This is Rove's issue and it scares me (civil unions)

[AlinPA]

rPIGs and media will use it from now on, re: Dean & Kerry. They are afraid of Dean ......but I'm still worried. We can beat them on everything else, but "middle America" will be fed this one issue.

http://famulus.msnbc.com/famulusgen/ap08-18-122039.asp?t=apnew&vts=81820031234

[Occulus]

1. What we need to stress

is that the action of an Amendment prohibiting gay marriages is tantamount to admitting that the Constitution already permits the same. In other words, something that's already banned doesn't need to be banned. And if an Amendment is necessary to address the issue, all homosexuals should be screaming bloody murder over it because we've been put under the mistaken impression that we can't marry, given that a ban on something already banned makes no sense.

Anyone follow me here?

[searchingforlight]

9. In many other countries a "couple" is required to appear before a

magistrate and have a civil union totally separate from their church service. I never understood the importance of this requirement until now.

In America we have allowed these fuzzy borders to exist too long because they served our prejudices. At one time it was against the law for a black to marry a white. It was an abomination and offensive to God but it was also the law in many areas.

This is the ultimate infringement of church on state and we should reverse it right now. I think Dean and Gephardt are right on when they say that marriage is a religious ceremony and should be left to the individual churches to deal with according to their beliefs.

There is a second part of this that is equally disturbing. Businesses have used this as a way to keep their costs down and you can bet that they have fought these changes tooth and nail.

I don't believe we should shy away from this issue. There are more people who believe in these rights for all than are against them. The polls show that evangelical christians are extremely unpopular. This is an issue that can be won if presented the right way and I think it's time has come.

[Cocoa]

19. we already have DOMA

Defense of Marriage Act.

I'm not exactly sure what that is, or how exactly relates to the proposed amendment, but I think the Dems could point to it, to keep from turning 2004 into a referendum on gay marriage, which I don't think the country is ready for yet.

[ChompySnack]

2. Let 'em

This issue is splitting the church right down the middle. Most people don't care what other people do with each other as long as it isn't in their face.

[Ediacara]

3. rephrase the issue

"People against gay marriages are troglodites who use religious texts to battle against a seculr institution much as people once used religious texts to support slavery."

But perhaps in a little nicer way :-)

[DarkPhenyx]

10. Marriage is a religious institution...

...therefore they can rant aganist it all they want. They are in the right. The solution is to do away with legal recognition of "marriage" and require people wishing to have a legally recognized union get a civil union as well. IT isn't going to fly, but taht is the best solution all around. Homosexuals can't get married, but marriage provides no benefits. You can be married, but you aren't required to get the CU if you don't want it. You just don't get any bennies. THe Gov't cannot force a religion to recognize homosexual unions, so sidestep the fucking issue.

It's so simple really. Which is why it won't work.

[never cry wolf]

12. Brilliant

but you are right, so simple it will never work.

[Cronus Protagonist]

29. I ran that same idea past some rabid Mormons

They had no problem with it. Ergo, it would fly.


Fair & Balanced Buttons — The Cronus Connection

[DarkPhenyx]

31. It isn't the Mormons that would kill the idea.

The anti-HM crowd would have the biggest bitch about it. For them it isn't about "sanctifying" the union, but making it legal. THey hate that thought. Right behind them would be a large contingent of the Homosexual community. Sad but true.

[jpgray]

4. Legalizing civil unions is the right thing to do

I don't expect for the major candidates to say "I support gay marriage" (which they don't), or for them to run predominately on civil unions (which they won't and shouldn't), but I do expect them to support this little step in the right direction and implement it once in office. I personally believe gay marriage should be legalized, as the government should have no means to discriminate between the unions of loving adults based on sexuality, but I can live with a smaller step at first. It'd be analogous to saying in the sixties that the fight against segregation was too much of a hot-button issue--sort of a cop-out.

[DarkPhenyx]

14. As I said above you can't legalize gay marraige.

Marriage is a religious...oh, crap. I've forgotten the word. Anyway it's a religious institution. The gov't can't force the

<on edit>

Sacrament! That's the word I was looking for.

