Homophobia among "progressives"

[davidinalameda]

I just posted an article regarding the Indianapolis City Council defeating a bill that would have prohibited discrimination against GLBTs in jobs and housing.

Five Democrats voted against the bill

And last night, I guess there were some very homophobic posts on here by someone who was described as a long-time poster

Why do some Democrats and progressives, and yes I know that the two groups aren't necessarily the same, believe that homophobia is still acceptable?

People say that they're for gay rights but against same-sex marriage. Or you just get some people who don't think that gay rights should even be an issue. We should sweep it under the rug "until people are ready for it."

When do you think that is going to be? What in the hell does the gay community have to do to let y'all know that some people will NEVER be ready for it.

How long do y'all expect us to sit in the back of the bus?

[mondo joe]

1. I don't know the answer - but I do know not 1 more gay dollar of mine

is going to a candidate who expects me to stay in the back of the bus.

[renaissanceguy]

33. Amen to that.

I'm sick of hearing about how it's "political suicide" to do what is right. I WILL NOT support anyone who thinks I am less than human.

[mondo joe]

56. true - I'm not sure gays do much better when dems win then when

repigs do.

Mostly I've begun to feel the main thing I should do is save as much money as I can, invest wisely and get to Canada.

[shadowknows69]

64. I thought only 3 dollar bills were gay

Totally j/k. I kid because I love. Never give ground.:hippie:

[readmoreoften]

86. nah, they're not gay, they're queer.

$3 bills also include transgendered, bisexual, and pansexual people.

I have a friend who has a $3 bill tattooed on him.

[shadowknows69]

102. excellent

:-)

[Fleshdancer]

186. and I'll be there with you. Not 1 more straight dollor of mine

is going to a candidate who expects you to stay in the back of the bus either.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

2. "for gay rights but against same-sex marriage"

I don't understand that position either.

It's like saying "I'm for civil rights but against de-segregation".

[MsTryska]

6. I'm against same-sex marriage.

but only because i would prefer that Domestic Partnership be the rule of the land, gender irrelevant.


what you do in your church has no bearing on me and my government.


i'm ambivalent about creating a "separate but equal" institution.

[readmoreoften]

60. Great, but in the meanwhile, how about we have some

ability to make our joint financial decisions, visit our partners in the hospital, and keep custody of our children. Or, do we have to wait for the revolution for that?

On second read, I think you mean civil unions, not DPs. DPs don't get you much.

[Maraya1969]

116. I just had a thought run through my head

It happens once in a while.

What if two gay people want to marry but form some sort of legal contract instead. The contract would give each the power of attorney over the other in case of etc. etc. etc. It could include all the provisions in case the parties want to dissolve the contract.

The parties could draw up wills so that in event of death all assets go to the other party or however they set it up.

In essence two gay people can use the legal system to bind themselves in marriage, (and then go to a church and get married). Anyone can change their name so both parties will have the same surname. Heck one person can change their name to Mr. Smith and the other to Mrs. Smith - or Mr. John Smith and Mr. James Smith. (Mrs. Jane Smith and Mrs. Patty Smith)

I don't see what you can't draw up a contract that would be essentially the same as a "marriage" contract.

A marriage is just a contract anyway in the eyes of the courts.

[MountainLaurel]

122. But in VA

The state legislature passed a law that declared null any contracts between people of the same sex that would approximate legal marriage. So what are they to do?

:shrug:

[LostinVA]

129. Just beat me to it. I'm in a 10-year relationship,a nd I can't

legally have my partner be my POA, etc. Of course, I can pull some Joe Schmo off of the street to do it. My mom is legally my next of kin in VA, and I trust her.

How is this fair??? An adult should be able to give POA to anyone they wish! It makes me sick.

[Maraya1969]

170. I would have the contract written up and when they call it null- take

it all the way to the Supreme Court. Their is something very unconstitutional about this I don't exactly know what they are violating - equal rights?

I talked to a lawyer friend today in FL who does mainly family law and she said she has set up such types of contracts between gay partners.

Some attorney might just want to get involved in this. High profile and ........it is just the right thing to do!

[Maraya1969]

172. Read #170

Oh, and they can't stop you from changing your name can they? This is getting way out of hand with these fundies.

If I was in a relationship with a woman and we wanted to start the marriage process I'd immediately go ahead and get my name changed to hers, (or visa versa, which ever one sounded the best)

[jono]

227. Besides the VA issue

I know couples that have gone this route, but it becomes incredibly expensive to do once all the attorney charges and other fees are added together. A marriage license here costs $54.00. Gay couples should not have to spend so much more money to initiate similar contractual terms.

Sorry I found this discussion so late.

[MsTryska]

124. I mean Domestic partnership.

instead of getting a marriage license - which is what grants heteros the rights and benefits given by marriage - Domestic Partnership licenses should be given.

then if you want to get "married" you can go to the religious insitution of your choice, to get that label.


As for rights in the meantime - i don't know what to tell you - i vote for rights whenever i get the opportunity, but it seems many legislators and citizens disagree for some odd reason.

[uppityperson]

71. Marriage is a legal institution too

What you do in church is your own thing, but being legally married gives a couple other protections (financial). I get riled up when people talk about marriage only being church stuff and therefore Domestic Partnerships should be the non-religious institution.

[MsTryska]

126. I'm saying Domestic partnership be the Legla Institution.

I don't care if you are husband and wife, husband and husband, brother and sister whatever.


if you are sharing a domicile, and feel you should be in charge of looking after each other, you should be able to get a Domestic Partnership license, that deemd you legally responsible for whomever you are sharing your household with.

once that license has been granted, you may go ahead and get married or not get married - that's up to you.


What i'm arguing for is domestic rights to make decisions opened up to include any 2 people living together.

For instance - if my parents die, and i stay single, living with my roommate until we are in our 80s like 2 old spinster biddies - if soemthing were to happen to me - i would like her to be able to make decisions for me - or pay my bills in proxy, or whatever -we have no sexual relationship - but we have a financial one and we share a domicile.

essentially - i'm saying take the sex out of it, and deal with the legality.

my argument against "gay marriage" - it still leaves tons of people in unorthodox domestic relationships without rights, and preserves very narrow guidelines of who can have benefits and who can't.

[readmoreoften]

137. What if you and your partner don't live together for career reasons?

I'm a writer and a lecturer. My partner is a film director and director of photography. This necessitates us being apart for months, if not years at a time and keeping separate residences. If we were straight we could marry regardless.

Why all these excuses? Why all these 'well whatabouts'? Just stop it and fight for our right to marry. When we all have equal rights then we can start talking about changing the words and meanings across the board.

At the moment, saying 'well we can get all hets to DP' is akin to saying, "I got an idea! We can still have separate water fountains! We'll just change the signs COLORED to WHITE and the WHITE to COLORED, proving and insuring that they're equal. No wait, we'll study the construction of the COLORED water fountains and if they are inferior, we'll make WHITE fountains just as inferior. No wait!"

Let's apply Occam's Razor here: all citizens have a right to civil marriage. We'll worry about the wording later.

[MsTryska]

147. Then what about my right to be covered

and never get married at all?



you want me to fight for your specific right to get married - but you have no problem leaving the rest of us in the dust.

[ladeuxiemevoiture]

171. Huh???

Hell will freeze over before heterosexuals accept disenfranchisement of their marriages for the sake of giving gays and lesbians equality. Period.

Separately, it's a valid question, whether something else should replace government-sanctioned marriage, but that is not the question here. Nor am I particularly interested in addressing that issue.

Whose interests are served by tackling that issue? Are those who want "coverage" but not want to get married a class of people who are being discriminated against as gays are?

[MsTryska]

181. No....

but personally i prefer the broadest definition of partnership - not the most restrictive.


ergo - rather than fight for gay marriage, i fight for domestic partnership for all people.


it's the same system as in European countries - why don't y'all like it?

[ladeuxiemevoiture]

187. That's fine. I wish you much success. But.....

Gay marriage is far more likely to occur sooner than "domestic partnership for everyone." Also, that agenda would have a way of taking wind out of gay marriage proponents sails, which is probably not YOUR agenda, but is among some Republicans who are offering such a "compromise", hypothetical and pie-in-the-sky that it is.

And no, it is not the same system as in European countries. Gay partners do NOT have parity with heterosexual partners in France, for example. Even the upcoming legislation for gay marriage in Spain is raising some controversy, so no, that's not true.

In The Netherlands, there is some kind of gay marriage, but it's more restrictive than what Massachusetts has. The only country with liberal gay marriage legislation, as far as I know, is Canada - and maybe Finland? Not sure about Finland, though.

[mondo joe]

207. You and your roommate can marry if you choose.

Restricting partnership to those in an ACTUAL partnership doesn't leave anyone in the dust.

[MsTryska]

217. no we can't?

she's female as am i?

and i don't see why domestic partners aren't considered partners in your book?

[mondo joe]

219. If same sex marriage were legal you could.

And that's what I advocate for - marriage regardless of gender.

I don't consider room mates married, nor do I consider 2 siblings or a grandmother and granddaughter.

I think marriage (or domestic partnership) issomething more than simply sharing a living space.

[readmoreoften]

211. Just because I'm FOR gay marriage

doesn't mean I'm AGAINST universal health coverage. There are countries in Europe with BOTH, the idea isn't mutually exclusive.

[MsTryska]

218. i'm not talking about universal health coverage -

i'm speaking specifically to healthcare decisions, and powers of attorney, inheritance and the like.


this is where i think it should be opened up to anyone sharing a domicile - whether it be married couples, partners or siblings.



also i definitely differ in opinion form y'all but i think it would be far easier to argue domestic partnership as law of the land for ALL people and be successful than it is to argue for gay marriage specifically.


it's exclusive as opposed to inclusive, and brings up people's bigotry.

[mondo joe]

220. Why should those decision be tied to room mates?

There's no reason power of attorney or inheritance should be limited to those sharing a domicile or that those who are ONLY sharing a domicile need a special partnership for them.

Any room mates or family members can inherit or gain power of attorney.

But those are not the same relationships as a couple - homo or hetero.

A couple makes an exclusive partnership with significant financial implications - both rights and responsibilities - that two other people don't have.

[readmoreoften]

235. furthermore, these new anti-gay marriage laws

are taking away the rights of adults to give their power of attorney to their partners. Where once all adults could give POA to one another, now, from what I understand, in Ohio gay couples cannot give POA to one another, although everyone else can.

Maybe someone else can clarify.

[readmoreoften]

212. Just because I'm FOR gay marriage

doesn't mean I'm AGAINST universal health coverage. There are countries in Europe with BOTH, the idea isn't mutually exclusive.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

3. The posts last night were not by a long time poster

however there was a thread by a longtime poster a few days ago and to that person's credit, he saw how his post could be interpreted as homophobic and did act quickly to clear up his intent.

The post by the person yesterday is not someone who has been around a long time if it is the erased thread I am recalling.

Personally, I see a great deal of prejudice becoming more and more acceptable lately. When things go bad, people wanna blame some group or another.

[mondo joe]

5. I dunno if he was long time or not, buut over 1,000 posts.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

9. That's why I never look at post count..you could be here a week

and have over 1000 posts with some of the lounge threads..I look at CONTENT

[Kerrytravelers]

59. Last night, I looked up the sign in date. Early Sept. 2004.

I know it's only 8 months, but that is kind of long to post threads to finally post a feeble attempt at gay bashing. I had seen that poster in the past and had never noticed a hate-steak in them before. That's why I was surprised.

Of course, I might have missed some of their other doozies in the past.

[iconoclastNYC]

4. As long as you have the media selling the notion

that Democrats will never win as long as they are defending homosexuality.

Democratic leaders are running scare from equal rights because the media is making it look like the DNCs albatross. And I, for one, think it's a lie.

[noiretextatique]

12. it's not just the media...democrats believe that too

as dwickham's post points out. i know some who blames gays and lesbians for kerry's 'loss.'

[iconoclastNYC]

15. Yes but I think it's because they pick it up from the corporate media

We all know the media forms the conventional wisdom.

