I can never support any candidate wholeheartedly that doesn't support gay marriage. That's all.

[EFerrari]

In the sixties, my viewpoint would get more attention. In the seventies when I was an adult, it got more media play. Since the erosion of the progressive positions of the Democratic Party's liberal positions in the late 70s and 80s, I expect to be chided and ridiculed. Fine.

But, I need our GLBT brothers and sisters to know, there is a hardcore and widespread resistance to bigotry and no, we won't change our minds. There is no way. And, we are in the ascendancy.

And anyone who says we have to get the White House back at any cost is both right and wrong. We do need the White House back and we will get it. But through-out this process, we don't stand down. Because standing down means allowing our country to slip back into outright bigotry and socially sanctioned abuse.

We can do better than that and we will do better than that.

I don't care, at bottom, who redresses these abuses. But redressed they must be. Period.

If that's too hot for Clinton or Obama, (and we all know it is), maybe we should mail them both potholders to enable them to do their fucking jobs as public servants.

For my dearest Andy, who would have no problem believing that I am pissing people off. And, for Thom who gave me poetry.

[msongs]

1. sorry al gore and dennis kucinich are out, leaving obama/hillary & their bible groups nt

[Mezzo]

8. and OBama won't even get his piccie taken with Gavin Newsome. nt

[sellitman]

2. Does this mean you are sitting this one out?

I hope not. I am behind the Gay & Lesbian community too but there are other issues too. Never give up the other issues for one.

[BklynChick]

3. it bugs me that the mainstream dems can't take a stand about this.

[EFerrari]

9. Imho, they feel that they can't. And they are wrong, WRONG

for backtracking to hold their positions. That backtracking has gotten us to here.

[EFerrari]

5. No. For now it means I'm going to work to elect a Democrat

and it also means I will let that Democrat know what is important to me.

When people say, there are more important issues, they usually mean, there are more important issues in their lives.

Who can disagree with that?

But, I'm telling you, when we fail to stand tall for the GLBT community, we are failing everyone. And at bottom, we know it, don't we?

[myrna minx]

28. I agree with you. GLBT rights are human rights. n/t

[sellitman]

33. Agreed.

No reason why we shouldn't demand equal treatment for our GLBT brothers and sisters.

The cloud they are made to live under is shameful.

The hate on the Right is even worse.

[KoKo]

4. Is a "One Issue Candidate" really ..in the end...GOOD for a Party? Aren't Repugs all about

ending "Women's RIGHT TO CHOOSE?" How could you say it's "One Issue" for you? :shrug:

[EFerrari]

6. This "one" issue is a measure of how safe ALL of us are

in our civil rights.

After 8 years of BushCo, certainly we know it always comes home, don't we?

Even if we aren't progressives and don't stand with the gay community, is there any doubt whatsoever that these abuses redound?

No, there isn't.

[KoKo]

10. I think that "one issue" is very conflicting and narrow minded...but whatever "floats you boat." n/

[EFerrari]

11. How is insisting on civil rights for all Americans narrow minded? n/t

[KoKo]

15. because so many voters don't agree with your "one issue" for religious reasons...

Not ME...but others...:shrug:

[EFerrari]

18. What do civil rights have to do with religion?

:shrug:

[KoKo]

22. We've got those "Fundies" on our Tail. Just because they are "quiet" these days

doesn't mean that they and their issues aren't "lurking" and waiting for McCain to fill in the final "Conservative Judges" that will complete the AGENDA that BUSH II has FULFILLED about WAR/GUNS/SECURITY....they are WAITING for SUPREMES to GIVE AWAY WOMEN'S RIGHT TO CHOOSE! :shrug:

[EFerrari]

25. All the more reason to stand tall against them. n/t

[KoKo]

30. Wait...who do you think here on DU isn't working night and day to do that?

:shrug: We've been working since "Selection 2000" and some of us before that... We are getting "long in the tooth" and starting to get grey hair over it!

[EFerrari]

31. Your reading of this very forum isn't better than mine.

:)

[KoKo]

35. lol's...who knows these days...it's sort of all ...well .."conflicted." n/t

[EFerrari]

36. The media and the felonious wing tries to keep us off balance.

No kidding. :)

[KoKo]

42. I think...what it comes down to is that "Equal Rights for ALL" doesn't ever hold with

Repugs...and that our Dems often "play games" about it...but in general are more open to trying than the Repugs.

So..."should we ALL have EQUAL RIGHTS" has been that battle since those "white guys" did our Constitution and we've been working to keep Amending that Document ever since.

