Defeat from the Jaws of Victory: Gay vs Church Food Fight

[sampsonblk]

Once upon a time, our party was cruising to victory. All signs pointed to a landslide. Then came the rift that had not previously been noticed: LGBT Dems vs church-going Dems.

We've been in the same tent for decades. Suddenly, it isn't big enough.

As one writer put it, the position of LGBT activists is 100% acceptance, with no conditions or exceptions. The position of the vast majority of clergy is 100% non-acceptance, with no conditions and no exceptions. I don't see any middle ground on which to begin even a conversation.

There must be some common ground. It ain't about politics, its about real life. There has to be a way to co-exist and work toward the things we all have in common.

But its going to take some courage, and some humility, and a willingness to listen and at least consider that the other side is not evil. I don't see it yet.

[ThomCat]

1. I will not be merely "tolerated."

I will not accept any compromise that means accepting that I'm less of a person than everyone else. x(

Some issues are too important for compromise, and this is one of them.

[ellacott]

4. It may not have to end up with compromise

As it is today there is no dialogue at all. You will neve know what would be accomplished if there is no effort from both sides.

[ThomCat]

9. I'm open to talking

But I won't haggle about how much of a human being I am worth.

[ellacott]

12. Who said to do that?

What power do they have to determine your worth?

[ThomCat]

19. Don't fool yourself.

You can determine how much you think you are worth, but your value to society is a negotiated value. That's why prejudice is so destructive. People have a huge amount of power to determine how much other people are worth in society.

I won't condone or enable those kinds of negotatiations.

[ellacott]

35. Why does it even have to come to that?

Prejudice is a terrible thing but it will never abolished. I know first hand the evilness of prejudice and discrimination.

I would never encourage anyone to negotiate on those points. That's off the table. There are areas where there can be a discourse. You never know, it is possible that the person's outlook in other areas will also change.

[acmavm]

31. Great! Then vote republican or don't vote at all. Then you'll

get all the respect and acceptance you'll ever want.

:sarcasm:

[ThomCat]

41. Right, because not compromising on civil rights

means turning to worse civil rights abusers. :eyes:

Do you ever actually think before you post?

[acmavm]

69. Of course I do. Do you? You think the republicans are gonna

give you 'respect'?

[ThomCat]

82. I never claimed they would.

That's a fantasy you invented. I simply said that the democrats should give us respect. And if they/you don't give us respect then they/you should expect us to speak up about it.

[Taverner]

2. Even though I am an Atheist, I have to note not all clergy are 100% anti gay

The Episcopalians, Unitarians, and Some Presbyterians, Methodists, American Baptists and Lutherans preach not just tolerance, but acceptance.

So I don't think this is apt, and it ties all Christian Clergy in with the homophobes.

[Dick Stueland]

8. Acceptance

  The only lutherans that accept GLBT people are the {ELCA} ie
scandinavian church in america. WELS and LCMS are years behind
the good christians. 

[Taverner]

25. Are those the Evangelical Free Synod?

If not, that group does as well.

Don't get me wrong, there's work to do. I just wanted to clarify.

Oh and don't forget the Metropolitan Christian Church. They go beyond acceptance.

[bullwinkle428]

60. Don't forget the United Church of Christ as well...

United Church of Christ endorses gay marriage
Approves resolution for same-sex unions, opposes gender-specific definition

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8463741/

[William769]

3. So what exactly are GLBT people suppose to cave on?

Being treated equal? Having the same rights afforded as heterosuxuals? What did the Civil Rights movement cave in on?

[pnwmom]

13. Even among people in the GLBT community, there is some disagreement

on immediate goals ( as within the religious community). For example, some gay people demand the right to "marriage" immediately. Others would be satisfied, as an interim step, if civil unions -- with the same legal rights as marriage -- were recognized by ALL the states AND by the Federal government.

With regard to the churches, it might be possible to find more common ground in a hard push toward civil unions. I'm convinced it's just a matter of time -- the younger generation has little interest in denying full citizenship to gay people. One way or another, this will all be history within the next couple of decades. It's just a question of how we get there, not IF.

[William769]

20. There is absolutely no disagreement in the GLBT community on equal rights.

And anyone in the community that does disagree has a hidden agenda. There is no compromise and there never will be! What makes a heterosexual any better than me?

[pgh_dem]

50. I agree there shouldn't be compromise, but compromise

is already built into this campaign.