And i don't know if they blame gays and lesbians or if they blame homophobic red state voters who have been trained like Pavlov's dogs to salivate at the polls at the mere mention of the gay menace.

[davidinalameda]

19. DiFi picked it up from the media?

doubtful

[noiretextatique]

20. some do...some, however, are pissed because they believe

gays *pushed* the marriage issue at the wrong time. but as you mention, since the rw pushed the issue in the first place, i suppose the media did it's job of dividing and conquering. on the other hand...political expediance, as defined by the media, really hasn't been working in democrats favor for some time. which begs the question: why continue aquiescing?

[UdoKier]

34. Gays didn't push the issue.

Republican-appointed judges in Massachusetts and a democrat mayor in San Francisco pushed it. Gay people can hardly be blamed for rallying around the decisions.

[noiretextatique]

36. please tell that to your fellow DUers

cause not everyone seems to accept that.

[UdoKier]

41. Just shows that liberals are just as easily led by Corp. media as repukes

Somehow the meme became "democrats are pushing for gay marriage and republicans want to defend the 'sanctity of marriage'", and then it became common knowledge that Bush wanted to ban gay marriage and Kerry wanted to make it a fundamental right" (when both candidates supported civil unions and opposed same-sex marriages. Their only difference was on the ludicrous Anti-gay amendment, which Bush never intended to pass in the first place - just more Rovian bait for the southern bible-bumper morons.)

[Ms. Toad]

88. Besides which,

Some of us have been working quietly and steadily on the issue for 18 years (or more) - I just celebrated the 10th anniversary of my faith community taking our marriage under its care - which took place 8 years after we first raised the issue there. We considered ourselves married 5 years before that.

That's a generation of quiet, polite, work already. How much longer do we have to wait before we dare ask the courts to at least enforce the full faith and credit act of the constitution?

[jdj]

197. I don't know what Gavin Newsom's motives were, except that

his wife worked for the DA in the San Francisco dog mauling murder case of Diane Whipple. I think his heart was in the right place.

But he may have played into the right's hands.

In any case, it doesn't matter, because the election was stolen, it's about paper ballots, not marriage certificates.

[mondo joe]

62. When, please, IS the right time? When the dems are in office

things are too precarious. When they're not we're too vulnerable.

When is the right time?

[noiretextatique]

156. there is no right time

homo-hatred is truly the sacred hatred...it unites people who agree on nothing else.

[renaissanceguy]

35. Exactly, it's a result of the MSM's biased coverage.

Anyone who was paying attention would know that Kerry's loss had to do with national security and a few major blunders on the part of his campaign advisors.

[foreigncorrespondent]

98. Add to that...

...Gore's loss in 2000 as well!

We copped it for the four years since 2000, and it will probably go on forthe next four years, now.

[Gildor Inglorion]

7. As long as the lie of "choice" persists, I guess...

which means, basically, "forever and ever, amen." :(

[6000eliot]

21. Why does it matter whether or not it's a choice?

Sex is sex is sex.

[readmoreoften]

61. and then sometimes your partner is ill or incapacitated

and then it's love.

[6000eliot]

84. You mean he won't dump me?

That was what my ex-wife told me would happen when I came out. "You'll get sick and he'll leave you," she would say.

[readmoreoften]

95. well, he may not be permitted to visit you in the hospital.

but he's just as likely to love and care for you as the ol' ex-wife.

When my sweetheart is sick, it's an honor to take care of him. I'm just happy he's alive and I cherish every day that we're together. As far as I'm concerned we never had to GET married. We ARE married. If the state would recognize it, it would only be a matter of accepting reality.

[rman]

8. *some* Democrats and progressives - so who cares?

-

[benevolent dictator]

103. *some* Democrats and progessives is still too many.

If both the Repubs and the Dems are out to get us, that's something to care about. That's something to worry about.

[rman]

110. how do you get from "some" to "the" so easily?

been to spin alley?

[benevolent dictator]

127. I said some in the subject

but here, I'll amend the text:

If both *SOME* of the Republicans and *SOME* of the Democrats are out to get us, that's something to care about.

Stop trivializing the fact that this happens, nearly all of the GLBT people I know who voted Republican (all or in part) say it's because their other views go along with the Republicans (taxes, abortion, trade, whatever) and that they don't feel that neither the Republicans OR Democrats care about gay rights. When we've got both Dems and Repubs (all or some) voting against gays, then it drives away otherwise conservative GLBT people.

If I were to say well it's only *SOME* Democrats who voted for the bankruptcy bill, who cares? Would you have the same attitude?

Only *SOME* Democrats vote for anti-choice legislation, who cares?

Only *SOME* Democrats voted for the war, who cares?

Have I hit a subject you do care about yet, or do I have to keep going?

[rman]

135. I'm not trivializing this

Rather i say it would be much more significant if indeed "the" Democrats and "the" Republicans would be homophobic - as you imply in the body of your previous post.

In your post i respond to now you imply that it doesn't matter whether "some" or "the" Dems and/or Repubs vote against gays. According to you the effect is the same whether is is a minority or all of them who vote like that. I think that doesn't make sense.

What matters to me is how much "some" is in this case - if it's a small minority then i don't think it is a very big deal.

I think it is more of a big deal that for instance roughly half (possibly more) of Dems has voted in favor of the Patriot Act.

[benevolent dictator]

162. The significance of the minority

depends on how many it takes to pass the bill. If a state senate has say 25 Dems and 15 Repubs, and 3 Dems vote against a gay rights bill, that's not nearly as big of a deal as if there are 21 Dems and 19 Republicans and 3 Dems vote against it.

It's all relative.

I wasn't trying to pick a fight, I was just saying that some is still too many. Look at the fundies, even a small faction can take power and seem to become mainstream, so if we've got a minority of Dems voting for discrimination (or for corporate welfare, or for privatizing social security, name your issue) and we let them get away with it, others will think it's acceptable as well. Some is too many.

[sandnsea]

10. People do support civil unions

And some of us see it as a logical stepping stone to gay marriage. And can't quite grasp why gays would reject legal partnership benefits to continue pushing something that will leave them with nothing.

Indianapolis. Please. What a liberal hotbed that is. Not fair to judge all liberals or Democrats on Indianapolis.

[mondo joe]

14. That sounds like "Why not be happy with the back of the bus rather than

no bus at all".

And I don't see many gays REJECTING civil unions where they exist.

[sandnsea]

24. No

It's more like why keep demanding to get on the gay marriage bus when the civil union train is right next to you. Gets you to the same place and the train goes faster.

[renaissanceguy]

37. Maybe if you were gay

and constantly heard how you are subhuman, you'd understand.

[sandnsea]

49. Civil unions for all

Just how does that designate gays as subhuman?

[mondo joe]

58. Civil Unions only for all is fine. But it's not in the cards.

No one of any stature is arguing for such a thing, though I consider it eminently reasonable.

We have to play the cards we're dealt and right now that leaves 3 options: marriage, civil unions at the state level, or nothing.

[readmoreoften]

63. Civil unions aren't even tactically viable in the long run.

Federal and State Marriage Amendments prohibit same-sex marriage AND any SIMILIAR ARRANGEMENT.

They're a stop gap measure. Not much to rally around. Listen, if straights want to change the name of the entire procedure to CIVIL UNIONS FOR ALL first, then I'll take a civil union as long as it's equal and can't be overturned when moving state to state.

[sandnsea]

65. That makes no sense

Civil unions for all is not in the cards, but gay marriage is??? Don't understand that thinking.

Let's see. You're for playing the cards you're dealt and accepting state level law.

I'm for playing the cards you're dealt, and advocating federal civil union recognition, because most people accept that.

And I'm putting people in the back of the bus. Sorry, does not compute.

I suspect if I was advocating state level law, I'd be accused of the same thing.

[readmoreoften]

67. If you think that married people all over the country

would accept calling their marriages Civil Unions before calling our marriage Marriage... I don't know what to tell you.

[sandnsea]

73. It's a license

A Partnership License. It's the ceremony that makes it whatever it is somebody wants to call it. Nothing changes except the name of the license. It's the license that extends legal benefits, not the name of the ceremony. Yes I do think people will accept that long before they'll accept gay marriage.

[mondo joe]

74. There is no way those married by the state people are going to

trade it in for a "civil union". They just won't do it.

And there are ALREADY same sex marriages in one state.

[sandnsea]

78. It's what it is

I'd think religious people would like it. Marriage is a biblical union. Don't call your union a marriage otherwise. Call it what it is, a civil union. That's the truth of it.

[mondo joe]

80. If you think the religious would like it why aren't they pushing for it?

I'm just telling you, they are never going to sacrifice state marriages. Especially not if it's to put them on any sort of equal footing with gays.

[sandnsea]

82. Some are

Don't equate theocrats with all religious, not fair. There are religious people fighting for gay rights too. Fair-minded religious people can be made to see the equality in a Partnership License, which doesn't interfere with whatever docrtrine in their own churches. Or continue to fight within their churches for marriage as well.

[mondo joe]

83. By all means, tell us the significant voices calling for only civil unions

for all.

A few legislators or other well known leaders will do.

[sandnsea]

105. They would

Many of the same ones that are calling for civil unions only would call for a new Parternship License, if somebody asked them to.

[mondo joe]

117. They "would" my ass. You said some ARE.

So who ARE they?

[sandnsea]

128. It's common sense

There are religious who advocate gay marriage. I was mostly saying it isn't fair to put all religious in one category. The religious who already advocate gay marriage don't see any need to separate civil unions. It makes sense to me that they'd also see the common sense in a registered Partnership License, with the couple deciding what ceremony is performed. But you're right, nobody is advocating that specifically; then again, nobody has asked for that.

[mondo joe]

163. I see. So when you said some ARE you were projecting an

idea of what people would do - not something they ARE doing.

[sandnsea]

164. Mostly

I was objecting to what seemed like a blanket statement about the religious and marriage. Plenty of religious are advocating for gay marriage and it's unfair to discount that. There's also no reason to think that they wouldn't advocate for a civil license that granted equal rights, if that's what it took to get it. The religious who are fighting hard, and even performing gay marriages, do not deserve to be treated so disrespectfully. Which was my original point anyway, people who are trying to find some solution that makes everybody equal and happy shouldn't be labeled homophobes, just because their solution is something other than gay marriage.

[Djinn]

92. NO it isn't

marriage was around BEFORE Christianity (being the predominant religion in US) they co-opted it it's NOT theirs

[ladeuxiemevoiture]

173. Thank you.

Hear, hear. (I just made that point above - hell will freeze over first before most heterosexuals, progressive or otherwise, accept disenfranchisement of their marriages in order to equalize rights with gays.)

[mondo joe]

69. There is no significant push for ONLY civil unions for all.

Gays are more likely to get marriage than they are to get the US to ONLY perform civil unions and leave marriage to the churches.

That will never happen.

[sandnsea]

75. Like I said, licenses

The ceremonies have nothing to do with anything. It's the legal license that's at issue. Separate religion from those legal licenses, that's almost the whole battle. What do the religious have to base their argument on then?

[readmoreoften]

77. I understand that and I happen to agree with you.

But the people who think gays are 'out to destroy marriage' will REALLY have something to spit about then their religious marriages are not recognized by the state.

We're talking about people who want a theocracy here.

[sandnsea]

79. The license is the contract

A religious marriage has no recognition without the legal license. Gays can find churches to marry them, I have no doubt. Everbody chooses whether to have a church marriage or a civil union. Has nothing to do with the license.

[readmoreoften]

85. No, they have a marriage.

If it was a civil union then all marriages done outside of a church would be illegal in the state of Ohio now. The provision annuls any union that is not a MARRIAGE or any union that is an approximation of a MARRIAGE. They call it a MARRIAGE LICENSE not a CIVIL UNIONS license.

[sandnsea]

106. Aargh

They'd have NOTHING if it weren't for the license. With a Partnership License, they could have a marriage or a civil union, whatever they prefer. The county could record the partnership contract. Equal to everybody.

[mondo joe]

51. Not to be difficult, but isn't that the same as the back of the bus?

Gets you to the same place, right?