BUT..with Repugs...the stuff stops with back before Slaves and Women won the right to vote. And the dreadful alliance with the Neo-Cons and Religious Right means very few of us are "allowed freedoms."

I just can't get that the "Neo-Cons" somehow forgot when THEIR FREEDOMS were TAKEN AWAY...not so long ago in their "parents or Grandparents" memory, in another Country. But then, Money and Power does a lot to wipe away "memory" and history.

[earthlover]

It's not! But to make this the single issue for basing a presidential support....

What if McCain came out for gay marriage? Would you support McCain then, in spite of all the other issues he is neanderthal on? He would not of course do this.

But to take the OP's words, would not support anyone who would not support gay marriage, then since Hillary and Obama have not come out for gay marriage, I guess this means sitting it out.

I guess I could argue as a devil's advocate and ask what you would do if there were a third party candidate who supported full gay marriage. But he was so conservative he would make McCain look like Abby Hoffman!
The guy is a fascist, wants to end democracy, loves high gas prices and thinks anything under $10 gallon is too cheap, believes that nothing shoudl be done for the mortgage mess other than bail out the mortgage companies, believes blacks, hispanics, should not be given equal rights any more, and that all American citizens who are Muslims should be deported, all people with Hispanic names should be sent to Mexico without a trial, and all churches except fundamentalists should pay high taxes, and have government recording of all services.

So....you single issue folks....would you vote for this type of dictatorial fascism because he was right on your issue?

I thought not....

[dbmk]

56. He/she said "cannot support wholeheartedly"

Not that a vote would not come anyway.

[EFerrari]

60. You're reading something that I didn't write, I think. n/t

[EmilyAnne]

12. I agree. Animal rights, women's rights and gay rights are all indicators of the

basic human rights of a culture. Where there is homophobia, there is sexism, racism, cruelty to animals, greed, unmerited warfare, poverty, poor medical care, etc. They all accompany one another.

[KoKo]

19. Now...when you add Animal Rights you are going to get alot of Gen Y on your side...

and Gay Rights..and "Women's Rights" are going to be downscale from the concerns of young voters today... Because so many already FEEL they HAVE "WOMEN'S RIGHTS" and they don't see a big deal about it.

But, Pets for "childless couples or those waiting until they are in their 40's to adopt or do fertility treatments...is a BIG THING with the concerns of that age group... (I know, because they are my family members).

[Solon]

52. Who gives a shit if its good for the party? They aren't worth voting for if they don't support...

equal rights anyways, so what's the point of voting for them?

There isn't a reason to vote FOR them, instead we vote against Republicans, because they are so much worse than the Democratic party. The fact of the matter is when you have the devil you know, and the devil you can't stand, you vote for the one you know, but that doesn't make them an angel either.

[Bluebear]

7. That's my friend talking! :)

[EmilyAnne]

13. You've got a smart friend!

[Aloha Spirit]

14. fwiw, I have heard O acknowledge, twice now, in interviews, that it's possible his

opposition to Gay Marriage is due to his religious beliefs, in which case he would need to reconsider his opposition. If that's not some fine politician-speak, I don't know what is.
Anyway, fwiw.

[Mimosa]

16. Single Issue voters R SILLY

Single issue voters. DUMB. Dumb. Dumber.

People are starving in several countries, war profiteers are making out like bandits while the lower classes fall further behind. Globalists exploit workers......

Single issue voters are silly people. Abortions? let 'em have it. They will or not, legal or not. gay rights? I worked for it back in the 70s. But anti-war is more important.
Litmus tests are what rightwingers do. Wedge issues are what Reagan and Bush#1 did to divide and rule. Straight, gay, inbetween, confused? Eventually we all get old, tired, and sick. Sexuality is waaaaayyy down in importance, certainly well below the economy and lack of education, jobs and opportunity.

Only bourgeois spoiled people think their personal lives are more important than issues which are 'holistic.'

[EFerrari]

17. LOL

:rofl:

[wiggs]

20. Hard to know what Obama and Clinton would do after elected. Many stances

and even votes they make are balancing acts between their real beliefs and political positioning for maximum votes in the primary and GE. I can talk myself into the belief that both would support gay marriage once elected as dem president.

[EFerrari]

23. The problem I see is that the RW noise machine will go into full swing

as it did in the Clinton years -- no respite.

So, that whole "being in office" thing becomes a mirrage.

I may be wrong, and I'd like to be wrong.