Unless you're supporting Rep Kucinich or Sen Gravel, but using Sen Clinton rally photos, you've already made a compromise to support a candidate who does not (openly) support equal rights. This suggests there is some room for incremental movement towards equal rights, rather than all or nothing immediately.

The OP is (as mentioned by another poster below) a false dichotomy to begin with, because there are obviously GLBT clergy.

There is no point in attempting compromise with 'ex-gay' or inherently homophobic political/religious groups. But we should avoid conflation of 'don't bang your head against a brick wall' situations with the types of compromises we're already making, given the political reality that we're not going to get a Democratic President in 2008 who supports full equality for GLBT, specifically including marriage.

It's completely lame to be resigned to calling ourselves "The Party That At Least Considers Half-measures" rather than "The Party of Full and Equal Rights for Every American Citizen", but you don't go into elections with the Party you want...etc etc

[pnwmom]

94. There's always a tension between the pragmatists and the idealists.

And I think we need both.

[pnwmom]

90. I didn't say there was.

But there is disagreement on whether the word "marriage" is worth fighting for or if the legal goals could be met more quickly if a fully-equivalent civil union law (recognized by states and federal govt.) was enacted.

I think that we could enact full civil unions fairly quickly -- if we were fully united. Then, when that was in place, what would be there to stop any gay couple from calling themselves married? Especially when they could even point (if they chose) to religious or other "ceremonies" that declared them married. By the time the current twenty-year olds are lawmakers, if the word "marriage" -- on a state issued certificate -- is still considered critical, I expect the change would be easily enacted.

This is what is happening in England. Gay people get civil unions and can call themselves married if they choose. Why not here?

[terrya]

5. When religions stop discriminating against GLBT people....

when they stop pushing for discriminatory amendments to state (and federal) constitutions that would deny my rights for marriage equality...

when they fight against bills that would protect me from discrimination (such as the Catholic Church did in here in Illinois when they unsuccessfully fought tooth and nail against the state's gay rights bill that finally passed)

when they stay out of the way for our goals of simple equality...

THEN we can talk to churches and religions.

[Sapphocrat]

71. Bingo.

What so few in the "You gays are anti-religion!" / "You gays are the intolerant ones!" brigades all too conveniently forget is that, as ruggerson put it so well (in a post that deserves to be read in full):

There are no gay people pushing for civil laws to outlaw evangelical Christians from marrying each other.

There are no gay people pushing for civil laws to outlaw evangelical Christians from fighting in the army for the country of their birth.

There are no gay people pushing for civil laws to deny evangelical Christians the right not to be discriminated against in employment and housing.

There are no gay people pushing for civil laws to originate or perpetuate second class citizenhood for evangelical Christians or any other religious group.

Yet, evangelical Christians and others are doing all those things and more to gays and lesbians.

Your private, religious belief system ceases to be your unchallenged entitlement when you use it as a club in the civil sector to dispossess people of their basic human rights and worth.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3639008

[TechBear_Seattle]

6. LGBT and church-going are NOT mutually exclusive

No matter what the reich-wingers (including the reich-wing Democrats) claim otherwise.

I also disagree with your assertion, "The position of the vast majority of clergy is 100% non-acceptance, with no conditions and no exceptions." I would say that the vast majority of clergy are not as bigottedly doctrinaire as that; I dare say you are letting your opinions be shaped by the small, vocal (and apparently quite powerful) fringe elements of Christendom. I have roundly condemned the silence and presumed complicity of the Christian majority on this bigotry, but even I find your comments unwarranted.

[redqueen]

7. Evil is a loaded term. Unacceptable is better.

Bigotry is unacceptable. Period.

They tried to use the bible to defend racism, but we got rid of that separate but equal BS.

We can do the same now, if we have the will. We have to, really.

[FredScuttle]

10. "Common ground" with bigots = bigotry

I don't see what compromise is needed for basic civil rights for a sector of the population that has been discriminated against, marginalized, oppressed, brutalized and smeared for years.

[NMMNG]

11. Would anybody even question the matter

If it were blacks, Hispanics, left-handed people, people with disabilities, etc. instead of LGBTs?

It's very simple. We are born GLBT just as straight people are born straight.

But religion is a choice. Bigotry is a choice. There is no reasonable excuse for claiming that the choices of religion or bigotry should supersede our human rights and dignity.