[Djinn]

91. unless I'm prevented from "marrying"

and told I should only get a "civil union" because I've never beleived in God and would never willingly set foot in a church then it's absolutely reasonable to look at the "civil union" thing as a cop out.

I can go to some crappy "chapel" ala Britney and be legally and respectably married - why on eatrh shouldn't everyone else. Why make yet another "seperate but equal" myth??

There are also plenty of straight people who wont vote for candidates that expect gay people to stay in the "back of the bus"

[ladeuxiemevoiture]

174. Civil unions do NOT get you to the same place.

For one thing (and there are a lot of things), the list of countries which recognize "civil union" as equivalent to "marriage" is very short, as far as I know.

Another thing, will I be forced to testify in court against my civil union partner?

Another thing, will I be able to help my, say, Canadian partner settle down with me here in the US?

Civil unions - to some extent - has become bigots' defense line, which is testimony to how far gays have advanced the dialogue through education, lobbying, etc.

[davidinalameda]

17. let me explain this to you

if I had a partner, he and I could sign up for civil union here in California

we move to a state where they don't have civil unions--all the rights that we had in California would be null and void

if we could enter into a contractual arrangement, I believe that Virginia doesn't allow such contracts, we would have to pay thousands of dollars for legal work that might give us the same rights that a heterosexual couple are given when they marry

and the contract could be challenged by a deceased partner's family--it's happened before--and the surviving partner would be left with nothing from the relationship

wills are challenged everyday

civil unions aren't good enough

[sandnsea]

23. In every state, federally recognized

I'm not advocating a state's rights approach. I don't believe in that. We have guaranteed individual rights in the Constitution and states don't have the right to deny those. I'm just referring to legal civil unions for everybody, rather than the continued religious bickering that the word marriage brings. The State legalizes partnerships, churches sanctify marriage and can sanctify gay marriages if they chooose. I just think we'll get there faster.

[noiretextatique]

28. in reality...this issue is very similar to what happened to AA

affirmative action. there was hysteria created about the slim possibility of one white person not getting into law school, and that problem had to be addressed immediately...forget about centuries of the reverse. because of the rw-induced hysteria, and because so many regular people bought into it, there was no movement to FIX the exisitng good idea, the movement was to scrap it completely.
same with gay marriage...the religious bickering was just the noise needed to drwon out any sort of compromise position, like federal civil unions, which the rw doesn't want either. so what does that leave us? several states that have pre-emptively banned same sex marriage AND any gender civil unions.
democrats need to learn who their enemies are and stop supporting them on ANY issue.

[davidinalameda]

32. then what's the difference between a civil union and marriage

except one's perform at city hall and the other one is performed at a church or whatever

[sandnsea]

48. That's the difference

:shrug: As far as I can tell, gays can already get married if a church is willing to perform the ceremony. It's the legal recognition that's the problem. If people are willing to put the legal recognition under the term civil union, I don't get the problem with that.

[readmoreoften]

66. Because the RW will turn the 'semantic' difference into a real one.

Which is exactly what they did. We said Civil Unions, they just added "And Civil Unions" to their amendments. They hate us. It's really that simple. Either fight for us or don't. The civil unions thing is the lamest stop gap measure ever.

If we fight for marriage, we might get civil unions.
If we fight for civil unions, we won't get shit.

The whole civil union train is only going to last about 1 short stop anyway. If it comes our way, we'll hop on. If not we'll keep walking. But don't criticize us if we know damn well it's not headed to the final destination.

[sandnsea]

81. the rest of America

My daughter just got married last year. She would have preferred a civil union. Alot of women would. Marriage still implies ownership to alot of us. Don't bet Partnership Licenses wouldn't be accepted by the majority. Not the nutjobs, they're hopeless. But the majority.

And please don't say I'm criticizing, I'm not. I just don't appreciate being labeled a homophobe when I honestly believe equality would come quicker through a new licensing process and ceremonies chosen.

[noiretextatique]

150. i agree with your rational, reasonable argument

unfortunately, the rw has poisoned the issue, likely for many years to come, as evidenced by the anti-civil union legislation passed this fall.

[ladeuxiemevoiture]

175. I'm sorry - something doesn't add up

Were you privately or otherwise pushing for Partnership Licenses even before the sodomy rulings (Lawrence v. Texas, I think, in 2001???)? That is, did you only start arguing in favor of Partnership Licenses when gay marriage become the issue du jour? If so, you may want to re-examine your underlying motives, because you may have a fear or dislike of gays without realizing it, and I don't mean that to be patronizing - it does seem as though you want to do the right thing, but as I say in my subject line, something isn't adding up here. :hi:

[sandnsea]

178. Only in your head

Maybe you might want to re-examine your reactionary responses and see if you've been attacking people as homophobes who aren't.

What in the world does the Texas ruling have to do with anything?

[ladeuxiemevoiture]

179. Lawrence v. TX = Scalia's "Homosexual Agenda" diatribe

which really inadvertently launched the push for gay marriage. That's when the train started.

And can you answer my question:

When exactly did you start arguing in favor of Partnership Licenses for everyone? Were you just fine with marriage as it was until gays started clamoring to get in?

[sandnsea]

180. Is that what you think?

I went to gay union ceremonies back in the 80's. In Montana. This is nothing new to me. It's so old to me, I couldn't possibly remember when I first thought about it. I really don't know what your major malfunction is.

[ladeuxiemevoiture]

188. Gee, I don't know - maybe I don't like being discriminated against

Nah, that couldn't possibly be it. :rolleyes:

My point is that if you are getting on the "domestic partnership/civil union for everybody" train only NOW, you are effectively helping to derail the push for gay marriage, whether you intend to have the effect or not, whether you know it or not.

Some people were absolutely fine with heterosexual marriage as it existed pre-Lawrence v. Texas. Now those people are saying - wait a minute! don't like being discriminated against? What if we propose making everyone's marriage just "civil union"?

Nice idea, but it's not going to ever happen, not even after gay marriage is the law of the land.

[sandnsea]

190. I always figured it would be separate

I never expected the law to be changed to allow gay marriage. I always thought that new laws would be written for gay couples, just not exactly sure what the laws would entail. DOMA was back in 1996, which is why I can't figure out why the Texas ruling would have anything to do with anything. Like I said, I've been aware of gay couples fighting for their rights for so long I can't even remember when it first entered my mind. As long as I've been an adult.

You've really proven the point of my original post, by the way. People just must be hate-filled homophobes for seeing the practicality in a stepping stone approach. The gay community in CT is pretty happy about civil unions, but I'm a homophobe for pointing out that civil unions pass more easily.

[ladeuxiemevoiture]

194. YOU are the one throwing around the homophobe label...

I don't see anyone else using that word. This IS supposed to be a team player's board, after all. Even if the shoe fits, I don't feel right calling fellow dems homophobes outright.

That said, I am not a lawyer, but I don't think you understand how the whole process has unfolded. Few, if any, laws have been changed in favor of gays and lesbians, though many more have been introduced and passed at a state level to strip them of rights. In one state, MA, the practice of actively denying marriage recognition to gays and lesbians has been declared unconstitutional.

It's complicated and legalistic, but basically, sodomy laws prevented jurisdictions where sodomy laws existed from recognizing gay relationships. I believe there were federal sodomy laws, as well. By declaring laws against sodomy unconstitutional, (IMO) Scalia was correct in his dissent that you then remove one of the principal barriers from requiring equal rights for gays, i.e., gay marriage. That's what that ruling had to do with gay marriage.

ARE gays in CT pretty happy about civil unions as a replacement for marriage? I doubt it very much; it's better than nothing, sure. But no civil union legislation can ever give the full panoply of rights covered by marriage.

Are gays in MA pretty happy about having as much equality as possible as events stand today? No question in my mind, and I doubt they'd trade their status for that of gays in CT.

[sandnsea]

199. Read the OP

NO, I'm not the one throwing around the label. "Homophobes among Progressives", that's the title of the OP, correct?

I do understand how the whole process unfolded. It's been unfolding since LONG BEFORE the Texas case. For most people, all the Texas case did was overturn a law that was deemed to be stupid and backwards 30 years ago.

And I didn't say gays were happy about civil unions as a replacement for marriage, rather they were happy the civil union law passed. In my state, the gay community is jubilant that our governor is pushing a civil union bill. So I don't understand why anybody should be labeled a homophobe for supporting the same thing. That was what the OP said, and that's what I responded to.

[IndianaGreen]

90. Indianapolis voted for Kerry in 2004

Indianapolis. Please. What a liberal hotbed that is. Not fair to judge all liberals or Democrats on Indianapolis.

The same could be said for Denver. Nice city for gays, but if you just go to neighboring Fort Collins or Colorado Springs, you just stepped in Taliban land.

The issue is not gay marriage, it never has been! The issue is that a state cannot deny a state-issue marriage license to people on account of their sexual orientation anymore than it could on account of race.

The same fundamentalists that oppose equal rights for gays today were the ones that opposed equal rights for people of color, including the right to marry a white person.

Nothing has changed in this country in 200 years!

[foreigncorrespondent]

99. Because...

...seperate but equal still isn't being equal is it?

We shouldn't have to take yet another seat on the back of the bus, just to make a few in the democratic party happy.

[Marnieworld]

11. "for gay rights but against same-sex marriage"

This is something that really bugs me. Either all citizens are equal or not. This is the poll-tested middleground that I cringe when I hear some politician say (Kerry?) Marriage vs. Civil Unions? It's an arguement for semantics but it's another way of saying separate but equal.

I now see more and more parallels between gay marriage and inter-racial marriage. It gives me hope that someday society will evolve to what is right.

[Technowitch]

29. I am Wiccan

According to the practices and dictates of my faith, my same-sex wife and I *are* married. There are a great many faiths out there that have no problem whatsoever with same-sex marriages -- and which perform solemnization ceremonies regularly. Unitarians, Anglicans, Quakers, Buddhists, Reformed Jews,... the list goes on and on.

The problem is that *secular* rights are what's being denied. I don't particularly care if some religions wouldn't perform the ceremony. That's their right. I was brought up Roman Catholic, and had I stayed in that faith, I could not have married a non-Catholic in the Church, unless my prospective husband vowed to raise our children as Catholic.

The issue is that those faiths which oppose same-sex marriage are imposing *their* belief system upon those of us who believe otherwise.

Any time you hear the words "sanctity of marriage" and "tradition", these are giveaway terms to indicate the point being argued is based upon religious and moral beliefs. When these are dispensed with, the next argument is "procreation" -- which is particularly specious, because the infertile are allowed to marry, as are those who choose not to have children.

My position is that the *civil* contract of marriage should be permitted to any two consenting adults (except when incest would result). Let the religions make up whatever rules they like about the ceremonies they will or won't perform. But they shouldn't be dictating to me who I can or can't marry.

-Technowitch

[noiretextatique]

31. a sensible position

why shouldn't gays and lesbians have the same civil rights as heterosexuals? no reason.

[Withywindle]

167. Thank you! It is ALSO a freedom of religion issue!

It is religious discrimination pure and simple: the way some marriages performed by some religious institutions or some religions' clergy are legally recognized and others are not. I would love to see the laws against same-sex marriage challenged on that ground by a coalition of faiths and denominations that DON'T regard different genitalia as a requirement for couples who know they belong together and wish to make a commitment within their faith and the law to that effect.

[megatherium]

13. Louisville Kentucky passed gay and lesbian protection for jobs.

This was maybe five years ago. This was after a Democrat changed his vote to be in favor, having opposed the ordinance in its previous two introductions. The local fundamentalists had claimed that gay rights are "special rights", that there isn't really any discrimination -- but then a local baptist charity fired a woman when they found out she was lesbian. (They acknowledged that was the reason for the dismissal.) The resulting outrage led to the passage of the ordinance.

Ironically, the version of the ordinance that passed exempts religious organizations, so the woman who was fired wouldn't have been protected.

[Solly Mack]

16. I agree. I get so tired of hearing the "not now" speech

"Let's wait" "Let's not piss people off" "These things take time" (which the lamest excuse of all)

You either support human rights or you don't...there's really no inbetween.