But, both of them are courting the "center" -- which means they are courting and, in fact, promoting anti-democratic influences that believe it's just peachy to deny American citizens their civil rights.

That's not good enough.

[Stinky The Clown]

21. The words of your OP title could be mine

K&R

We have many chickens in our party.

[sniffa]

24. K&R

:hug:

[EFerrari]

32. I was just thinking of my friends today.

And of how little I've done that matters. And, you know.

:hug:

[Coexist]

26. .....

[stevenleser]

27. Why are people assuming sfexpat2000 is a one issue person?

I have no problem with this being their most important issue as it is an extremely important one to me as well. But sfexpat never said anything about something like, for instance, supporting someone who is pro-gay who would in every other way be a non-Democrat. THAT is a one issue person.

Perhaps asking sfexpat2000 for a more complete expression of his overall political beliefs might be better than a kneejerk condemnation.

[EFerrari]

29. It's a measure of how cowed we've been

that more people don't know the raft of issues I try to work, let alone, that I'm a she.

lol

It's all right. It will be all right. I have the utmost faith in DU. :)

[KoKo]

34. Cowed and Cowered in our Bunkers and it's not just Repugs who do this to us..

sadly it's a wing of our Dems that do it to us, also. At least that's what I've observed since Selection 2000 and Before...and when I got INVOLVED ast PRECINCT CHAIR...when Kerry ran. I was never so disgusted to see what the Political Process really is...than when I got elected for Precinct Chair.

My only hope was Howard Dean as DNC Chair after he couldn't get to the Presidency...but working with the Party Bosses and the "clueless" establishment...well it was an "eye-opener."

BUT...there are MANY PROGRESSIVES WORKING DAY AND NIGHT...to CHANGE IT ALL...it's just going to take alot LONGER than those of us who are "impatient" ever thought ...to CLEAN IT ALL UP...and we will fight with our OWN DEMS to get it DONE... It will be DIRTY and many WILL NOT WANT TO DO IT...but SOMEONE HAS TO! SOMEONE...has to.

[truedelphi]

37. I.C.N.S.W.H. any candidate who doesn't support

GAY MARRIAGE
UNIVERSAL SINGLE PAYER HEALTH CARE
GETTING THE FEDERAL RESERVE OUT OF THE BANKING SYSTEM
STOPPING THE WAR
RIDDING US OF THE INANE MEDIA

[1776Forever]

38. Someone had something similar the other day - I posted this comment...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=5756683&mesg_id=5757754

This will give you a concise format for how both the candidates feel on gay issues.

Blessings to you. I hope this issue is answered for all who want it to happen soon.

[RainDog]

39. democrats should learn a lesson from the Clinton prez

I may be totally wrong about my "strategy," but this is what I think would be effective, not simply positioning.

first thing out Clinton got into the gays/military issue. the issue ended in a stupid "don't ask, don't tell" compromise that doesn't deal with the issue. instead, the issue brought the homophobes out in force and the reactionary right kept feeding them gay fear fodder through the mid-terms.

I say this NOT to say that I think we should wait for equal rights. However, I think the smart way to approach this is at the state level. Same with medical marijuana. States can pass laws that provide equal rights in hiring for people for various reasons.

In order to keep this out of an election as much as possible, states should hold referendums (or whatever the proper venue for law making via states.) They could even have a slate called the "blue laws" referendum to vote on things such as medicinal marijuana, civil marriage (not "union" - but civil b/c the state isn't the church, etc.) for gays and legalization of hemp (for biofuel, plastic replacement, etc.etc.)

States that vote will have large urban populations to counter the minority fear factor voters - in many states. Others are libertarian or contrarian enough to possibly go with. I don't know if a majority of states would fit this, but I would bet that at least these would: Alaska, Cali, Conn. Deleware, Hawaii, Illinois (maybe?), Indiana and KY would defintely vote pro-hemp, Maine, Maryland (?), Mass, Minn, Nevada, New Hamp, New Jersey, New Mexico (?), New York, North Carolina, Oregan, Vermont, maybe Virginia and Washington State. Not all, of course. However, those states who do pass laws.

The majority of the American public is not opposed to these issues. However, when you combine them with election politics, you make them unworkable for the politicians ... simply b/c of the hysteria among some ppl. Also, it would be more expensive for the minority to raise money to fight these issues if they were outside of regular elections. I know all states don't have a referendum measure in place, but don't they have other ways of issue voting rather than politician voting?

