not "married" in a church, have a civil union.

Split hairs much do you FTR?

+1 - but then would we have to say we were united instead of married?

Well, yeah, obviously it's because you are a soldier in the war against marriage. Your weapons are truth and equality. Why do you hate America?

Absolutely. The candidates are dancing around it because they have to. As much as we young crazy people with our ideals want our politicians to come out swinging on issues like these, it just isn't realistic in today's America's. Obama's right, enforceable civil unions would be progress, and incremental progress is all we can legitimately hope for right now. This isn't Canada we're talking about.

Have to agree with this one...