If human rights pisses a person off, they aren't exactly the type of person I want to be associated with anyway...and I'm certainly not going to kiss some bigots ass just to get a vote. Cause while that bigots ass is getting kissed, someone else's human rights are being denied.

Bottom line: Human rights are being denied. If anyone finds that acceptable or something that can be put on hold until <insert one of the many excuses used>, then I submit those who think that way really don't care about human rights.

It's easy to be cavalier and dismissive with the rights of others when you yourself enjoy those rights already...but when you are cavalier and dismissive about the rights of others, you're part of the problem.

[renaissanceguy]

40. People are still racist, bigoted, etc.

and I'm sure that in many parts of the deep south, they would still support segregation if they could. Hell, I could say the same thing about some parts of Illinois.

That's why we need to rely on our court system to stand up for what's right, because groupthink is very dangerous.

[Solly Mack]

43. Just not a Bush packed court system :)

people have a responsibility to stand up for what's right as well...and to step aside when their beliefs go against civil rights for all..

[Treblig]

182. Speaking of groupthink, check this out from over at FReeperland

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1392731/posts#3

[noiretextatique]

18. i'm surprised no one has told you how grateful you should be

that you aren't living in some place where gays have no rights. well...this thread is relatively young :eyes:
i never assume anything about anyone who calls him or her self a progressive or a democrat. the same isms that exist in america exist in progressives and democrats. as you well know..."WE" (blacks, women, gays and lesbians, workers and so on) are always expected to take one for the team, but our team, in some ways, has become indistinguishable from the other team on some issues of importance. we can only hope that more on our team are forced to join us in the back of the bus.

[cheezus]

22. those are the same kind of democrats as the segregationists

bigots
which means they should be republicans, but they aren't for some reason
ie, zell miller

[Skinner]

25. For the record, that person was banned.

We obviously have a long way to go in this country, even among Democrats. But on DU at least, nobody is a second class citizen. Our members are expected to support full and equal rights for everyone.

[MissB]

45. Thank you Skinner

:toast:

[Kerrytravelers]

87. I also thank you, Skinner.

[foreigncorrespondent]

100. Thank YOU, Skinner!

You never cease to amaze either me or Sapph. You truly are a unique guy!

[mogster]

113. Good line, this

> But on DU at least, nobody is a second class citizen.

Sums this place up pretty good :toast:

[Freddie Stubbs]

130. That is a little ironic, since DU supported a candidate for President last

year who did not support full and equal rights for everyone.

[mondo joe]

224. But that candidate didn't say what the poster did. eom

[ladeuxiemevoiture]

176. Thanks, Skinner!

:hi:

[davidinalameda]

184. thank you

[HereSince1628]

26. How do you know they are progressives?

Do they believe the following?

The nation and the world can be made better by progressive changes that effect the public and the collective public good?

Do they believe that progress is measured by increases in liberty, justice and equality?

Please don't call them progressives as though it is a garbage bag for every Democrat that doesn't want to be labeled a liberal (Liberals btw are folks who are broadly tolerant and open minded)

[UdoKier]

27. How about gay activists who label any progessive that fails...

... to put gay marriage at the top of the priority list over hungry kids or outsourced jobs, as a "homophobe"? I've found that to be just as common as "homophobic" progressives.

Besides, you're talking about INDIANA, for God's sake. It's the Alabama of the northern midwest. There are very few elected democrats there, and I can imagine why they'd be scared to put their jobs on the line by passing the bill.


Please keep in mind that over the last 25 years, as gays have made HUGE progress in terms of social acceptance and equal rights, working people have fallen behind, unions have disappeared, the poor have gotten much poorer, as the super-rich have gotten richer. How long do you expect US to wait until OUR issues get some damn attention?


To be specific, I'm talking about Mayor Newsom's Gay Marriage publicity stunt last year.

I didn't blame gays for supporting him wholeheartedly (although not all of them did think the timing was right), but there were more than a few gay activists here that gave me all kinds of grief just for saying that a prominent democrat pulling such a stunt in presidential election year was bad strategy. I was a homophobe because I was "blaming gays".

Of course, I was not, I was criticizing Newsom's judgment and timing, and I still do. Do I think we would have won if he had waited? Probably not. Kerry ran a sorry-ass campaign and didn't really want to win, IMO, but that's no reason for us to GIVE the right more ammo to use on their knuckle-dragging lemmings.

[davidinalameda]

42. this is exactly what I'm talking about

"publicity stunt"????

tell that to the 4000 couples that got married

[UdoKier]

44. For them it was a beautiful day.

For Gavin, it was another step on the way to his personal goals. Sorry, but I'm a little more cynical about his motivations.

[davidinalameda]

47. you're entitled to your opinion

[dsc]

52. How on earth did that help Gavin?

California has passed DOMA by around 70 to 30. He is already mayor of San Francisco and lives in Pelosi's district. Thus he can't run for Congress and made himself less popular statewide. This helped him, how?

[noiretextatique]

55. thanks for asking this question

there is a big gay & lesbian population in this area, but there was also a big show of opposition to gay marriage...in San Francisco.

[UdoKier]

94. If nothing else, it ingratiated him with the powerful gay community in SF

A lot of progressives were not so excited about his being elected and saw him as a tool of the rich. I won't say that he is, in light of his support for hotel strikers, but he's not exactly adversarial toward business and real estate interests, either.

I'm not trying to slam him here, I just think he did it because he thought it would make him more popular here (and it did) and I think his strategy was wrong.

[mondo joe]

206. Precisely how powerful is that community? Can they get him elected to

state or federal government?

Oh I know -- they're SO powerful they can't even get married in the state of California!

[Jack_DeLeon]

50. I agree with you.

[readmoreoften]

70. How about 40% of the homeless kids on the streets of NY are GLBT?

For our community, discrimination has a large economic component, despite the fact that a few guys on "Queer Eye" have fancy jobs.

You can say that our civil rights are less important to you than legislation but we have a double load being GLBT and progressives.

I don't think that considering our needs less important is 'homophobic', I just think it's myopic. Although, I've heard you say this on GLBT topics numerous times, so it sounds like you are quite convinced that there are 'larger issues.'

GLBT people fought against the war, they fight against povery and racism all the time. Think twice before you call us a 'selfish' community.

[UdoKier]

96. I never called gays as a group 'selfish'

Gay people are certainly NOT monolithic as you imply. SOme gays supported the war, and some just LOVE Bush.

As for poverty, most statistics show gays as having significantly HIGHER per capita incomes than straight people, not to mention fewer dependents to care for.

"Homeless kids in NY" = gay kids who ran away from repressive parents in other areas, right? Not quite the same as kids who have grown up in real poverty...

[Solon]

104. Your post is apalling on many different levels...

First is the prejudice and ignorance, FACT: Gays, Lesbians, and Bisexuals are NOT more affluent than "Regular" Americans.

Read This:

http://www.thetaskforce.org/downloads/income.pdf

Second, is this quote from your post: Not quite the same as kids who have grown up in real poverty...

WTF is this shit?! Do gay kids ON THE FUCKING streets not feel the cold biting into them through the rags they use to survive in December? Do kids on the streets that are gay NOT have to rummage through garbage bins to keep themselves at a barely sustenance level to live? That just smacks of bigotry, plain and simple, I cannot believe I saw such a BS post from a donor, to be frank. I guess gays don't feel pain like us straights do, huh?

[UdoKier]

107. I appreciate the info on GLBT incomes.

I browed it and it looks interesting. I will give it a more thorough read. If anything, it seems to argue that conclusive stats are not readily available regarding GLBT incomes.

As for your histrionics, please come off it. Are you telling me that a gay kid who flees a middle-class home because he doesn't feel accepted is the same as a kid who grows up in a 1 bedroom apartment crawling with roaches, where mac & cheese is dinner, if you're really lucky?


Many of these kids have made a choice to leave their families. Personally, if I were in that position, I would go home and tell my parents whatever they wanted to hear until I could live on my own if they were unable to accept me as I am.

Poor kids don't have that choice. They are poor no matter what they do.

That is not to say there aren't GLBT kids who grow up in terrible poverty. There obviously are. But the majority of "street kids" in LA and NY are not from that kind of poverty. They are fleeing parents they don't like, or are unwilling to leave the drug scene. You probably know that, and yet you go into feigned histrionics like you're talking about Dust Bowl refugees.

Many of the kids you're talking about have a lot in common with the kids you find on the streets in Hollywood. Fled from "boring" homes or "asshole parents" in some suburb somewhere, dreaming of becoming the next Axl Rose, Jenna Jameson or whatever. Of course, the reality they find is much more bleak than that.

I feel for anyone who is struggling with poverty. But young people have many more chances to make something of their lives. Those of us who are no longer young, fit, or pretty don't have as many chances to pick ourselves up if we stumble. We have kids to care for, bills to pay.

Hell, I lived in my car for weeks in my early 20s once because I had no money and no place to stay, and was to proud to go home to my folks.

But I never feared for the future then the way I do now that I have a wife and kids to feed on a pittance income in an expensive place like San Francisco.

"I guess gays don't feel pain like us straights do, huh?"

Even though I'm married to a woman, I am technically bi, so I wouldn't say that...



But your post is consistent with the OP. If you are a progressive who doesn't make gay rights the top priority, you're a "homophobe". Why not just say it that way?

[mondo joe]

108. Gay kids don't tend to go homeless because of just feeling unaccepted

but often because they are kicked out of their homes or face violence because they are gay.

So do I think a poor kid in a family is better off than a homeless gay teen who grew up middle class? Fuck yes, I do.

I grew up pretty poor and I was a lot better off than a homeless gay teen, no matter how much money his parents make.

[UdoKier]

120. So you would advise a gay kid to live on the streets rather than...

live with his homophobic parents? Not me. Personally, I think survival is more important.

Stay in the home unless it's dangerous to do su, at least until you can get your own apartment.

The streets are no place for a kid. I've been there. I know.

[Djinn]

114. ah yes "most streetkids"

could go home if they were just willing to give up the drug scene?? or just "liked" their parents?

do you honestly think people live on the streets, often resorting to prostitution to survive because their middle class mummy and daddy said they had to turn the stereo down. Jesus fuck that's one I never thought I'd see here.

On gay teens running away, again they don't do it just because their parents are a wee bit homophobic. I'm not sure you've ever experienced living with people that think you are the scum of the earth but it isn't really good for your self esteem, any idea how many teen suicides are those of gay and lesbian kids who have spent their entire lives living with the knowledge that the very people that are supposed to protect them from anything and everything actually despise them??

[UdoKier]

123. The chances of surviving homophobic parents are better than...

surviving the streets of NY or LA as a street kid.

The only exception is when the parents are violent, then there may be no choice.

It would be great if every parent could accept their kids as they are, but that just isn't the case. We all have a lot of shit to overcome. There are worse things than staying with homophobe parents until you can afford a place of your own.


Personally, I'd rather be a 17yo street kid, gay or straight than a 55yo displaced factory worker. The kids has any number of choices and tons of potential.

Society pretty much throws its "obsolete" middle-age folks on the trash heap. And if you're handicapped, forget it.

It may not be PC, but I do make an age distinction as it regards the homeless. I sometimes give a little something to a down-on-their-luck older person or someone with a handicap, but can't help but be puzzled why a young, strapping fit kid is panhandling...


When I was a kid, I worked plenty of shit jobs, and there are still plenty of shit jobs available...

[noiretextatique]

138. how can you make that judgement?

how do you know it's better to live with a homophobe than...not? there are all types of violence, not just physical.

[UdoKier]

144. Living with mean parents is better than dying on the streets.

And I would hope that gay kids would get away from bad parents (since that's what these parents are) as soon as possible, but to wait till they can feed themselves.

-or-

If they are minors, they can tall the police that they are abused and get put into foster care.


I'm sorry, but the streets are no place for kids. There are other ways, unfortunately a lot of kids aren't aware of them...

[noiretextatique]

145. again, how can YOU make that judgement?

answer: you can't. do you think it's worse to be beaten everyday, or to be threatened everyday? both are torture. the system is screwed up...that's why so many kids opt for the streets. ask them about it sometimes.