Why couldn't the fed. govt. have a policy that it supports human rights across states. So that a person who was married in one state, by law, should also have his/her marriages recognized by other states? Of course there are going to be people blocking the doors of the school buildings to get the married gays and lesbians out. but look at how well that served the segregationists.

okay, so you can all tell me now why this idea is undoable.

[nomorenomore08]

40. So many people are so torn between "political expediency" and "doing the right thing."

So many dilemmas, so many potential pitfalls. And we'll never even get this whole website, let alone the whole Party, to agree on a "master list" of priorities. Does downplaying civil rights issues win elections, or lose them, or a bit of both?

More than anything I'm mad as hell that so many people in this country are willing to basically vote themselves into starvation, just because they're so afraid that immigrants will overrun the country and their kids will turn gay. It's a suicidal drive to preserve some notion of "purity," be it racial, religious, or sexual. The archetypal good-ol'-boy says he'd rather die than watch "queers" get married, that he'd rather his children die than have their own children be "half-breeds." Well, then fucking DIE already, you toothless snake-handling piece of shit! :argh:

/:rant: off

P.S. This tirade was in no way directed at anyone on this thread or DU generally. I know the vast majority of us are onboard where it counts, and the rest just need some time to come around. I'm just sick and tired of elections being decided by bullshit fear-mongering, instead of what really matters.

[Orsino]

41. Agreed. I will be wincing as I vote for the Democrat in November.

There are no good excuses for being wrong on this issue. None.

[Orsino]

43. Agreed. I will be wincing as I vote for the Democrat in November.

There are no good excuses for being wrong on this issue. None.

[LWolf]

44. Agreed. n/t

[truedelphi]

45. K & R'ed (I really like the pot holder idea!!) n/t

[EFerrari]

50. Hey -- I'll crochet them in the respective campaign colors!

lol

:)

[gateley]

46. With a Dem in the WH,

I think we'd stand a much better chance of legalizing (or whatever the correct term is) gay marriage. With a Repub in the WH, good luck on that.

Please reconsider.

[nomorenomore08]

48. The same could be said for a lot of other progressive issues.

Although, to be fair, the OP never said she wouldn't vote for the Dem candidate, just that she'd have mixed feelings about doing so.

[gateley]

49. Yes - which is why I'm hopeful

that people look at the big picture in November, and look past the issues/character/whatever we disagree with the nom on.

I know I'll have mixed feelings, too, if my candidate isn't the nominee, so I DO empathize.

[EFerrari]

51. The Democrats have no business holding the gay community hostage.

Don't mistake me. I'll vote for Obama. But he'll get feedback. It's a mistake to wait for anything or anyone. It's a mistake to tell people, I can wait to be a fully entitled citizen.

That tactic has never moved anything forward.

[newmajority]

47. Electing Obama and a TRUE Democratic majority would be a good start.

Ultimately, gay marriage is probably going to be decided by the Supreme Court, so it's logical that we have enough justices on the court to shut out Scalia and Thomas, and any other Bush Crime Family appointees that might side with them.

As far as state by state issues go, the common sense approach would be civil unions with the full legal equivalence to marriage. Or let's put it this way..... the state issues a marriage license which is the same regardless of the genders of the parties involved. Same piece of paper for everyone, same rights for everyone. And leave the churches, synagogues, mosques, (or whatever) to decide who will or not get a religious ceremony within their own walls.

Church doesn't control state. State doesn't control church. Everyone has the same rights, everybody wins. Except the 'Pukes who can't use it as a wedge issue any longer.

If anyone has a better plan for this one, I'd love to hear it.

[donheld]

53. You're exactly right

[cboy4]

54. :-)

:hug:

[mattclearing]

55. I'm trying to figure out how this only has 11 recommendations.

Better make it 12.

[Tyler Durden]

57. #13. Because it brings up a distasteful truth:

That the Democratic Party can't seem to field a candidate that will truly fulfill the Oath of Office to support the constitution.

Specifically, Equal Treatment Under The Law as guaranteed by the federal government under the 14th amendment.

Neither Clinton nor Obama support Equal Treatment.

[EFerrari]

58. In 1978, President Carter,came to Sacramento to support

Democrats. Jerry Brown had to whisper a reminder, but Carter did tell the crowd to vote against the Briggs Initiative, Proposition 6, that would have banned gays/lesbians from teaching in CA public schools.

We've lost a lot of ground since then. Hell, we've lost our public school system since then.

[mattclearing]

59. Sadly this and handful of other "litmus" issues are the difference between Obama, Hillary, and

Kucinich in terms of electability. We can only prevail by keeping the pressure on.