2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumUncle Joe
(58,349 posts)Thanks for the thread, SoapBox.
UglyGreed
(7,661 posts)K/R
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)azmom
(5,208 posts)Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)And some foreign affairs issues as well as far as I can tell.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)stupidicus
(2,570 posts)it put BS in negative/immoral territory from which he can't leave no matter how much the faux do-gooder tries.
uponit7771
(90,335 posts)PADemD
(4,482 posts)Only in the USA; other countries, not so much.
And this one too!
RKP5637
(67,104 posts)Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)A big one
I can't believe how little that pesky little fact is raised around here
davemac
(28 posts)Best one is the last one.
stupidicus
(2,570 posts)not the copy cat with ulterior motives of the likely ignoble kind.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)While Bernie has always had a very forward looking view on LGBT rights, the 1970's was a time that was very distant from supporting marriage equality, the questions were about repealing laws on the books against homosexuality which were at that time used to jail, blackmail and otherwise harass LGBT persons. When Bernie wrote that letter to the Editor 'repeal all laws' was a nearly radical form of support. Few took that stance at that time. Marriage had nothing to do with it.
The problem with using that trope is that it gives far too much credit to the straight society of 1970. CA was the first State to actually repeal those laws and legalize sexual behavior between consenting adults, that law took effect in 1976. Use your noggins, if a couple can be jailed for being a couple, do you think that couple would be out advocating for the right to marry? Among the wolves of that day?
The early 70's were also the start of efforts to ban discrimination in housing and employment for gay people, that legislation still has not passed the Congress, all these many years later and in 29 States they can fire you and refuse housing if they don't like LGBT people.
So I do tire of hearing that Straight Culture contained all these many folks who supported marriage equality for gay people while gay people were too busy trying to avoid the police, their bosses and the local DA to think much about it.
All it does is tell me that the Trope Writer does not know about nor care about the issue. Marriage equality is a recent subset of LGBT rights and by no means the first much less the only political objective our community had to deal with. And between the first steps and the current leaps came the AIDS era, in which again weddings were not the theme and support for this community took a very different form.
There is no need to pump up Bernie's already massively excellent, very pioneering leadership at that time by claiming he was speaking about issues that did not yet exist as we now know them. He's such a strong and early advocate that some of his supporters do not even understand what it was he was advocating then. He was always among the best and bravest even when there were very few who would so much as mention gay people in politics. But that 70's thing, not about marriage.
senz
(11,945 posts)It was too distant to become a reality at that time, so to have said, "I'm for gay marriage" wouldn't have made sense to people in 1970.
But what Bernie did was to publicly announce, way back then, his support for ALL gay rights, his support for complete equality. That, Bluenorthwest, is very meaningful and profound. It speaks to all aspects of LGBT equality.
^snip^
May 18, 1970 - Same-Sex Couple Applies for Marriage License
"On May 18, 1970, two University of Minnesota students, Richard John 'Jack' Baker and James Michael McConnell applied to Hennepin County District Court clerk Gerald Nelson for a marriage license. He denied the application, because the applicants both were men.
Baker and McConnell sued Nelson, claiming Minnesota law on marriage made no mention of gender. The trial court was not impressed with the argument, agreeing with Nelson. The state Supreme Court agreed with the lower court. When Baker-McConnell went to the U.S. Supreme Court, the couple was rebuffed again...
Baker v. Nelson has been used in other states as precedent to block efforts at marriage equality."
senz
(11,945 posts)Which goes to show how under the radar it was. We are so dependent on the media for information, it's scary -- although that is changing, thanks to the internet. But this just underscores the fact that massive social changes generally do not occur until some kind of tipping point of public awareness is reached. (Long time ago, I took a course in social movements where some theorists made just this point.)
I find it very moving that Jack Baker and James McConnell tried to get married. I hope they eventually did and are happy. It is sad to think about the suffering experienced by two adults who loved each other and simply wanted to make a legal commitment to that love.
Bernie saw very early that all people must be treated equally under the law. He saw it, he felt it, he proclaimed it, and he has lived it. He didn't have to "evolve" on the issue. He doesn't play politics with it.
^snip^
After the Middle Ages in Europe, same-sex relationships were increasingly frowned upon and banned in many countries by the Church or the state. Nevertheless, Historian John Boswell argued that Adelphopoiesis, or brother-making, represented an early form of religious same-sex marriage in the Orthodox church. Alan Bray saw the rite of Ordo ad fratres faciendum ("Order for the making of brothers" as serving the same purpose in the medieval Roman Catholic Church. However, the historicity of Boswell's interpretation of the ceremony is contested by the Greek Orthodox Church[citation needed], and his scholarship critiqued as being of dubious quality by theologian Robin Darling Young.[36]
In late medieval France, it is possible the practice of entering a legal contract of "enbrotherment" (affrèrement) provided a vehicle for civil unions between unrelated male adults who pledged to live together sharing un pain, un vin, et une bourse one bread, one wine, and one purse. This legal category may represent one of the earliest forms of sanctioned same-sex unions.[37]
While the church father, Augustine of Hippo, presented marriage as an important sacrament of the Christian Church in the 5th century CE,[38] it wasn't until the "Sentences" of Peter Lombard, in the middle of the 12th century, that marriage became a part of the seven sacraments of the Catholic Christian Church.[39][40]
A same-sex marriage between the two men Pedro Díaz and Muño Vandilaz in the Galician municipality of Rairiz de Veiga in Spain occurred on 16 April 1061. They were married by a priest at a small chapel. The historic documents about the church wedding were found at Monastery of San Salvador de Celanova.[41]
senz
(11,945 posts)It appears that people have been wanting to pair off since the earliest of times. If two people want to live together as one, then whose business is it? I tend to see us all as embodied souls (apologies to my atheist friends), and do not place much significance on the "body" part, except as a ticket to ride. So if two people have a deep love for one another, who has the right to interfere with their relationship? And why should it matter what gender they are? Love goes deeper than that. (Of course, there are different kinds of love, and not all of them entailing pairing off, or sexual expression, any kind of exclusivity at all. It's a big word. )
Thank you for opening my eyes to this, Motown_Johnny. I appreciate it and hope others will read your comments and learn something too.
Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)and Bernie was for abolishing all laws regarding sexual behavior specifically mentioning adultery and homosexuality. I will admit a tiny little bit of a gray area in the phrasing, but not much. Knowing that gay men had already been trying to establish their right for marriage equality, and specifically mentioning that all laws dealing with homosexuality be abolished does seem to add up to being for marriage equality as early as the early 1970s.
http://gaymarriage.procon.org/view.timeline.php?timelineID=000030
^snip^
"On May 18, 1970, two University of Minnesota students, Richard John 'Jack' Baker and James Michael McConnell applied to Hennepin County District Court clerk Gerald Nelson for a marriage license. He denied the application, because the applicants both were men.
Baker and McConnell sued Nelson, claiming Minnesota law on marriage made no mention of gender. The trial court was not impressed with the argument, agreeing with Nelson. The state Supreme Court agreed with the lower court. When Baker-McConnell went to the U.S. Supreme Court, the couple was rebuffed again...
Baker v. Nelson has been used in other states as precedent to block efforts at marriage equality
http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/bernie-sanders-was-full-gay-equality-40-years-ago
^snip^
In a letter he published in the early 1970s, when he was a candidate for governor of Vermont from the Liberty Union Party, Sanders invoked freedom to call for the abolition of all laws related to homosexuality:
BootinUp
(47,141 posts)the truth.
houston_radical
(41 posts)Bernie is liberal, Hillary is not
senz
(11,945 posts)BainsBane
(53,031 posts)Last edited Sat Oct 24, 2015, 05:08 PM - Edit history (1)
that's for damn sure. You ought to look at some of the Super Pacs set up for the Sanders campaign. There are a number, including one run by a former Sanders staffer, and defended by his office just a year ago.
Collective Actions . . . A Super PAC run by one of Bernie's former staffers.
Such is the case with Collective Actions PAC, which is operated by Rep. Chris Pearson (P-Burlington), who previously served as Sanders' campaign coordinator and press assistant. Founded in January 2014 as Draft Bernie, the PAC maintains the Run Bernie Run Facebook and Twitter accounts and, according to its website, plans to invest in online advertising.
Pearson says his Super PAC will fund grassroots projects to spread Sanders' message, but he admits it will also serve a more traditional role: skirting fundraising limits by taking contributions from those who've already donated the maximum $2,700 to Sanders' official campaign.
"We're trying to raise big checks, yes," Pearson says. "We'll see how successful I will be."
Collective Actions doesn't have to file a report with the Federal Election Commission until the end of July, and Pearson won't reveal how much he's raised. But in a letter he sent the FEC last month, he wrote that the PAC "has a number of large donors who are interested" in contributing.
http://www.sevendaysvt.com/vermont/sanders-shifting-stance-on-super-pacs/Content?oid=2759783
"I said, 'Well, I think I'm going to keep the PAC going because I think there's some real opportunities here,'" Pearson recalls. "We both sort of chuckled how absurd it all is, and that was it. I know that they're aware of all of it."
Surely, though, Sanders would prefer Pearson to ditch his super PAC now that the candidate has decided he doesn't want one, right?
Not necessarily. When Seven Days asked about it in March 2014, the campaign defended Pearson's move.
"Until we overturn Citizens United, the suggestion that opponents of right-wing Republicans should unilaterally disarm and not use the tools available to them is absurd," Fiermonte said in a written statement. "To suggest that there is any comparison between a small, grassroots organization in Vermont and the multi-billion-dollar political machine bankrolled by the Koch brothers is preposterous."
I don't trust candidate's that promise what they cannot possibly deliver on or who play on the ignorance of the voting public (for example about campaign finance law). I don't trust candidates who can't be bothered to develop substantive policy proposals.
Lastly, I have to question why supporters of said candidate notion of a policy discussion is limited to memes rather than any kind of substantive discussion of what he actually proposes; as do I question those who characterize an opponent's position without bothering to actually look at her proposed policies. None of that instills me with confidence.
George II
(67,782 posts)....in the last hour or two today.
It is highly subjective, however.
RandySF
(58,770 posts)hifiguy
(33,688 posts)absolutely vile "Third Way Progressive" horseshit that was posted yesterday.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)As Madame Secretary rises in the polls I expect the attacks on her to become increasingly more untethered from reality as they grow exponentially.
senz
(11,945 posts)as long as you don't start genuflecting when you see her image...
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)saw daily polls here on DU showing her to be at 80% and more. So now she 'rises' to 50%? What happened?
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)If Bernie Sanders wins the nomination I will corner a rat, kill it with my bare hands, roast it on a grill, throw some Sriracha sauce on it, eat it, and put it all on youtube.
That is how confident I am when I assert that Hillary will be the nominee...This campaign likely ends in the snows of New Hampshire or the ranchlands of Texas...
I am not in this for pecuniary gain or filthy lucre but if anybody cares to wager on the outcome I will entertain those wagers as well.
PEACE
DSB
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)senz
(11,945 posts)Boiling these (extremely important) concepts down to pith. We need more of that.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)And ONLY Bernie.
That is all.