[UdoKier]

146. I've been on the streets and known LOTS of kids like that.

Sure not all kids are in the same boat. But I knew more than a few who could have gone home, but didn't want to - sometimes it was pride alone that kept them out there.

Whatever the situation, the streets are no place for a kid.

If the parents are abusive, the state can step in and set them up with foster care. How are the streets preferable to that?

[noiretextatique]

148. foster parents are not always great

:think: of course, i agree with you...but not everything is a black and white as you are saying. if that was the case...there would be no kids on the street. fact of the matter is, it's a symptom of a society that truly doesn't give a damn about its young anymore.

[UdoKier]

152. Our society doesn't give a damn about anyone without money anymore.

True about foster parents not always being good - but the streets are ALWAYS bad.

[noiretextatique]

153. i agree 100% nt

[NoSheep]

195. Ditto.

x(

[readmoreoften]

159. I guess I lived on different streets with different street kids.

Bwahhahaha. The states can set them up with foster care. Okay, well, meanwhile, you advise all these underage kids to 'suck it up' and stop being homeless.

While we're going on "I met a gay homeless kid once". I grew up in a steel mining town. I met a few 'displaced steel workers' who went back into job training through the states Job Training Partnership Act and they're doing all right. Most of those steel workers just dump all their money at the tittybars and spend it on booze. If they just spent it on their families they wouldn't be bitching. I mean if we're going to stereotype people based on common media perceptions, let's go all the way with it.

I can't believe I'm reading th bullshit conservative apologetics on this board.

[readmoreoften]

158. So you'd rather be the 19 year old gay black prostitute

than a 55 year old white displaced steel worker. Give me motherfucking break. Keep trying to argue your point.

Your ENTIRE argument rests on the assumption that all gay homeless children are from white privileged backgrounds and that all poor straights are noble family men and women. What a load of total and utter BS.

[Djinn]

165. "there's plenty of jobs"

these kids are just too lazy - sheesh where have I heard that before :eyes:

[UdoKier]

200. There *ARE* shitty jobs out there.

And unless you are in a pricey town like NY or LA, they should earn you enough to get a room and food.

Problem is for those of us who are not young, and who can't live on minimum wage because we have kids to feed, there are no longer enough decent jobs to go around even for skilled people, much less unskilled workers.

Young, single people do have advantages over older people with families to feed, IMO.

[mondo joe]

208. Older people have more experience and earning power

I have MUCH more earning power at 40, and I'm much more employable.

Kids - especially homeless kids - are not very employable.

[UdoKier]

209. BECAUSE YOU ARE PROBABLY COLLEGE EDUCATED

And not a an "obsolete" factory worker.

And hopefully you got a degree in a career that is not obsolete. When I went to college to learn advertising and graphic design, there was good money in it. Now it is just another wage-slave job, like "web designer" is going to be soon.

Luckily I parlayed my Japanese ability into work as a translator, yet another job that will probably be more or less obsolete before I am retirement age...


Kids are in a better position for learning the new skills necessary to get whatever few jobs will exist in Bush's nightmare futureworld.


Even a homeless kid can wash up, become a "barista", get student loans, go to school and get a decent job. Hell, that's exactly what I did. I had no help from my folks.


But now I have two kids. If my job disappears or becomes obsolete, how am I to go back to school and learn new skills when I can barely feed them as it is.


Also, you need to be specific when talking kids. Kids 17 and under need to get their asses in foster care. Everything I've said about jobs is strictly aimed at kids over 18.

[readmoreoften]

213. Yeah, get into foster care with a RW fundie lunatic family.

You make some broad pronouncements as to what kids 'should' and 'shouldn't' do. Many states have developed job training programs. Disenfranchised adults can go to these to learn new skills. Community college is also affordable and seized upon by many displaced blue collar workers.

But it's not just a blue collar/white collar issue. There are plenty of people working white collar jobs who make almost nothing. Not to mention the people who work service industry jobs. This is the real crux of the problem. It's not that people who work in factories have no job options, it's just that they have the same job options as the rest of America: Walmart, Starbucks, Waitressing, Mall Jobs, Data Entry.

Almost all of us have it rough in this economy. But saying that gay kids who have been kicked out of fundie families 'have it easier' is patently absurd.

[UdoKier]

216. You're missing the point by trying to "win" here.

What I said was:

"How about gay activists who label any progessive that fails to put gay marriage at the top of the priority list over hungry kids or outsourced jobs, as a "homophobe"? I've found that to be just as common as "homophobic" progressives.

Please keep in mind that over the last 25 years, as gays have made HUGE progress in terms of social acceptance and equal rights, working people have fallen behind, unions have disappeared, the poor have gotten much poorer, as the super-rich have gotten richer. How long do you expect US to wait until OUR issues get some damn attention?"

And I stick by that statement. I don't think kids kicked out of fundie families "have it easy", but they MAY Have choices that poor kids don't have , and it has nothing to do with my central point that I feel a lot of us nationwide are being FORCED onto a bandwagon on the whim of a Gavin Newsom, and forced to ignore working-class issues yet again.

" Many states have developed job training programs. Disenfranchised adults can go to these to learn new skills. "

New skills for what jobs? There aren't any that don't pay $8~12/hr. (Again, good money if you're young and single, not if you have a family)


"But it's not just a blue collar/white collar issue. There are plenty of people working white collar jobs who make almost nothing. Not to mention the people who work service industry jobs. This is the real crux of the problem. It's not that people who work in factories have no job options, it's just that they have the same job options as the rest of America: Walmart, Starbucks, Waitressing, Mall Jobs, Data Entry."

I agree with that statement, and it's exactly what I'm complaining about. Those of us desperately struggling to just feed our kids and pay the rent are expected to jump on every wedge issue bandwagon, and we never get ANY attention from the party on OUR issues. Why the hell do you think the so many in the working class are fleeing the party? I don't think it's because they want the party to be the hate party like the GOP, but they don't want a party whose top priority is gay marriage or protecting the right to partial birth abortion. I know that that is not the party platform, but the right-wing media, as well as some of our most vocal activists give that impression.

I'm just sick of the notion that anyone who doesn't put GLBT rights issues at the top of the priority list must be a homophobe. It's unfair and dishonest.

[mondo joe]

223. That's a bogus claim. No one is saying GLBT issues have to be the TOP

priority - and the presence of so many gay people who DO suppotr dem candidates proves it, because it hasn't been ANYONE's top priority.

But civil rights SHOULD be a top priority for democrats.

[UdoKier]

225. But that's the implication some GLBT activists make when they say...

...you are a homophobe if you disagree with the timing of Gavin's same-sex marriage stunt during the run-up to a national election.

OR when they claim those who question the timing and strategy are "blaming gays for the election loss". That's a total red herring.

I place all the blame on Kerry and his lousy campaign (and some on the election machines) but I see no reason why we should have democrats GIVING the right fuel for their propaganda if our candidate wasn't going to support same-sex marriage anyway, especially when Newsom could have just as easily done it THIS February rather than the last. And again, how many endless news cycles were used up on that stunt that could have been devoted to the rise of mcjobs, or the death of the middle class, or overpriced housing, or the LIES this president told about his foreknowledge of 9-11 or WMD in Iraq.


And people's ability to have food and a roof over their heads IS a civil rights issue, IMO.

[mondo joe]

226. Bull. Don't blame gays for every paranoid inference you have.

Since when is advocating for equal civil rights a STUNT?

Or did you think Rosa Parks pulled a STUNT?

[UdoKier]

228. Rosa Parks was not an ambitious POLITICIAN.

Her motives were above reproach. The same could be said for all the couples who married in SF last year. As for Newsom's motives, who the hell knows? I see him as a rich, slick yuppie with a lot of ambition, not some starry-eyed idealist.


And, see, there you go again - I'm "Blaming Gays" again. Where'd you get the idea that ALL gays agree with what Newsom did and when he did it? I know more than a few liberal gay people who didn't, and it wasn't because they were against gay marriage.

That's like saying that anyone who opposes Earth First! spiking trees is against preserving the forest!

[mondo joe]

229. Funny, you don't know his motives but you somehow know they're bad

Maybe it's something he actually CARED about.

You can't demonstrate any gain for him as a result - it doesn't make him more electable in the state or the nation.

[UdoKier]

233. You're right, I don't know, it may just be my distrust of the rich...

...and politicians getting the best of me. There are democrats who work against the democratic party, and they aren't all DINO types.

But I don't expect you to agree with me. I respect that you don't. All I ask is an acknowledgement that there are those of us who want a different, more strategic approach to GLBT rights issues, and that does NOT make us homophobes. Is that so damn hard to do?

[mondo joe]

234. I don't judge people based on their income. And based on your rather

bizarre notions that civil rights for gays come at the expense of others, or that gay homeless teens have it better off than older people with homes, or that 15 year olds don't know their affectional orientation, or that gay activist groups tell 12 year olds to come out...

I can only acknowledge your "strategic approach" as one that seems to be to say any crazy divisive shit you think of.

[UdoKier]

236. I respect your opinions on issues -YOU seem unable to respect...

...the opinions of others.

EVERY point I've made makes perfect sense to me. I have my own unique viewpoint and I don't expect you to understand it or agree with it. But the fact that I'm not in lockstep with you doesn't make my opinion "divisive shit".

I wasn't the one who started a thread complaining about rampant homophobia among progressives. If that isn't divisive, I don't know what is. That certainly has not been my experience with progressives.

But fine, keep calling anyone a homophobe who doesn't jump on every GLBT bandwagon, no matter how counterproductive or ill-timed, and watch as the democratic party continues to wither. Continue disrespecting those who don't fit into rigid gay/straight pigeonholes. God forbid you actually have the decency to say " I disagree with you, but I hope to have your support the next time around."

As for the rich, I've known enough, and even the well-intentioned ones often have a very different take on this, like it's all about wanting to be nice people. They're comfortable and will go with the establishment in a millisecond if they sense any threat to their comfy existence. That's why "liberal" Cronkite dismissed all the plausible theories on JFK's assassination in favor of the preposterous one presented by the government.

That's why "liberal" Kerry didn't REALLY care whether or not he won, and made such a lame-ass effort against the WORST PRESIDENT OF ALL TIME. So forgive me of being suspicious. I've seen progressives stabbed in the back too many times by "liberal" politicians to just trust them for no reason.

Believe me, I WANT to believe in Newsom. He's my mayor, and I've seen promising things in how he hanndled the local hotel strike, and more disconcerting things in his handling of the homeless. I still hold out hope for him, but it takes more than one year in office to convince me.


Anyway, I'll say it. I disagree with you mondo. I respect where you're coming from, and I'm pretty sure I'll be in 100% agreement with you on a LOT of things in the future. And even on the stuff I disagree on, I wish you the best of luck.

[mondo joe]

237. I respect your right to your fallacious opinions but not the opinions

themselves - but that's not personal. It's just because they're wrong.

I don't care if your opinion make sense TO YOU but if the MAKE SENSE.

You say there are activist groups telling 12 year olds to come out - please list those groups.

You say Newsom did what he did to gain advantage despite the fact that by every measure he makes NO GAIN.

It's funny that you think a 15 year old gay kid should be able to navigate the law, and an 18 year old should be self sufficient, but you don't hold yourself to the same standard of responsibility and independence. No, not you - you're a victim.

I mean really, how messed up do you have to be to think a homeless gay teen has is better off than you?

[UdoKier]

238. Do you ever let up? I'm trying to stick to the OP and you're going off on

all these tangents.

I don't want to go into why I think GLBT groups encourage kids to come out because if I do, you will still disagree with me. You must admit that they don't necessarily tell kids that it would be better to wait until they are older (although they are not uniform in this) - but that was another thread, and you're dragging it into a totally unrelated topic for the sole purpose of baiting me.

Newsom definitely consolidated his power here in SF with his marriage "action" (since you don't like stunt). As a powerful mayor, after 2 terms or so, he may be primed and ready for a senate run. If Boxer could win here, why not a dashing man like Newsom. People forget quickly. Watch as he wins his next mayoral election in a landslide. I guarantee it will not be so close like the last time. He is already SF royalty.