[QC]

22. Civil marriage is not a sacrament.

Government is not in the sacrament business.

[DarkPhenyx]

32. That's what I said.

Civil union isn't a sacrament. Marriage is though.

[Ilsa]

34. Actually, a number of mainstream Christian denominations

do not view marriage as a "sacrament". We only have two sacraments, Baptism and The Lord's Supper. Marriage is something we wished to be blessed by God and recognized by the church, hence the religious ceremony. This also affects my view of divorce and remarriage as not being a condition of condemnation in God's eyes. This must be true for alot of Christians as their divorce rates are as high as the rest of society's.

This, in turn, makes it easier for me to accept the idea of either Gay Unions or Gay Marriage. I think the term "marriage" is a temporary semantic folly: eventually, people will either say they are "married" or "divorced" or "single" or "widowed" since it will all be recognized the same way under civil law.

[grytpype]

5. The Dems should stay far, far away from this issue.

It's a trap. Karl Rove would LOVE IT if the 2004 election were about saving the holy sacrement of marriage from a bunch of flamboyant sodomites.

If the Dems have any damned sense at all, they won't touch this issue. Or even take the convervative side just to defuse it.

The 2004 election has to be about Bush's lies, failures, and incompetence. We have so much to run on, because Bush has been the worst President we have ever had, however you want to measure his performance. That should be the issue, and the ONLY ISSUE, in the 2004 election. Not gay marriage, for fuck's sake.

[unfrigginreal]

13. How do you propose that they do that?

To begin with us "flamboyant sodomites" are human, Americans, and voters. Secondly, it's not like there's going to be a whole lot of choice for the candidates, Rove and the rest of the repukes will do everything in their power to keep it on the front burner.

In my opinion, as a "flamboyant sodomite", you diffuse the issue with acceptance of civil unions as an alternative. I admit that I have a bias being a "flamboyant sodomite" and all, but most Americans don't take to kindly to suppressing a fellow Americans rights.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

25. If A Boy Has A Little Good Old Fashioned Sodomy With A Girl

is he a flamboyant sodomite?

[unfrigginreal]

27. Good question

I think maybe the poster is a little more concerned with the "flamboyants" than the "sodomites."

[BurtWorm]

16. The Dems should follow their individual conscience on the issue

Because this is not about the flag or the pledge but human beings, the Dems should hit back hard--no hoilds barred--at the Repubs for trying to use a human rights issue to appeal to the worst in their base and to assume the worst about the American people. There's no need to make it the centerpiece of the campaign, but they shouldn't be ashamed of supporting human rights, stable relationships, and justice for people who are essentially married with or without state or religious sanction. And they shouldn't be ashamed of smacking the Bushists for being the hateful shits they are.

[sandnsea]

6. Divert from marriage to family?

Marriage is about creating family units and this ban actually creates a situation where children will not be allowed to grow up in legal family units. Democrats promote anything that will create stable families for children.

It's for the children.

(I know this misses the civil rights of gays, just throwing out a strategy here)

[Champion Jack]

7. U'm waitin' for them to trot out...

"But, think of the children!"

[bryant69]

8. It is a lose-lose issue fot Democrats

Yeah some might say they don't care, but enough are uncomfortable about Gay Marriage or Civil Unions that it will work in President Bush's favor.

That said the obvious response is to move the topic to something that matters more. Talk about how President Bush's economic policies have bankrupted the country and have not returned the robust economy of the 1990s. Talk about how President Bush's belligerant foreign policy has made the world more dangerous rather than safer. Insinuate that of course President Bush would rather focus on Gay Marriage; it protects him from having to take responsibility for the failures of his Presidency.

Bryant
http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[NewGuy]

15. The economy is not that strong...

as a reason to get rid of Bush either. Many, possibly most, Americans are not being adversely affected by the current economic downturn. The effects are far off because it is retirement accounts that most people see being effected. Unless you or a loved one are directly effected by the unemployment situation, there is little pain in this downturn, or actually, delayed upturn.

