I helped the Democratic Party win the last two elections

[mtf80123]

As a Gay American... Why should I continue to support a party that does not support EQUAL rights for all?

I keep hearing from our straight Brothers and Sisters that the Gay Comunity did not reach out to our straight counterparts to "Enlighten" them of our struggle.

Does the Democratic Party "deserve" our support in 2012?

[rwheeler31]

1. yes

[mtf80123]

3. Why?

[babylonsister]

2. Oy. Welcome to DU. Where do you keep hearing this? nt

[mtf80123]

10. Quite a few suposedly "progressive" entertainers actually

www.gotomario.com

www.bigeddieradio.com

And others.

[babylonsister]

16. Entertainers? You should start paying attention by your own self.

I'm serious. Google is your friend, and it's gone both ways. But the alternative is infinitely worse.

[Creideiki]

49. No, really it's not

The alternative is the status quo. The Democrats offer the status quo.

Hooray for us.

I'd be happier with forced deportation to a country that wants us. Spain would probably be happy to have the talent infusion, for example.

[mitchtv]

55. there was a very large post in DU this past week

blaming the anti campaign sorry you missed it

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=221x122307
Sadly the poster is obviously a follower of A. Sullivan

[stillcool]

4. Where do you live?

Are you involved in promoting gay rights in your state?

[Enrique]

5. no, you should vote against the dems in 2012

[Occam Bandage]

6. No, I'm pretty sure you should put the Republicans back in power.

They're much better on gay rights.

[mtf80123]

7. Yeah..

sure they are

[CreekDog]

8. Did Abraham Lincoln deserve the support of blacks?

because he didn't free all the slaves in 1863.

This is your decision, I can't make it for you.

[mtf80123]

11. Did President Obama...

Support full and equal rights for all?

[CreekDog]

13. nope, not 100%

ok?

your decision again. you may have to weigh support for advancing civil rights against whether they support 100% of the civil rights issues out there.

how you decide that is your call.

[mtf80123]

17. Well....

there you go...

The race to the "center" is too easy a path.

[Occam Bandage]

19. The Dems are moving leftward, not centerward, on gay rights.

Keep in mind that it was a Democrat who signed DOMA into law.

[mtf80123]

24. Thank you

Wonderful "progress" with that law.

[Occam Bandage]

27. Yes. The Dems have certainly progressed on gay rights since the '90s,

when DOMA and DADT were signed into law. Obama opposes both, and supports civil unions. I'm not sure how you can claim that is a centerward trend. Heck, if we could guarantee full civil union protection, end DADT, repeal DOMA, and extend discrimination protection in Obama's first term, that would be the best Presidency for gay rights in history. We would only be one tiny little change--adding the word "marriage" to civil unions--from winning.

How you can look at that and say, "everything sucks, we might as well put the Republicans in power" is beyond me.

[mtf80123]

34. I never said that everything sucks

There is no such thing as "Equal Rights" until all have them.

[mtf80123]

39. You say that as if it were a wonderful thing...

to keep certain tax paying citizens (who pay a higher tax rate than those of the breeding variety) to ensure your children have an education.

[Jamastiene]

58. The Democratic Party has been moving right for years now.

If it was moving leftward, Dennis Kucinich wouldn't have been ignored completely by the majority when he ran for president.

[CreekDog]

20. who said anything about the center?

i didn't.

are you trying to start a fight?

if you don't want to support the party because only some Democrats and not all Democrats support same sex marriage, then that is your decision.

[mtf80123]

26. Not trying to support a fight.

However, you are right that a Democrat supported and signed in to law the "Defense of Marriage Act" DOMA.

Enshrining bigotry as the law of the land.

[CreekDog]

42. do you support Democrats who do support full civil rights

which includes marriage?

do you hold DOMA against Democrats who voted against it?

[Occam Bandage]

14. During the campaign, he supported

extending all legal benefits and protections of marriage to gay couples. He did not, however, support extending the word "marriage" to such unions. Sadly, his was the best gay-rights platform of any mainstream Democratic candidate. It is unfortunate that the full equality implied in the word "marriage" is not yet part of the Democratic platform, but there is no denying that the Obama platform is at least a refreshing step in the right direction.

[mtf80123]

28. sure... ok

[mtf80123]

29. Equal but Separate...

gotcha

[Occam Bandage]

33. To ask an entirely unrelated question,

are you currently chemically impaired?

[mtf80123]

35. Why?

You got some shit you want to sell?

[Creideiki]

50. SOME benefits and protections

But we don't know which ones.

And with his support of the anti-gay roll of toilet paper to head up the DNC, well, it's no wonder that the gay rights language that existed in the previous party platforms was scrubbed this year.