Any 15 year old know that his parents are obligated to take care of him until age 18. Hell, I knew that when I was 10, and I knew what foster parents were too.

And I'm not bashing 18 year-olds for being homeless. But barring a drug addiction, there is no reason it shouldn't be a short-term situation. Roommates, shit jobs, lots of people want to help out a young person willing to work for peanuts. I have been on the streets at age 19. I slept in my car. I slept in a flophouse hallway in Hollywood. I did not like it. I took shit jobs, got a dumpy studio, and got my shit together. I have NEVER been financially comfortable since then, but I was NOT referring to myself as a victim, but the legions of unskilled workers who have been made obsolete by NAFTA and Wal-mart (and are NOT being helped) I'm still relatively young, still have marketable skills and am confident that I can get by. I recognize that there are people out there who have it tougher than me. Forgive me for sympathizing with people who have kids. Kids are utterly helpless, unlike teens.

I don't think a homeless teen has it better than me (and I don't see that "gay" has anything to do with it), but I do think a teen, even a homeless one, has a lot more time ahead of him and more potential, if he's able to recognize it himself.


But what does any of that have to do with the fact that progressives in general are NOT homophobes?

[mondo joe]

239. I'm just asking you to support your claims. It's simple.

1. Which GLBT groups are telling 12 year old kids to come out?

2. Since CA voted AGAINST same sex marriage why would Newsom's actions make him MORE electable in the state?

3. If, as you say regarding Newsom's actions, "people forget quickly", how would they help him anyway?

4. Since teens are a very high risk population for a variety of health issues, and are unlikely to gain any skills to become more employable, why exactly should their situation be SHORT TERM?

5. Why did you understand the law at age 10 but don't understand keeping yourself marketable as an adult?

Ands to answer your question: no one said progressives in general are homophobes. That's the whole point: why are SOME progressives homophobes.

[UdoKier]

241. This will be my last post to this thread. it's getting late - and tedious.

1. I'm not saying they are directly "telling" anyone to do anything. My thread on the subject was already locked, so I'm not going to say anything else "inappropriate".

2. Apparently Californians didn't want same-sex marriage codified into law yet, but that doesn't mean that California is virulently anti-gay, or even especially hostile to those who favor same-sex marriage. I think he is modeling his career on Giuliani's - he wants to be the guy who cleaned up SF and made it prosperous, but he also knows his constituency, and the GLBT community here is very influential. By the time he is ready for a senate or gubernatorial run, the marriages will be but a memory, and he will be gloating about closing the budget shortfalls and "fixing San Francisco" or at least I think that's the plan.

3. Being at risk for health issues and lacking skills keeps you from being able to flip burgers? Come on.

5. "Why did you understand the law at age 10 but don't understand keeping yourself marketable as an adult?"

Cute. like saying "You could tie your shoes at age 5 but you don't know how to make a 6 figure salary?" If it was that easy, everybody would be doing it.

I have a decent job. I constantly try to keep my skills sharpened. I limit my hours so I can help out my wife with orchestrating her job, and so I can shuttle the kids to and from school (see what I mean about older people with kids having different challenges than young, single folks?) If I was single, and could put in 50~60 hrs a week, I believe I could make a decent living. Not 6 figures, but not bad. But when you are married with kids, you make sacrifices. It's not as simple as you make out.

But anyway, you've made a few decent points. I'm sorry if you don't get where I'm coming from, or you think I'm a crackpot or homophobe. I know where I'm coming from and it's 100% sincere. Take care.

[mondo joe]

244. Good, because you've swallowed a lot of right wing rhetoric.

Your lack of even modest sympathy for homeless gay teens in astonishing - especially in light of your enormous pity for yourself over the outcomes of your own choices.

[readmoreoften]

231. You're acting like this is a zero sum game here.

>>"Please keep in mind that over the last 25 years, as gays have made HUGE progress in terms of social acceptance and equal rights, working people have fallen behind, unions have disappeared, the poor have gotten much poorer, as the super-rich have gotten richer. How long do you expect US to wait until OUR issues get some damn attention?"<<

Hey, working class people aren't doing worse because gays are getting better. And what is this nonsense about "How long do you expect US to wait until OUR issues get some damn attention?" Do you really think that most gay people are not working class? Are most of the GLBT people in America the owner-capitalists? If so, then why are GLBT people trying to pass ENDA laws that stop gender discrimination in the workplace?

You yourself say that you are a GRAPHIC DESIGNER. Do you really think YOUR employment issues are so at odds with the rest of queer America. Give me a break?

And this whole "those who fail to make gay issues the most important ones are labeled homophobes" crap. Who the hell is asking you to make our issues top priority in your life? We're just asking that you press the right buttons in the voting booth and agree on a message board that we deserve the same protections that you have. But it's pretty clear that you just wish that we'd shut up, that you consider us a wealthy class of libertines at odds with the 'workin' man'. It's pretty clear that not only are GLBT rights not your first interest, they don't really seem to rank at all.

Your GAYS WIN, COALMINERS LOSE position is pretty silly in my book. You should send to Rove, he'll give it legs.

[UdoKier]

240. Where to begin?

"Hey, working class people aren't doing worse because gays are getting better."

I never said that. I said that working class people are being ignored as they slip further into poverty. And I agree that it's not a zero-sum game. You're mixing up living standards, civil rights and the media's myopic eye. My problem is that we let a democrat put the focus on an issue that the party was NOT behind him on, when he could have waited and we could have mounted a MLK-esque "Working People's Campaign" or some such thing that actually might have resonated.

The media game is a whole different thing than actual reality, in case you hadn't noticed. Had Newsom waited a year to do what he did, I would be APPLAUDING HIM.

"Do you really think that most gay people are not working class?"

No, but I think most working-class voters are not gay, and when they are told by the MSM that the dems' top issue is legalizing gay marriage, and the GOP's top issue is cutting their taxes and protecting them from terrorists, I know how most of them will vote.

"Are most of the GLBT people in America the owner-capitalists? If so, then why are GLBT people trying to pass ENDA laws that stop gender discrimination in the workplace? "

When did I ever say they were? I just think some of the activists were and are myopic on the marriage issue, and again, all gays did NOT support Newsom's move, or at least not the way he went about it, not by a long shot.


"You yourself say that you are a GRAPHIC DESIGNER. Do you really think YOUR employment issues are so at odds with the rest of queer America. Give me a break?"

I said I went to college to be a graphic designer. I found the work to be less than enjoyable, and the pay to be shitty, so I parlayed my Japanese ability into a job as a translator, which I enjoy much more. And I never said that my issues, or those of the working class were "at odds with queer America" They ARE at odds with a republican presidency, house and senate, and Newsom's actions did nothing to help in removing those bastards from office. Get it?

"Who the hell is asking you to make our issues top priority in your life?"

No you just expect me to not be concerned when I see a guy grandstanding, USING GLBT issues for his own agenda, while creating a drag on the party candidate's chances.

Blaming, or just questioning Newsom is NOT "blaming gays" no matter how desperately you spin it.

"But it's pretty clear that you just wish that we'd shut up, that you consider us a wealthy class of libertines at odds with the 'workin' man'. It's pretty clear that not only are GLBT rights not your first interest, they don't really seem to rank at all. "

Yeah, that's exactly what I said. Right.

"Your GAYS WIN, COALMINERS LOSE position is pretty silly in my book."

I'm sorry, did gays win something? I hadn't noticed. Last I heard the courts had invalidated all the marriages. Do pyrrhic victories count for something with you? Not with me.

[readmoreoften]

243. the issue isn't GLBT people fighting, it's the bought-off MSM

"the dems' top issue is legalizing gay marriage"

No democrats are even progressive enough to even be in favor of the idea. If it wasn't this, then the MSM would be saying that the democrats are in favor of ENDA and if they pass gender discrimination laws, soon it'll be against the law to fire policemen who want to dress in nothing but women's panties. It's a Rovian trick, nothing more. Kerry was anti-gay marriage and Clinton promoted DOMA. No GLBT people have won not very much. A few DPs, a few non-discrimination acts, quite a few companies suddenly willing to treat folks like humans.

But queer people are going to keep pushing for rights. It's not like the evangelicals will ever back down. Bush would have won no matter what. It was in the cards and the cards were marked.

[mondo joe]

221. All the more reason to laugh at your "young people can get by on

crappy jobs" notion. Those young people are going to get older and only be qualified for the same crappy jobs.

With regard to learning new skills, my answer to yuo is this: Learn them now, learn them always.

[mondo joe]

222. All the more reason to laugh at your "young people can get by on

crappy jobs" notion. Those young people are going to get older and only be qualified for the same crappy jobs.

With regard to learning new skills, my answer to yuo is this: Learn them now, learn them always.

[readmoreoften]

157. Your posts on this matter are so ignorant and biased it is unbelievable.

"That is not to say there aren't GLBT kids who grow up in terrible poverty. There obviously are. But the majority of "street kids" in LA and NY are not from that kind of poverty. They are fleeing parents they don't like, or are unwilling to leave the drug scene. You probably know that, and yet you go into feigned histrionics like you're talking about Dust Bowl refugees."

Funny, I live in NYC and I don't come into contact with any kids like this at all. Sure, on the surface they might idolize a hip hop star or model and wish they could be him or her, but then again don't straight poor kids have dreams too? Don't straight poor kids invest in popular culture? You have no idea of the lives of GLBT people. It sounds like you don't have much experience with poor people either. You seem to have some fantasy about the 'noble poor' and the 'affluent, rebellious, selfish, gay youth'.

Must be nice to sit on your high straight horse and tell gay people what their realities are.

[davidinalameda]

185. why are you bringing choice into this

some of these kids, not all mind you, but some are victims of abuse at home and at school because they're gay or perceived to be gay

do you have any idea what it's like to be called queer by your middle class father?

or taken to the priest by your middle class mother to have him try and cure you--thank the gods he wasn't some old perv

or have your middle class siblings tease and torment you until you think that you're losing your mind?

I don't care if you're so upper class you make Bill Gates look poor, if you don't have your family's support, the streets look pretty damn good because you don't have a home

or do you just want the kids to stick it out--remember, the highest number of youth sucides occur among GLBT kids

[LostinVA]

131. Maybe, MAYBE two gay professional men

But, most lesbian couples that I know, myself included, make far less than the "conventional" or gay males couples we know. And, I'm talking about the same level of education, experience, etc. Heck, we all work in the same place!

[UdoKier]

134. Solon posted an informative link on those stats.

It's thought-provoking anyway.

I must confess to having accepted the old stats as fact, when it may not be that simple...

[readmoreoften]

154. Nothing like jumping to conclusions.

I guess that's why they call it ignorant. Must be nice to get to ignore the realities of groups you have no interest in.

"most gays have more money"

Who? Gay white men from affluent backgrounds? Or gay black femme men with few options other than prostitution. White working class butch lesbians? Oh no, sorry. LATINO lesbians are hoarding all the cash. Maybe GAY WHITE MEN are more affluent than 'average americans' because they are white and men and there are two of them. How about two black dykes. Yeah, real Donald Trumps.

Many of the homeless kids on the streets of NY are from working class backgrounds, including white working class, but many black and latino working class kids who don't stand a chance. And the wealthy kids who get kicked out at 16? They're not exactly slumming trust fund babies. Try getting a scholarship when your parents make $100,000 a year but have disowned you permanently.

And most gay kids aren't runaways in search of hedonistic highs in flight from their 'square' parents. They get THROWN THE FUCK OUT. Goodbye. You're 15, fend for yourself.

Maybe all these 'gays' that you hear talking are the GAYS WHO HAVE A VOICE. White ones. Male ones. Homosexuality occurs in the same proportion in other ethnicities as well.

If you really give a shit, go read the white papers at www.taskforce.org before you start spouting off. Gays aren't a privileged group. We have one-notch-down no matter where we start and not all of us begin with Harvard law professors as parents.

[UdoKier]

161. Kids thrown out at 15? Illegal.

Parents are obligated BY LAW to care for their kids until they reach majority. Most kids know that.