[ellacott]

18. If it were Blacks?

It's already happened.

[NMMNG]

36. Please elaborate n/t

[ellacott]

46. What I mean is....

Blacks have already had to endure many of the injustices that occur against gays.

It was a long road and it's going to be equally a long rode for gays. Unfortunately at the end of that road you will some legislation that gives Black certain rights but there is still a segment of our society that accepts them as worthy.

[NMMNG]

55. With all due respect,

Gays didn't just fall off a turnip truck this century. We've been around as long as Black people have. And we've been discriminated against as long as Black people have. It's in the Bible and the Koran, at the very least. This concept some people have that we should keep waiting, and that our struggle for civil rights is unimportant--or "just can't compare" baffles me. It also infuriates me.


Don't get me wrong. I am a staunch supporter of equal rights for everybody and will fight injustice wherever I see it or hear of it. But it raises my hackles when anybody dare claim their rights are more important than mine, or that I need to wait because of (insert whatever excuse here).

[ellacott]

70. Who said that anybodies rights are more important?

You all are assuming way too much.

What is infuriating to me is how so many of you don't listen.

I know how long you've been around. The reason I bring it up in context to the Civil Rights Movement is because I hear(and have read on this board) it brought up so much by gays as an example and a reason that they hoped more minorities would get involved. And please don't imply that black people have had any legislative rights for a very long time.

But it raises my hackles when anybody dare claim their rights are more important than mine, or that I need to wait because of (insert whatever excuse here

I'm baffled. Where and when did I say that?

[William769]

73. If that statement is not true then why do you say anything about compromise?

You don't compromise with somebody's rights.

[NMMNG]

104. I'm not trying to be difficult, really.

The reason I bring it up in context to the Civil Rights Movement is because I hear(and have read on this board) it brought up so much by gays as an example and a reason that they hoped more minorities would get involved.

I can't speak for others, but the reason I bring up the Civil Rights Movement is that our struggle has many similarities, the most basic of which is that we are seeking civil rights. The hope that other, typically denigrated and discriminated-against minorities might understand our plight rather than working against us is (at least to me) a separate issue.

And please don't imply that black people have had any legislative rights for a very long time.

I didn't, and wouldn't. I know very well that they haven't, and that they still face serious bigotries even today despite legislative protections.

I'm baffled. Where and when did I say that? {or that I need to wait because of (insert whatever excuse here)}

I may have misinterpreted this:

It was a long road and it's going to be equally a long rode for gays.

If so, you'll have to forgive me. Every time elections roll around we GLBT's get told repeatedly that we have to "wait, be patient, don't make us lose the election, your turn will come--but it's just not now" and so on. And it just gets so frustrating. Especially as we keep seeing our rights eroded in so many ways.

[ThomCat]

22. Sadly, yes they would.

As a person with a visible disability I can say from first hand experience that many people consider us less than fully human.

Look at the way many people regard special ed., and the students in special ed. There is a persistent belief that these kids are a drain upon the schools and upon society. People with disabilities are often considered parasites, not people. We're supposed to beg for any assistance we get, and then be greatful for every scrap we're begrudgingly given. We're not treated as equals. Our need makes up inferior in many people's eyes.
:(

[NMMNG]

38. Salient points, which I did mention to somebody else yesterday

The only thing you have on your side is legal protections GLBTs don't have, for what they're worth.

[ThomCat]

43. Well, as a gay person with a disability

I've been told by the staff of a support organization "You shouldn't be allowed to associate with other people with disabilities. People know you're gay so you might be gay bashed. They might get hurt because they know you and it would be your fault."

Being both gay and disabled often negates any protection I might theoretically receive as a person with a disability. And let me tell you, those theoretical protections are pretty damn elusive even for straight people with disabilities. They're often only paper protections.

[NMMNG]

58. Having worked with people with disabilities for 20 years

I know how much of a PITA it is to fight for their rights. It's very much an uphill battle. I could share horror stories for hours, I tell you.

We definitely need the laws. And we need the temerity to fight for enforcement of those laws (and people to advocate for us). Otherwise we're lost.

[iverglas]

14. the false dichotomy rears its head

LGBT Dems vs church-going Dems.

Many LBGT Dems are church-going.

Many church-going Dems are LGBT.

The dichotomy proposed therefore makes no sense, simply because of the math. Overlapping sets can't be mutually exclusive, as they obviously must be in order to be adversarial.