[never cry wolf]

11. what a moron

or should i say oxymoron (read hypocrite): "President Bush has said he supports efforts to legally ban gay marriage, but encourages tolerance of gays and lesbians."

legally banning gay marriage is showing tolerance???

actually, press the term "civil union." stress that it could apply to anyone, not just gays. hetero couples not interested in the instuition of marriage, a working adult supporting a disabled relative, etc.

[shimmergal]

35. A good idea, in essence!

Although the term "domestic partnership" might come closer. Why _should_ a person's access to benefits depend on being in a recognized sexual bond with another?

[mantis]

17. It will

work wonders in my part of the country.

[w4rma]

18. Dean on civil unions: at 37:45 on this audio file of one of his speeches

http://www.wordsandgraphics.com/dean080703-audio.mov

related thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=194756

[jburton]

20. new version of "Gays in the Military"

Clinton the candidate proposed letting a progressive policy for this before the election, then did the wishy-washy 'don't ask dont tell' after being elected.

The issue didn't seem to hurt him with swing voters.

I think as long as it is not "all civil unions all the time" most people have an opinion but not a very strong opinion on the issue.
Especially when the economy and foreign policy are in the shitter.

As far as those who say they would "never" vote for a civil-unions candidate, aren't these the same voters who generally vote anti-choice, etc, and would probably not vote for a Dem anyway?

[QC]

23. Unfortunately....

...In the AP poll, about one-third of people who identified themselves as Democrats and independents said they would be less likely to support a candidate who backs civil unions. Twice as many Republicans said they feel that way.

More than four in 10 Democrats support passing laws against gay marriage, according to the poll. Two-thirds of Republicans support passing such laws....

Link

The only defense I can see is to present the issue as a matter of government staying out of people's personal lives, and hammer back, whenever the issue is brought up, that Bush is desperate to do absolutely anything other than run on his abysmal record and thus hopes to divert people's attention by harping on gay marriage.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

28. Clinton Embraced The Don't Ask Don't Tell Policy

because the Joint Chiefs of Staff led by Colin Powell voiced their opposition and Clinton already had credibility problems with the military.

Also, he was sabotagued by Republicans in Congress who pushed the isssue to the fore.

[helleborient]

21. Force States Rights on this issue...

If I were the Democratic candidate, I would remind voters that it is the Republicans who strongly favor States Rights whenever it is convenient...and abandon it when convenient, too.

Point out this proves a lack of commitment to States Rights.

If our states are different from each other, why can they not address Civil Unions and Gay Marriage in different ways?

With the current divisiveness on the issue, this is one that cries out to be determined on a state by state basis for now.

[rucky]

24. Yep. It worked for Dean with gun control...

Just more ammo on how Republican rhetoric does not match their actions (see argument on fiscal responsibility/balanced budgets)... you can also take it further to attack the Republican-claimed monopoly on "values"

[janx]

26. How is this Rove's issue? Where did you get that?

Did I miss something?

[AlinPA]

36. It's my opinion

that he will use this as an issue, appealing to hate or the bible or whatever turns on that base.

[ComerPerro]

30. Its bullshit

44%? Depending on thier margin of error, that could be as low as 39%. And that would account for the Right wing assholes who wouldn't vote for a Dem anyway.
You could probably take a survey and find that well over 60% of the country would vote against a candidate who promised to make the Ten Commandments the law of the land.

What bothers me most is that these right wing facists are trying to pretend that marriage is sacred, meanwhile they have affairs and beat their wives.

[maxanne]

33. if Karl Rove/Bush

are dumb enough to make hatred and intolerance a big issue in their campaign, they will reap the results. Most people don't give a damn, I don't care what this poll says. Hate may sell - look at Limbaugh and Coulter - but the pendulumn will swing the other way. We are already tired of it.

There are too many closet gay Republicans. This will alienate some of their own base.

Ultimately they aren't going to want wealthy gays donating to the Democrats, either.

[AlinPA]

37. I hope you are right. We have a lot of issues otherwise.

Seems like there is a lot of talk in the media about this, and when they roll out the polls, it makes Dems look like they are "on the other side". Hope it does not drown out the bread-and-butter issues, the war, international issues.