And who says kids have to come out at age 15? Why is this a good or even necessary thing? Who the hell has their sexuality all sorted out and set in stone at age 15? I sure as hell didn't. Kids at this age should still be exploring their sexuality. A lot of people have the sense to hold off on "coming out" until they can fend for themselves. Sometimes I wonder if the activist groups that encourage 12, 13, 15 year old kids to "come out" really have their interests in mind. Who does it benefit? Kids at this age are not even at the age of consent. And if their homophobic parents do kick them out, is PFLAG going to give them a place to stay?

Gays are not a privileged group, but they do have an advantage over other minorities, in that most of them can "pass" if they choose to. It's a lot harder to hide black skin or a mouthful of rotten teeth because you can't afford a dentist, or threadbare clothes.

I do give a shit, and am under no illusion that gay people or street kids consist of a monolith. But I see LGBT issues being dealt with in the media and by politicians ALL THE TIME. NOBODY talks about the poor or working people anymore, nobody does anything about it any more. We are just expected to DROP DEAD, I suppose.

Let's look at it another way. GLBT people represent what, 5% of the population? And yet DU is full of threads about CGLBT issues, and the right responds in kind with their disproportionate attacks on gays, gay scares and gay-baiting.

But there the hell are all the threads on the fact that there are nothing left for many of us but McJobs? Outsourcing? The death of the union movement? The government says that 12% of Americans live in poverty, but the true number is closer to 30%, since the poverty line for a family of FOUR is a paltry $18,000/year.

These are the people who could be allies to the gay rights movement, but they will not be coming out to vote if they are all DESTITUTE.

Ah, what the hell do I know, maybe you can get all the progress you need with just the votes of rich liberals and rich libertarian types. Who cares about a bunch of working slobs, right?

[mondo joe]

205. Says the guy who thinks homeless gay teens are better off than poor teens

in loving homes.

What a load of crap.

And you may not have known your affectional orientation at 15, but most people do.

"Passing" is not a gift - and it's not a gift to be born into a family that rejects you. No black kid was rejected by his family because he was black. No poor kid ever had to pretend to her parents she's really middle class.

Which activist group, incidentally, encourages 12 year olds to come out?

[readmoreoften]

214. Not to mention that transgendered GLBT people can't pass.

Butch dykes and queens can't pass. That's why they get beaten and raped all the time. Many of us who can pretend do, because very few people are self-aware enough to fight for their rights in middle school.

My partner gets bothered just walking down the street based on gender difference alone.

[noiretextatique]

139. EVERYTHING IS CONNECTED!!!!!

it's time *our side* understands that. a part of our problem is the continued expectation that some people "take it for the team." the problem is it's always the same groups being asked to sacrifice for some supposedly more important priority. then...we get sold down the river by our own party...then we are asked to take another for the team. it's not surprising that soem people are looking for a new team.

[carnie_sf]

30. I'm against same-sex marriage

but, then again, I'm against opposite-sex marriage too. I still haven't decided about cross-species marriage.

[renaissanceguy]

39. I hope you're against Republican marriage too.

[cally]

38. Because Dems have the same homoerotic fears as everyone else

It's part of our culture and a part I don't like. I was watching the response to Bush holding hands with the Saudi Prince. If a Dem had done that he would have been gay but of course it's OK for a Rep. But that's not the entire issue. Why do we even make it an issue.

Our culture doesn't accept same sex relationships. Many of us are trying but it takes much to overcome the cultural indoctrination. We can be tolerant, but it takes much to speak out.

So, how long should you be on the back of the bus? Never. But we have to hang together and realize that many of us need to progress. Still, noone is perfect so let's acknowledge progress.

[UdoKier]

46. The only thing that bugs me about those photos...

Is that it's an AMERICAN OIL GANGSTER-MURDERER holding hands with a SAUDI OIL GANGSTER-MURDERER who helped fund the people who knocked down the twin towers. I don't really care if they full-on french kiss. It's the fact that THAT is our president, making nice with an enemy of human rights.

[progressivebydesign]

53. Homophobia. Why "phobic"? I've always wondered....

I've always wondered, as a progressive, how the term homophobia became such a blanket term. I mean, there are people out there who disagree with the homosexual lifestyle for whatever reasons THEY think are valid, or what they've been told by their friendly neighborhood clergy. They disagree with it, they don't like it, but most of the people I've seen who are openly anti-homosexual are not afraid of them.. they're just ignorant or hateful. They are not afraid of homosexuality... they're against it.

I frankly don't understand why some people take it upon themselves to approve or disapprove someone's sexual orientation... I'm sure it's been drilled in their psyche by older family members and churches. But I do wonder, honestly, why everyone is labeled "phobic" if they disagree.

[mondo joe]

57. Because "phobic" refers to an irrational or hysterical response.

If you don't like black olives you don't run around the pizzaria trying to prevent anyone else from eating them. At least not if you're rational.

[JohnnyCougar]

68. Ignoance and hate comes from fear.

That's why it's called homophobia. And I think it's more of heterosexuals being insecure with their own sexuality (and being afriad that they might possibly be gay) than actually being afraid of gays themselves. The more they say they can't accept gays being who they are, the more they "prove" to themselves that they are not gay.

I have to say, there are not a lot of men that are comfortable with their sexuality. That is where the anti-homosexual attitude comes from.

[davidinalameda]

89. "homosexual lifestyle"

see, right there if your first mistake

there is NO homosexual lifestyle

my lifestyle is that I get up usually around 6:30, get a shower, make sure the cats have food and water for the day, get dressed and go to work

now, if that is the "homosexual lifestyle" there's a hell of a lot more homosexuals out there than I ever though

it would be like saying the "Jewish lifestyle" or the "Hispanic lifestyle"--there's no such thing

[Djinn]

93. hey dwickham

looks like I'm gay too! that's my lifestyle, better tell my boyfriend to move out and make way for a new girlfriend in order to match my "lifestyle"

[davidinalameda]

101. send your boyfriend my way then

I know a nice girl for you!

[Djinn]

115. right now I'd exchange him for a hamster

let alone a nice girl! so I might take you up on that - although I'd suggest you hide your wallet before he get's there!

[davidinalameda]

121. LOL

just dump his ass and go get the hamster

[LostinVA]

132. "LIFESTYLE"??? I don't have a lifestyle, I have a LIFE

God, i hate that word! I feel it so diminishes us.

[yurbud]

54. I am homophobic AND I support gay marriage

It's an odd visceral thing with guys, but I think it's because guys, gay and straight, are such horndogs that we are always on the make. The straight guy thinks about how he thinks about women when he meets a gay guy and assumes the gay guy is thinking like a guy--only gay.

Most of the time, a guy doesn't go out of his way to be friendly with a girl unless he wants to date/sleep with her, so he assumes that's a gay guy's agenda with him.

It doesn't occur to us that we might not be hot enough to lust after.

Even with all that in mind, I support gay marriage and civil rights the same way I would support the rights of women I'm not particularly attracted to.

People who feel differently probably can't make the distinction between accepting that people are gay and wanting to be gay or recruited or something.

The most important thing is, you made me feel GUILTY! Am I the offending poster?

[readmoreoften]

72. I don't want to sleep with you.

I'm a lesbian. I don't deny straight people's rights to marry because horndog guys like to watch girls make out on girls-gone-wild video tapes.

But thanks for the honesty, anyway. :)

[yurbud]

76. How did you know about my Girls Gone Wild tapes?

I cancelled my subscription anyway. My girlfriend made me.

[hunter]

168. I don't get your "odd visceral thing."

I'm sure there are people here on DU who have similar sorts of "visceral" reactions against black people, or Asian people, or Mexican people, and so on, but they would never admit it.

It's a learned behavior, you can get over it.

I was lucky that I never learned this "odd visceral thing." Maybe I can thank my parents. While I was growing up it was unremarkable that any of their friends were gay or lesbian.

I got called "gay" quite a bit in middle school and high school, but I never took it as anything worse than all the other taunts. I know it would have been worse if I was actually gay.

But if by some chance I had been gay, I probably couldn't have told my mom for fear she'd be looking out for cute guys to set me up with. It was bad enough whenenever she'd introduce me to a nice young woman, and I'd stare at my feet or the sky and forget entirely how to talk.

My dad's parents lived and worked in Hollywood from the mid 'twenties. They worked with people who were openly gay. I knew my grandfather well enough to say that he would have been against gay marriage. He saw homosexuality as some sort of fault, but not a terrible one. From his point of view homosexuality was something that simply had to be accommodated. No big deal, it was business as usual. My grandma was not so indifferent, she could probably be described as "forgiving" which was, in many ways, a much less accepting attitude than my grandfather's.

My parents are Liberals of the uncomfortable sort. (Hi mom, I'm calling you out!) It was a little obvious they were proud to have gay and lesbian friends, but it was never in that horrible "some of my best friends are black" mode. In my parents' house gay and lesbian couples can be as openly affectionate as any other couples, and it's always been that way. "Would you guys like the guest room with the twin beds, or the queen size bed?" (She has embarassed all sorts of people with that question...)

Some of you reading this know I am some sort of left wing fringe radical Catholic, and I had some pretty heated arguments with our Bishop over the Church's financial support of proposition 22, the "anti gay marriage" ammendment here in California. (Our Bishop told me it was to "control the discourse" or something like that. In other words, I told him, he was afraid that the rabid foaming at the mouth homophobes would do something so vile and disgusting that they would kill any chances the proposition had of passing...) Well I haven't been barred from Mass yet.

My own support for gay marriages was forged in fire. Before I met my wife I'd been in a horrible, horrible relationship with a woman who'd had more girlfriends than I ever will, who wouldn't admit to herself or anyone else that she was a lesbian.

Young, ignorant, besotten, I kept thinking things would get better, but they kept getting worse. Halfway to hell, one of her girlfriends, who had a very bad drug and alcohol problem, tried to kill herself in my bathtub.

Our relationship ended in Berkeley, when I jumped out of her moving car and ran away as fast as I could. (Maybe she'll recognize me here, and tell you what an asshole I was! And I was too.)

The story has a happy ending. She ended up marrying the woman of her dreams, and I married the woman of my dreams. If the state of California doesn't recognize that marriage, it's just not right.

So anyways, I have a visceral reaction against anyone who opposes "gay" marriages. I associate this opposition to road rash.

[lonestarnot]

97. There is a cure..."All men are created equal" and women too!

[Pushed To The Left]

109. This heterosexual supports gay marriage!

I suspect that many politicians might support gay marriage, but are afraid of losing votes if they do the right thing. I saw an interview with a Democrat who had just retired after many years in the Senate. He admitted that he voted against the confirmation of Thurgood Marshall because he was afraid of the political ramifications. This is why saving the filibuster is so important! Impartial judges are the last line of defense against voters and politicians who don't give a damn about civil rights or the Constitution.

[The Traveler]

111. NOT ONE MORE MINUTE!!!

Step to the front of the bus, bud. Lots of us straight guys have yer back.


This is a civil rights matter ... pure and simple. And if they can deny you your God given rights, then they can deny mine.

Who and how you love is between you, your lovers, and your God. It is arrogance in the extreme for anyone to presume they have the right to judge or interfere.

[readmoreoften]

160. Thank you. Kisses, kisses, and more kisses.

From a lesbian who *hearts* straights who fight for us. :hi:

[The Traveler]

177. Yer welcome!

Here's to ya!

:toast:

Surrender to these nefarious bastards? Never!

[REP]

112. Well, I Am Against Gay *And* Straight Marriage...

Let me explain: I don't think the ritual known as marriage should have legal standing for anyone, since it is a religious ceremony. I favor civil unions for *everyone.* Until that day comes, though, I am 100% for gay marriage. To be against it is just, well, bizarre. Aside from the simple rightness of it, it has aspects every capitalist could love: weddings are a big business ... and so are divorces.

Gay rights are human rights. Women's rights are human rights. What is so hard to understand about this?

[erichzann]

118. There is a simple answer to this -

First, you gloss over the fact that not all (indeed not most) democrats are progressives. But that's part of the answer. There are plenty of conservative democrats in the party who cannot be counted on to pass an ideological "litmus" test when it comes to attitudes about discrimination.