The real falseness lies in the way the real dichotomy is misframed.

The real division is between LGBT and other Democrats who object to the campaign of a candidate for the Democratic nomination being associated with vicious homophobic bigotry and church-going and other Democrats who either are vicious homophobic bigots or have no problem when the campaign of a candidate for the Democratic nomination associates with them.

My mother goes to church, and is not a homophobic bigot. In fact, she gently suggests that the other residents of her senior cits' building shut the fuck up when they start yammering about things like same-sex marriage. And they generally do. Are there really no Christians that a Democratic candidate could associate with who's a little more like that? I'll send my little old white Canadian mother down to fill the gap, if somebody wants her.

But its going to take some courage, and some humility, and a willingness to listen and at least consider that the other side is not evil. I don't see it yet.

Yeah, I'm not seeing it either. Not when someone calls for others to exhibit those traits and starts out with a false framing of the very thing in issue.

I'm just a foreigner, but I can never for the life of me understand why someone thinks that doing things like this will be productive.


As one writer put it, the position of LGBT activists is 100% acceptance, with no conditions or exceptions. The position of the vast majority of clergy is 100% non-acceptance, with no conditions and no exceptions. I don't see any middle ground on which to begin even a conversation.

What's actually wrong with keep your damned mouth shut and then have a conversation about something important? "Important" not including other people's private lives, in this context -- or things that aren't actually in issue in the campaign.

It strikes me that "LGBT activists" realize pretty clearly that they're not about to get any of the candidates to come out in favour of same-sex marriage, for instance, so I wouldn't think they'd be starting the conversation about that too often. And I don't imagine they'd have much problem with a candidate sharing the stage with a homophobic bigot, given the small field that would be left to choose from otherwise, if the homophobic bigot wasn't actually making a career out of his/her homophobic bigotry. Same-sex marriage, e.g., isnt an actual issue in this campaign, so why does homophobic bigotry need to be played up in order to get votes?

[IndianaJones]

15. man...I've just about seen it all now.nt.

[Rowdyboy]

16. You confuse Christianity with fundamentalism-they aren't he same

I am an openly gay member of a church (Episcopal) that welcomes my partner and me. Many Christian denominations have similar positions.

I have no intention of "co-existing" with David Duke types to find common ground. There is no common ground. What I'd like to see is a coalition of like-minded progressives, including Christians, Jews, Hindus, Islam, atheists, gays, straights, minorities, labor, academia and anyone else screwed by Bushco.

It isn't necessary to include the haters to win a majority.

[sampsonblk]

98. We could never win anything without the religious community

Just speaking of the numbers: from the info I found, 61% of church-going blacks believe homosexuality is a choice, and 64% of them believe its wrong and that gays ought to be 'saved' from it.
(http://thejusticeofmh.blogspot.com/2007/07/bet-poll-black-church-and-homosexuality.html)

With numbers like that, we all need each other. Plus what kind of victory is it when you win by tossing another group overboard?

[Karenina]

17. Separation of Church and State...

Such a fine principle! ;-)

[freestyle]

21. We listen too much to the religious right.

I think you are overstating the position of clergy. As noted by another poster, there are denominations that support civil equality, and a somewhat smaller pool that also supports equality within their denominations. There are people to talk to. There are also lots of GLBT religious people, some of whom are in leadership positions. Even though there will be an uphill battle with some people's theology, there are more who recognize a distinction between religion and government than we realize. That is where we can find some common ground. It does not mean that we as GLBT people cave on anything. The political goal is not so much acceptance, but 100% equal citizenship, and this must remain the goal. 100% acceptance within religions is a fight best waged by GLBT people and our allies within religious communities.

[independentpiney]

23. I was going to write a reply to the op

But there's nothing I could add to yours.

[ellacott]

24. So true

It seems so hard to get some to understand that every church is not associated with the religious right.

Many people are also comparing this struggle to the struggle of the Civil Rights Movement. If you want to hold on to that comparison you would have to also accept that racism is still alive. It will never be 100%. Sadly, there will always be some type of discrimination present in this world.

[William769]

28. How would it not be the same as the Civil rights movement?

[ellacott]

29. What I'm saying is that Civil Rights Movement is still ongoing

There was never a kumbaya movement when all white people loved all black people(and vice versa). There are still racial tensions in existence today.

[William769]

30. So was that a food fight between blacks and whites?

Or was it a righteous cause?