[Two Americas]

40. bad comparison

Lincoln didn't promise Blacks anything, and didn't pander to them or depend upon their support. He also did not invite any pro-slavery ministers to his inauguration or any other pro-slavery people, or even wishy washy people anywhere else near his administration. He had a much smaller and less clear mandate then from the people to oppose slavery than the Democrats do today to oppose the religious right and Reaganomics.

A better comparison would be the Whigs - who kept promising to oppose slavery, but then compromised with and caved to the other party again and again. The arguments the Whigs used were - we are better than the alternative, you have no other choice, these things take time, we can't change things overnight, we are taking baby steps, the public won't support anything that radical, the Abolitionists are fringe radical purists, not all slave owners are evil, you are helping the opposition when you criticize the Whigs, the other party has some good ideas, you aren't being realistic, you want Buchanan???!! Are you insane?? etc., etc., etc.

Any of that sound familiar?

Yes, the unthinkable happened - James Buchanan was elected in 1856, mostly because of Whig voters defecting to the Republicans, and it took a little time before the Republicans were fully in power, but once the anti-slavery forces gave up on the Whigs and their endless excuses and started standing up to them, things were set in motion and it only took four years to complete the transition.


...

[Greyhound]

45. Once again, I stand in awe of your perception.

To have amassed the knowledge, and understanding (the more important part usually overlooked, especially by the PhD crowd) you have is admirable. How you maintain hope in the face of the evidence before us is beyond me.

:thumbsup:

[Two Americas]

53. thanks

Thanks for the kind and supportive words.

People like you, and those folks in that picture in your sig line give me hope. Of course you can't say anything about them, because then you would be a "Kucinich supporter" (as were 70% of the people here just a few short months ago) and if you are a "Kucinich supporter" you are therefore marginal, fringe, unrealistic, impractical, a purist, too radical and therefore nothing you say need ever be taken seriously. Interesting how that works, isn't it? "We don't support Kucinich because no one supports him, and no one supports him because we don't support him" is the logic there if you strip away the dense web of double talk and jargon and slogans. Of course nothing will ever be "practical" of it can't be considered or talked about - because it is "impractical!" That is the age old argument of the wolf in sheep's clothing in politics - those who promote the conservative view but want us to believe that they are not. "Don't get me wrong I agree with you BUT..." they say, which is then followed by every right wing talking point in the book. With friends like these, who needs enemies?

Pretty soon it becomes impossible to distinguish between those who honestly think the Left cannot succeed from those among us who are fighting to the death to make sure the Left is killed in the cradle and cannot ever succeed. A good way to kill it in the cradle is to dissuade people from listening to left wing ideas, and a good way to do that is to smear and deride it as "impossible" and "impractical" so that people are scared off from even considering it fairly. Then the same people will innocently shrug their shoulders and say "no one is trying to suppress anyone's speech, no one is trying to sabotage the discussion. I don't know where you wacky far leftists get these paranoid ideas."

It is all quite transparent - people outside of activist circles have no problem seeing this hypocrisy and suppression - and all we need to do to prevail is to keep speaking the truth and not be sidetracked or distracted. We will prevail, and it will happen sooner rather than later, and it will happen very quickly.


...

[Greyhound]

61. You're welcome. I just don't understand the vehemence of these people,

We have made four turns to the left so far, maybe the fifth time's the charm. It seems to be a matter of getting the people to overcome their fear long enough to realize the benefits of caring for all. That or maybe just seeing the inevitable horrors of what we've done so consistently thus far.

We'll just have to keep working and talking (and undoubtedly paying the price).
:kick:

[firedupdem]

9. hey, you gotta do what you gotta do. I wish you luck with republican party. n/t

[mtf80123]

15. Good thing we got

our biggots too.

... i guess... ?

[CreekDog]

18. why are you using the term bigot to that poster?

where is the call for that? to whom are you referring? where is the relevance to anything that poster said?

[mtf80123]

22. I did not refer to the poster as

a bigot. My intention was to simply state that the Dems have their biggots too.

[firedupdem]

21. And who are you calling a bigot? n/t

[Occam Bandage]

23. To be fair, the poster called you a "biggot," which may mean something else entirely.

[firedupdem]

25. You are right....I really don't know what a biggot is actually.

I'm probably a moran as well. And the post was series and hugh.

[Joe the Liberal]

12. Of course they do...........

The republicans would rather roll over and die before giving equal rights to gay Americans. They will NEVER even consider doing such a thing, it's impossible with them in office.

However with the Democrats in office at least there is some hope that it might happen. With them in office it is possible and they may even consider doing it.

The republicans and democrats have a political duopoly so supporting a third party doesn't really do anything. So might as well support the party which has the power to get things done and where equal rights is possible and right now that would be the Democrats.

[Jamastiene]

57. So our choices are "no" and "hell no"

when it comes to equal rights and we are supposed to pretend we are happy about it. Thanks for nothing.