Second, I highly doubt you will find too many progressive platforms that are not strongly support of GLBT rights. So saying "homophobia in the democratic party" and "homophobia amoung progressives" is not the same thing, and one is more realistic than the other.

[satya]

119. The issue is not gay rights, it's personal rights.

Why should sexuality even come into play? If any person is being forced to accept second class citizenship, we should ALL be very concerned.

Personally, I would prefer the state sanction ONLY civil unions, because that more accurately reflects that the "marriage" you're entering into is a legal contract. Signing that license is what makes you legally married (at least in the 2 states where I've done it); makes no difference whether the ceremony took place in a church or court or if you even had one. If you belong to a church that has it's own definition of marriage, fine. But that's no business of the state.

There is no reason why two people of legal age should be denied the right to enter into a contract. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a bigot, IMHO. What's next? Will I have to swear I'm straight to own property?

Full disclosure: I'm straight, married multiple times, no religion.

[Unions]

141. Actually human rights

[satya]

155. Educate me, please. Is that because "person" may be construed to include

corporations under the (misinterpreted) 14th ammendment?

[intheflow]

125. Hey, dwickham,

I feel your pain.

It amazes me that after the civil rights movement people on the left still think we have to "wait until people are ready." No meaningful change ever comes without a struggle that starts with putting an unpopular idea out there.

You can always sit in the front of my bus. Or I'll strike the bus lines in solidarity with you. :hug:

[LostinVA]

133. It's a good thing African Americans didn't wait until people

Were ready for integration... I'd bet money a big chunk of America would still be desegrated....

[noiretextatique]

140. it is, actually...there is still a lot of segregation in america

but you are also correct about waiting around for attitudes to change. if we had any real leadership, they would be out there changing attitudes, instead of acquiescing to the rw.

[davidinalameda]

183. thanks!

[Name removed]

136. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[noiretextatique]

142. is heterosexuality also "a choice?"

:hurts: so much for your argument...which i would describe as heterosexist, not homophobic.

[libnnc]

143. can you take my word for it?

I did NOT CHOOSE to be emotionally, sexually and spiritually attracted to other women. There's no "proving" to it. What more "proof" do you need than gays and lesbians themselves saying so? The people who say that being gay/lesbian is a choice are usually HETEROSEXUAL.

[Solly Mack]

149. If it were a matter of filing separate returns, then why not ban all

marriage? That way everyone would file separately. So, I really don't think the government is concerned about it's tax base in regards to human rights.



Since you're not a homophobe and since you don't feel strongly about the issue one way or the other...

What are the specific reasons you have for being against adults getting married?






Now, if you read that and say...but I'm not against adults getting married...just gays getting married. I have my answer.

[geniph]

151. Some of us can sort of "choose"

but I think we're the minority - we're the bisexuals. I didn't actually "choose" to be attracted to both men and women - I just am, and always have been - but I did choose to admit it to myself. I suppose that makes it "choice" but the fact remains that even if I "chose" to be the most socially conformist and apparently heterosexual of women, I'd still be attracted to other women sexually.

I don't think most people wake up one day when they're pubescent and say, "hey, I'd like to be discriminated against, possibly beaten, treated like shit, and have to hide my relationships from my relatives and co-workers - I think I'll be gay from now on!" Who would choose that?

I don't think one "chooses" to whom one is attracted any more than one chooses one's eye color.

Personally, I think we need to reframe the whole issue. It isn't "gay rights." That sounds suspiciously like "special rights" to people who fear the world is out to screw them. It's "human rights" or "equal rights." I don't support any special rights for GLBTQ folks - I support every citizen having equal rights and responsibilities under the law.

[B Calm]

166. Young guy I work with is an over the road driver and very right wing.

He listens to 24/7 right wing hate radio and is mad at the whole world. Well anyway he comes in the other morning spouting off that he was in a truck stop restroom and the guy in the next stall knocks on the wall and says how about a quick blow job. I really doubt this happened at all, but boy the guys at work were really talkin shit about it.

[Jon8503]

169. I am with you, I doubt it ever happened. He probably wished.

I find and I have gay friends and one of my best friends was gay and I did not know it in high school, found out in college.

My wife and I have gay friends in our social circle so to speak from work and other activities.

The gay groups we know don't look to knocks on a restroom stall for sex. Their sexual relationships as I know about them are pretty much the same as ours.

They have the same problems, same issues as we do.

I have never seen the homophobia or scare of gays as the right wingers do.

I honestly believe the fear for them is their own inside fear of who they really are or something. Otherwise, why do you fear gays except if you don't have a good hold or understanding on your own sexuality.

[geniph]

189. The guys who do that kind of thing...

...anonymous truck-stop sex, are mostly the imnotgaybut guys - the ones who start every come-on to another guy with "I'm not gay, but" (I really want to blow you, etc.). They haven't anything to do with civil rights for actual GLBT folks. They're down-low types. Most of 'em are married.

[Touchdown]

191. That's the plot of a gay porno vid.

Ask him if he's seen "Lost Exit", and if he liked the "paying for car repair" scene better than the "rest stop" scene.:evilgrin:

Truck stop sex has been a longstanding gay fantasy thing. It happens a lot less than people think.

[allerna332]

192. dont be so PC

just because one does not agree with same sex marriage does not make them a homophobe, people are entitled to their opinions without being labelled as a "homophobe"

[ladeuxiemevoiture]

196. Maybe in your world, but...

and I don't call people names - that's my soc. psych. background coming out, but stigmatizing anyone never is effective at working with them.

By denying gays as a class of people the right to marriage, gay couples are effectively being denied all the same rights and protections as heterosexual couples. Arguing, "I'm against gay marriage not cuz I'm a homophobe, but just because" is not convincing.

If you don't effectively support giving gays and lesbians all the same rights and protections of marriage as heterosexuals do, then how fair is that? Do you not understand what discrimination and prejudice are? Denying them the right to marriage is JUST that, especially because it's less about marriage than about all the benefits, rights and protections which marriage bestows upon those who are party to the institution.

Simple as that.

[allerna332]

198. people are allowed to express their opinions

there are people who just dont think its right that two men and two women should marry, that doesnt mean they are going to go out and bash gays, its their opinion, alot of people just dont want it shoved into their faces and i understand why, a homophobe is somebody who has a violent hatred towards gays, i just dont like these names being thrown around "homophobe" "islamophobe" and so on

[readmoreoften]

201. uh, I expect a little more out of a progressive then just 'not bashing me'

Sorry, if you fight against rights that effect my ability to change jobs freely around the country with my partner, effect my ability to make grown-up medical decisions for one another and take care of one another... then you can call yourself a progressive, a regressive, or a purple spotted monkey in a rainslicker... I call you the enemy of my family and my personal autonomy.

[ladeuxiemevoiture]

202. Exactly - it's like saying, "I'm not a racist, I just don't think black...

and white people should marry each other. I just don't. That's all. I just don't. That doesn't mean I'm a racist."

Well, all I can say is you know that expression about quacking like a duck.

[UdoKier]

242. I agree with you in terms of posters on this site.

DU is a progressive site, and merely not being a gay-basher is not very progressive.

Problem is as a party, democrats cannot win with just the votes of progressives who are 100% behind all GLBT rights issues. It's a simple fact of demographics.

That's why some progressives may favor same-sex marriage, but may not favor the exact way or timing with which someone goes about seeking it.


I'm all for same-sex marriage, if there is a decent shot at making it happen, but if trying to do it at the wrong time and in the wrong way results in a GOP landslide, how does it help ANYONE gay or straight?

Raising that kind of question is not homophobia, it's just using your head, and it's not just heterosexual progressives who have raised those questions.

[ladeuxiemevoiture]

245. Democrats should provide leadership - that's what wins elections

Pandering to homophobes and racists is what other parties do, not (ideally) Democrats.

Nobody can get motivated to get out the vote for someone who "me, too"'s everything. What a wimp. But somebody like G. Newsom, who goes out on a limb and stands up for what's right WILL win re-election handily because he did the right thing.

Timing, schmiming - it's never perfect, but it happens when it happens. It was the right thing to do at a time when the issue was "hot" and saturating the media for the first time ever. Newsom - mayor of one of the United States' biggest municipalities - said, yes, this is the right thing to do. Personally, I think the timing was just fine.

You can make claims like "trying to do it at the wrong time resulted in a GOP landslide" without presenting any evidence or proof, because this is just an internet bulletin board and you don't have to come back to this thread and actually discuss things intelligently, but if I could, I would demand that you provide credible citations to sources which back up your claim that trying to make gay marriage happen directly resulted in a landslide GOP victory last November. And don't tell me it's "common sense".

And last but not least, I don't give a flying crap - if dems don't support civil rights, I won't be supporting them. Period.

We are not housepets who sit down and shut up and never say a word.

[UdoKier]

246. At the risk of being redundant...

I don't think Newsom cost us the election. I think Kerry running a shitty campaign did. But I don't think Newsom's actions helped any.

I'm glad to know you are in favor of a party that never compromises and always does the right thing. But if that's the case, why the hell are you a Democrat and not a Green?


For other reasons, I'm about thisclose to voting Green and nearly convinced that the corporate-oligarchist owned democratic party has just about outlived its usefulness.


Funny that you expect a party that caves in and compromises on EVERYTHING else to be 100% behind GLBT rights.

But I did promise to quit this thread, so see ya.

[ladeuxiemevoiture]

247. Get a grip

"I'm glad to know you are in favor of a party that never compromises and always does the right thing. But if that's the case, why the hell are you a Democrat and not a Green?"

Are you a Democrat because they compromise on civil rights and do the wrong thing in order to win elections? Wow.

"For other reasons, I'm about thisclose to voting Green and nearly convinced that the corporate-oligarchist owned democratic party has just about outlived its usefulness."

On a lot of issues, you're right about Democrats.

"Funny that you expect a party that caves in and compromises on EVERYTHING else to be 100% behind GLBT rights."

I expect Democrats to be 100% behind GLBT rights, though they aren't always. Kerry wasn't, but I voted for him. But it's not Dems' responsibility to cater to me, to treat me like some spoiled brat. I have a responsibility to get involved, just like you do, and to demand that they do what's right.

[mondo joe]

204. How does a marriage SHOVE anything in ANYONE's face?

Please explain.

[readmoreoften]

210. How do you think the violence starts?

You say that by walking down the street, happily holding hands with my partner, that I am SHOVING it in your face. And then your redneck brother physically shoves back.

You are anti-gay. Change it and be an ally or accept it and be an enemy. Or continue to lie to yourself and get used to being called a homophobe.

[mondo joe]

203. And not agreeing with integration doesn't make you a racist?

What DO you call someone opposed to equal civil rights?

[chickenscratching]

193. seriously

i don't understand how one can let their religious/personal beliefs sweep them away from any speck of logic.

our media is so fucked up. we will shelter our children from sponge bob because he might be promoting a homosexual agenda.

i was taught people were people, i dont' hate people because of their sexual orientation. <-----WHAT A WASTE OF TIME!

but it doesnt matter because we'll believe them when they say homosexuals cannot raise a child properly, or that the majority of pedophilia cases that happen in this nation are commited by homosexual men, or that aids might be transmitted by sweat or tears.

hoenstly! what the fuck are you afraid of!
we're all people here, get the fuck used to it.

unfortunately we're being led by a religious right and we live in a society where sex is tranmitted into our minds as deviant.
we are not awake to our sexuality.

sorry for rant.

[Zhade]

215. Yeah, I've seen it here, often cloaked in "faith".

Heads up for those posters - people of faith who don't let their religious leaders lead them into homophobic attitudes are awesome people. Those who hide their bigotry behind their faith are cowards and no ally to anyone working for equality and human rights.

[TahitiNut]

230. Amen.

Even though I'm hopelessly straight, I know of no 'faith' (sounds more like LACK of 'faith') that could possibly tell me that people loving one another is a "bad thing" - or that it's my job to deny anyone their human rights.

[readmoreoften]

232. Hallelujah. n/t