ON EDIT: the racism is still going on the Civil rights is over with. The African Americans got the Civil liberties due them.

[ellacott]

32. There are still others who don't value the human worth to minorities n/t

Many people still don't accept minorities as worthy of respect.

[William769]

33. Thats not the point. The point is they have the rights, we don't.

I have a pretty good idea what you want to say, but just won't say it.

[ellacott]

37. Before I answer, tell me what I want to say

This will be interesting.

[William769]

40. So my post can get deleted?

A African American get kicked out of his apartment for being black, so does a Homosexual for being a Homosexual, who's protected under federal law? A African American is fired for being black, A Homosexual is fired for being Homosexual, who's protected under federal law? Thats just two, there are many many more!

You can take you sanctimonious bullshit and post it at freerepublic.com for all I care.

[ellacott]

44. You have no idea what you are talking about

and calm the fuck down!! Goodness

The point I have been making is a continuation of an earlier discussion IN THIS THREAD!!!

It was about being accepted and not having anyone dimish their worth as a human being. What I am saying is that even with the strides of the Civil Rights Movement there is still a segment of this society that still hates Blacks.

I understand all the legal inequities and they do need to be changed. You have NEVER seen a post from me saying ANYTHING to the contrary.

This is why it so hard to have any type of discussion. People go off and they don't even know what in the hell they are talking about.

Goodness...

[William769]

45. I will calm down when bullshit posts like this disappear.

[ellacott]

47. If you read you can calm down even sooner

There was no BS in what I posted. You just jumped the gun like you frequently do on this board.

I think you like being angry.

[William769]

53. And I love how you like being passive aggressive.

Bullshit is bullshit. Post #27 sums your OP up perfectly.

[ellacott]

63. passive, aggressive? Please, you are so reaching to save face

I don't know what post 27 has to do with anything I have posted.

It seems like we have a failure to communicate. We are definately not on the same page.

[William769]

65. What am I saving face on?

Post #27 has every thing to do with what you posted. It's in your headline. Or are you the one the can't even read what you wrote.

[ellacott]

74. What headline?

I am not the OP. I didn't write that.

[William769]

76. I stand corrected on that. Sorry for the inconvenience.

[freestyle]

61. We? They? I thought all of us were fighting for equality.

I get the point you are trying to make that the struggle for equality for all people continues. The language you used does not help with Black people of any sexual orientation. You might want to think about the numerous violations of Black people's right to vote in 2000 and 2004 before heralding the arrival of racial equality.

As someone who is Black and gay, I don't have the luxury of compartmentalization. The problem is a system of privilege in the U.S. that is rooted in White supremacy, patriarchy, and religious exclusion. We have to hack at the roots of all of that for the system to collapse, and it takes all people of good will to do it. The history of racism and sexism within the GLBT community is a barrier to cooperation. Enough of we and they. Work on us.

[NMMNG]

42. That doesn't mean our struggle is so very different

We're fighting for many of the same things, and have experience very similar injustices.

[ellacott]

52. Yes, I agree

I'm not trying to point out the differences. I'm just saying when it's all said and done there may remain a segment of our society that may still discriminate.

[William769]

56. Let them discriminate.

At least we along with others will have prtections under the law. Is that so hard to understand?

[ellacott]

64. No one is discriminating, now you are just lying n/t

[William769]

67. I'm lying? what are you smoking? You posted it!

Sheesh. :eyes:

[ellacott]

77. What did I post?

Are you saying that I was the one who originally posted this topic?

[William769]

80. Is post #52 not yours?

I admit, I make mistakes, but not a whole lot of them.

[ellacott]

84. And I have no problem admitting mistakes I've made

Yes, THAT is my post. I replied before I fully understood what you were saying. When you posted "Let them discriminate" I thought you were saying that I was discriminating.

This is my mistake.

[DURHAM D]

68. Will - check out my post #57.

I am waiting for an answer that won't come.

The problem in a certain demographic is the very hardened idea that civil rights don't include gay rights. They are not related issues to them.

It is sort of a "we got ours and are still working on it" and you have to get yours on your own.

In other words, don't try to hook your train cars to the back of our engine and train because you will fuck us up. This is an extremely ironic view considering who started their engine in the first place.

Update: I did get a response and not one either you or I will like. It says it all.