[KitchenWitch]

30. Seriously if there were a third party option

that was powerful enough, and sought equality for all citizens, I would likely throw my support to them.

[mtf80123]

32. M'kay......

[KitchenWitch]

37. Just stating my opinion.

Seems to me you are not only hostile to those who disagree with you, but you are unfriendly to those that agree with you.

Makes for an angst ridden time on the board.

[Jamastiene]

59. I would too.

We know the Republicans hate us. The vast majority of the Democrats don't have the spine to come on out and say they hate us too. I can't stand that nice nasty way of saying, "We don't hate you. We just don't think you deserve equal rights either."

So, our current options are "no" and "hell no." That doesn't seem like too much of a difference to me.

[mtf80123]

31. I must say however...

President Obama is doing a great job ripping the RepubliKKKans a new ass-hole.


GOBAMA!!!!

[Skittles]

36. I hear you but I will take a stab at an answer

right now we have no alternative but to vote for the party mostly likely to eventually support equal rights for all - don't give up, mtf, more people see how bigoted it is not to support equality with each passing year. It sucks that progress is so slow but we will get there.

[mtf80123]

38. There we go... a rational and inspirational response

thank you.

[readmoreoften]

41. You're likely to just get the "HA! HA! You're STUCK WITH US." Mantras.

That's why I'm not voting in the next presidential election. I'll vote for my local Democratic congressperson and a few others. But the differences between the parties are so marginal at this point, it's not worth my time. I'm interested in the party on a state and local level. At the national level, it's just branding as far as I'm concerned. And I've been a life-long Democrat. It's not just failure on LGBT issues (I'm a lesbian) it's all the corporate and phony national security nonsense.

[CreekDog]

43. universal health care, environmental protection, civil rights, help for the unemployed, ...

help for the uninsured, protection of Social Security...

if you say the differences are so marginal, you make that statement out of ignorance.

perhaps the differences are not great enough for you, but they are more than marginal differences.

[readmoreoften]

46. When these things happen, you let me know.

I don't see Obama supporting any health care plan I want any part of. Mandatory insurance? Yeah, thanks. Come back when you're serious. He sure is hell isn't protecting my civil rights. He was for "revisiting" Social Security during the debates. Same policies as the Bushistas on CIA black sites, except he has the audacity to put out press releases that appeal to liberals while doing the same dirt as they did. Bombing Pakistan. A "surge" in Afghanistan? Please. Enough. I can't co-sign this shit anymore. I like his public works stimulus. That's not enough. The party needs to be spanked. It can't just demand my vote because it's not "as bad" as Republicans. Especially not with Geithner and Summers and KISSINGER doing Obama's dirty work. I want no part of it.

[CreekDog]

51. you have created straw men of his actual positions

there is no point in even discussing this with you.

[readmoreoften]

52. Summers, Pakistan, surge in Afghanistan, continuance of black sites,

and no single-payer health care are "strawmen"? So he has no intention of moving troops to Pakistan ("where they belong" he is quoted as saying)? Summers--who pushed overturning Glass-Steagall, isn't an appointee? Really? No surge in Afghanistan? Ah. So Kissinger isn't involved in his administration. Okay.

More "but you don't know the real Obama" arguments. Hey, you're right. I don't. I just look at who he chooses and what he does.

Here are some more ideas I oppose: merit-pay and expanding faith-based funding.

[Greyhound]

44. Well, I see you've already got the "yes, for no reason" response and the,

"so who are you gonna vote for, the republics?", response.

Fills me with such pride to be associated with these folks.

[readmoreoften]

47. DK is one of a few Democrats Ieft with anything to bring to the table.

I'm really sick of this charade.

[Jamastiene]

60. I wish there were more Democrats willing to vote for Kucinich in

the beginning so he didn't have to drop out of the race. He was my first choice, but wasn't on the ballot by the time our primary rolled around. *sigh*

Thank you for voting for him.

[Greyhound]

64. One of the great crimes in this last election. He was deliberately shut out

by the party power brokers and corporate media masters.

There are many examples, but here are two of the most obvious;

In the union sponsored debate in Chicago he dominated and was the clear winner according to audience reaction and those in attendance, yet this was ignored in the media reports and ABC went so far as to photoshop him out of the pictures of the candidates on stage.

In a subsequent debate ("moderated" by George Stephanopoulos), he was not asked one question until after the 35 minute mark when ratings show that most viewers have tuned out. Chicago concerned them and they were not about to allow a repeat.

Clinton/Obama were designated as "the candidates" from the outset.

The biggest problem I see with our binary political system is that is easy and inevitable for big money to buy both teams and thus ensure that whichever wins will support their agenda.

Just look at what has been and is being done to "turn around" the economy, the overwhelming amount of our money is being given to failed institutions to protect profits with a relative pittance given to stimulating productive activity.