[William769]

72. I had this guy pegged from the git go.

And he has the nerve to tell me I'm angry. Thats about the only damn thing he's been right about!

[ellacott]

75. The problem is that you want to angry at me and you're not even trying to understand n/t

[William769]

78. I guess I'm not the only one.

[ellacott]

81. I gues you're not

whatever that means.

[DURHAM D]

85. Will - try being my age.

I was a little white girl growing up in an a very small all white town in an all white region of the country during the 50s. At school I read Weekly Reader and Junior Scholastic (before tv) and found out about the civil rights movement and unfair treatment of negroes. I tried to discuss it with my parents. They told me to ignore it. I couldn't ignore it. From the time I was a nine years old I became vocal and concerned about civil and human rights. Every current event report that I did in elementary school was about or related to the civil rights movement.

The first time a child realizes that their parents have told them a lie it is a big deal, a really big deal. The first lie my parents told me was "that discrimination is no big deal and it does not concern us". I argued with my parents for years and years. I hated going to church but I paid attention in Sunday school and used biblical arguments with my family - it didn't work. I was sent to my room time after time - usually from the Sunday dinner table. Some of my teachers became upset with me because I wouldn't let go of the discussion. Some of my peers avoided me.

That first lie, and my concern for others not like me, lead to an emotional and then physical separation from my tribe/my family. That emotional separation still exists today. And now, the very group that I cared so much about tells me to fuck off. What if all of the white people had said "Not our problem?"

I alternate between being very sad and very angry about the lack of understanding of our human and civil rights struggle.

Peace

[William769]

87. Sorry to hear that, but your character speaks volumes.

I am a little bit younger than you are but to give you a little perspective on me, I grew up in a little town in Appalachia with a klansman for a father. I know what being lied to is all about.

Luckily I did not come out of the closet till after his death.

[DURHAM D]

89. And now, little black kids are being lied to by their parents and clergy.

Someday they will look back and think about that first big lies that they heard from their parents. Among them will be:

"Being gay is a choice".

"Gay rights are not civil rights".

"We can't help them with their struggle - it will diminish our own struggle".

"I wish they would just shut up - they are not like us."

"God will deal with them".

[ellacott]

92. Not true at all

Gay rights are not civil rights? That's so disingenuous.

We can't help them with their struggle? So, there are only white gay people?

[ellacott]

88. Now why was I wrong to use the term Civil Rights Movement?

When it's used in your post?

[ellacott]

79. Actually you can not be further fromt he truth.

What you say is so wrong.

[ThomCat]

83. Really, I get the same impression he does.

That your idea of civil rights doesn't really include GLBT people.

Or at least, it only includes a token level of concern for us.

[ellacott]

86. I've already explained myself in this thread

That's really a very wrong impression and rather surprising.

You guys will have to go back through this post to understand why I even brought it up. If you think I am saying that Civil Rights does not apply to gays you are very wrong.

[DURHAM D]

57. Would I be correct in assuming that your "Civil Rights Movement"

is referring to AA and does not include the "Gay Rights Movement"?

[ellacott]

66. yes n/t

[Karenina]

91. BOO!!! HISS!!!

:freak:

[ellacott]

95. BOO HISS what?

Now what did I say wrong???

[CK_John]

26. Politics is all about economics, anything else is a ego massage. n/t

[dbackjon]

27. To call this a food fight is insulting

We (GLBT and allies) are fighting for BASIC human rights. The right to love, and have that love given equal standing with everyone else.

[LeftCoast]

34. Gays have been allowed in the 'big tent' for decades?

Really? Because I can remember being vaguely tolerated under the tent in the 90's for the first time and only very recently (like say the last two Presidential elections) have we been more accepted. Well, our money is accepted anyway.

Anyway, it's not gays and lesbians that have the problem. We're not telling fundamentalists what to do or believe. THEY, however, are doing their best to legislate us out of existence. I'd like to know where in that equation one can find grounds for compromise. What are they being asked to give up?

[BeyondGeography]

39. Your last sentence is very strong and undeniably true

Gutsy post.

[Cameron27]

48. I wonder if you would have had the audacity

to refer to another civil rights issue, say the act of Rosa Parks simply taking a seat on a bus, as a food fight with the state. I wonder if you would have told her to find some humility and be willing to listen to the other side because it wasn't evil.

[sampsonblk]

101. Rosa Parks' quiet act of humble defiance changed the world

No one ever had to tell Rosa Parks to find some humility.

Moving right along: This is a food fight, complete with yelling, threats, accusations and name-calling.

[jefferson_dem]

49. I bet the repugs are loving that this "wedge issue" is being driven between Democratic

coalitions of voters.

[ThomCat]

51. I'm sure you're right.

We expect that the left will accept us and our concerns. But many others on the left wish we would shut up and go away. It's hard to reconcile that.

[IndianaJones]

54. makes me glad to be in the center. nt.

[jefferson_dem]

59. I hope we are able to work through these challenges.

As a party, we should embrace both the GLBT community and the *progressive* faith community. It starts in dialog. Sadly, many seem unwilling to even go there.

[ellacott]

93. Yes, many don't want to go there. n/t

[ThomCat]

99. And many people seem to think that "going there"

means that GLBT people need to compromise our desire and fight for civil rights. x(

[ellacott]

109. I have no idea what that means

What does that mean? This is one of the problems with dialogue. You assume things people didn't say. Instead of trying to understand you reach the most negative conclusions and shut off any possible communication.

[William769]

97. You think Donnie is from the "*progressive* faith community".?

[ellacott]

110. What is the progressive faith community? n/t

[bullwinkle428]

62. I'm not all that concerned about the wingnuts, as they have their

own internal struggles to deal with - look at the Dobson fundie movement rumblings about a third-party over Giuliani's views on abortion, and not being "gay-bashie" enough...

[silverweb]

96. Agreed 100%.

I made the mistake of saying something very similar in another thread yesterday and got venom in return.

It's all so completely counterproductive and sad. :(

[JerseygirlCT]

100. Please don't lump all the clergy in there.

My church is in the news rather often right now for its inclusive stand on gay rights.

I do believe at least the Reform Jewish movement, and I think now even the Conservatives (my memory could be wrong) are quite accepting of gay clergy members and gay rights.

The other mainline Protestant churches (such as the ECLU, the Methodists and the Presbyterians) are moving in a gay rights direction. The UCC has been there for *ages*.

It's a question of squeaky wheels, I think. The perception that there is a solid block of anti-gay religious leaders in this country is distorted by the loud and angry voices coming from those on the right, eager to represent all belief communities. Makes for good media, too. Hot stuff. The problem is, it's not a true representation.

I think our successful candidate will be staunchly for gay rights, as they are quite simply, human rights. And *also* willing to talk to everyone and anyone. That doesn't mean hiding or abandoning a strong supportive position. Honestly and conviction will go a long way, especially when attached to a set of listening ears.

[sampsonblk]

102. I certainly didn't mean to do that

I am speaking of the vast majority. I recognize that it doesn't apply to all churches or all church-goers.

[JerseygirlCT]

107. I'm not even really sure it's the vast majority

Just the loud ones, really.

Not that it isn't a real problem. It is. But I do think it's changing, and that it's really important for those who support gay rights to remember who their friends are, you know?

Bottom line, I think, is that we have to encourage talking -- between people who don't agree most of all. Because nothing good is going to happen until people can start interacting on issues like this with real people.

[killbotfactory]

103. Some think there should be no place for them in the democratic party

However they will be voting for, and helping to nominate, a candidate who will expand and protect the rights of the GLBT community. When they come over to our side it is THEY who are compromising on the issue, not us. If they are willing to look past their own personal views on abortion, or homosexuality, and support candidates who champion the right to choose and equality under law, then we should be willing to work with them.

[sampsonblk]

106. I agree.

[JerseygirlCT]

108. Even for those who are anti-choice and opposed to gay rights,

there are lots and lots of places to find common ground.

The Democratic party is the party that has represented the "have-nots". We're the social justice party. The marriage between the religious right and the right wing has always been an uncomfortable marriage of political convenience.

Feeding the hungry, tending the sick, taking care of the environment... all of this is stuff even the most rabid right wing Christians are called to do. I think many of them have always cared about that, and many others are re-awakening, in political terms, to that call.

We should be willing to find ways to work with them on that, without giving an inch on our other values, such as women's rights, and gay civil rights. Even on those issues, there are ways to find common ground without *giving* ground.

[TrogL]

105. I like my former priest's take on it

"I believe that homosexual behaviour is a sin. Be that as it may, I will not address the matter from the pulpit and if pressed on the issue I will feel obligated for first share my views on bankers. DON'T GET ME STARTED"