[Dr Fate]

48. I'm not being snarky at all- my answer is that DEMS are our best shot.

Until there are viable 3rd parties, the best strategy is to work within the DEMS and work to steer the conservatives in the party to center or left.

[Two Americas]

56. that might be backward

You say that "until there are viable 3rd parties, the best strategy is to work within the DEMS" but history suggests that it works the other way around.

People did not wait until there was a viable alternative before they left the Whigs. The alternative became viable because people were willing to stand up to the Whigs, threaten to leave, and then leave when the Whigs refused to take a strong stand on slavery. It took four years to become viable after people were already committed to principle over party and were fed up with the "baby steps" and "work within the system" and "these things take time" and "that is too radical" and "the public is not ready" and all of the rest of the excuses from the Whigs.

We have a similar situation today. The people have rejected the religious right and Reaganomics. The Democrats today have a much larger and more clear mandate on that then the Lincoln Republicans did on slavery. If the Democrats ignore that, and there are many strong indications that they are and will continue to do so, a new party may become inevitable.

There never would be a viable third party so long as people insist on thinking that there never will be one. The terminology there is prejudiced, too. A "third party" by definition cannot win. "New parties" can. Once they succeed they are not called third parties, they are called new parties, and the new parties that have succeeded were never called third parties and never aspired to be third parties.

Working within the party to steer the conservatives in the party to center or left is a pleasant sounding and reassuring idea, and certainly let's us all off the hook and postpones taking a stand or incurring any risk. It is a convenient way to do nothing while convincing ourselves and others that we are doing something.

This is like trying to add a sufficient amount of food to a plate of shit so that it might someday become edible, while people are starving. I suppose that it is "better than the alternative" - a plate of shit with no food in it - and you may well get desperate starving people to eat it at some point. But let's not praise it as a worthwhile endeavor or call it something that it is not.



...

[Dr Fate]

65. I'll wait for the conservatives to do it first. n/t

n/t

[mitchtv]

54. I've been reading a lot of that crap on DU

Liberal Homophobia blaming us for the loss, while I'll bet half of the blamers in the various states voted to steal our rights Case in point : prop 4 (right wing anti choice initiative) fails while same voters pass prop 8. I personally do not trust any organization lead by a proven homophobe Tim Kaine. I let them know how they could earn my vote and dollars before the next election Repeal DOMA (per Obama),pass EDNA, and repeal DADT ; until I see action the wallet is closed. I will support candidates who support me ie full marriage equality the rest can go shit in their hat. Take the pledge: NO support no Gay Dollars. This board used to be Gay friendly too bad you missed out on those days

[WI_DEM]

62. Yeah, you would get so much more support if the GOP were in charge.

[EOTE]

63. I believe it does.

But the choice, of course, is up to you. Yes, the democratic party certainly has its share of failings, and being more vocal about supporting equal rights for all is one of those. But I think you'd concede that the democratic party is infinitely better than the republican party who is ACTIVELY trying to deny rights to the Gay Community even as we speak. We now have a President who is a firm believer in gay rights and that gays have been wronged and who I think is doing a damn good job of righting a lot of past wrongs. I certainly don't think that the Gay community is to blame regarding not "Enlightening" straights regarding their struggle. If anyone doesn't see that the struggle is taking place, then frankly they're blind. I just think you need to think of rational self interest and decide which party has your best interests at heart and which party is most likely to give you the best quality of life. Unfortunately, due to the way our political system is constructed, I don't think that party is likely to be a third party. What I intend to do is continue being a democrat and trying to hold the party accountable for its failings. It may be a long and slow process, but I think it's the best we have.

[Two Americas]

66. people have missed your point

Many people on this thread seemed to have not read, or not comprehended what you are saying, judging from the responses.

"Why should I continue to support a party that does not support EQUAL rights for all?" you ask.

I can't imagine that anyone here would answer in any way other than this -

You shouldn't and neither should any of us. However, I am committed to equality and will never be silent about it. Should the next election come, and we are once again faced with the "lesser of two evils" choice, then each of us will have to make our own decision about what to do. Until then we keep speaking out and we keep fighting for full equality no matter whom that might offend or make nervous.

What other answer is there that is consistent with the principles and ideals we share - which are the very reason, the only reason we work for and vote for Democrats in the first place?

It is not possible for a person to "support gay rights" and answer your question with "you have no other choice because the Republicans would be worse" let alone to attack or ridicule you or your question. It is not possible. The two are incompatible and mutually contradictory.

What is this thinking among Democrats that allows them to both oppose and support a position at the same time? "Don't get me wrong I support equality BUT for the following practical and realistic reasons I do not support equality." Then they get angry if their support is questioned, and angry if they are called on to actually speak out strongly and clearly in support.



...