Once again, I've changed my avatar in a show of solidarity.

[Stinky The Clown]

I am again proudly wearing the pink triangle. The sad news from Washington State is the reason.

I firmly believe that this will change. Id like to think it will be when we retake the government. I fear it will not be until my children's generation is old enough to hold the highest seats of power. They've been taught equality and they live equality. I only wish my own generation, once so seemingly enlightened, could shed it mantle of hate.

Today, I am with those of you who have been left out.

[MuseRider]

1. I have been continually

stunned by how my supposedly enlightened generation either became this way or allowed it to happen.

I stand with you, I never changed mine back from the last time (I am lazy).

It may take a while and it may not but I know that as long as there are people like you and so many here the fight will be easier.

[Fridays Child]

2. I'm seriously thinking of starting a fund to...

...clone Husb2Sparkly. You are a prince among men and a role model for all of us. I shall follow your lead and change my avatar, now.

[sgxnk]

3. hate rhetoric

is everybody who is against gay marriage doing so because of "hate"

howard dean, who said he was for civil unions only?

i think this rhetoric gets us nowhere

just cause i support a right or a policy does not mean i will ascribe hate to those who disagree

mebbe that's cause i live in the real world and know people on both sides of this and many issue

and i don't ascribe evil motives or hate to thos that disagree

[gaspee]

5. However

I do hate peopple who think they are ee cummings

[DancingBear]

6. Well done! n/t

[sgxnk]

7. touche

by the way, i used to live in rhode island, and i love clamcakes

i also used to run through the providence bus tunnel for fun

so, give me some love :)

[Sam Odom]

8. Is it OK to hate those who hate ?

If so, should I hate myself?

[sgxnk]

12. hmmm

i am not saying it is or isn't ok to hate. wasn't my point

my point is that assuming that because person X is against gay marriage = person X HATING gays (or even gay marriage) is a fallacy

some may. but for that matter, some who are FOR gay marriage could still "hate gays".

i think this rhetoric is bad for 2 reasons. for 1 it is completely nonfactual. i am for marijuana decriminalization. i don't believe prohibitionists "hate marijuana smokers". that's just dumb. some might e.g. eric cartman. most probably don't.

the 2nd reason is even more important. it is counterproductive. i would hope people want to (to borrow a term) evangelize for their position. iow, i am pro-choice. i want MORE people to agree with my pro-choice position. i think it is the "better' position - policywise (which is of course completely unrelated to constitutional issues). few people are convinced to change their minds on policy issues when being told they "hate women" because they are not pro-choice. not only is the claim that they hate women, or even the claim that they aren't concerned with women's health, FACTUALLY incorrect, but it is NOT going to result in a change of mind

i have changed my mind/beliefs on a # of issues. i used to be TOTALLY for gun control, now i am very much for gun rights. i never HATED gun owners, and that rhetoric would only have made me more steely in my gun control resolve. it was a combination of REASON and experience that changed my mind. not false claims of hate.

i really do respect that many people who have polar opposite positions from me are just as compassionate, educated, and enlightened as me. they just happen to have different conclusions when viewing the data.

i respect that

[Jax]

4. First time I have used an avatar

Proud to do it, sorry I have to for this reason today.

I am repulsed, disgusted, shocked---Alexander was a surprise---and I am running out of adjectives to describe my feelings toward this blatant bigotry legislated from the bench...hate is not a value of any kind.

Married, no kids, 24 years...guess we better divorce since we didn't 'procreate'...

Equal rights/protection under the law for everyone!!! We will never give up this fight in our home.

For you Hubs2Sparkly :thumbsup:

Nominated

[pepperbear]

9. Husb...very gracious indeed. n/t

[BlueIris]

10. Kick.

[wiley]

11. Me too!

:patriot:

[ulysses]

13. I'm going with a new sig line.

[welshTerrier2]

14. what is the "moderate" view on gay marriage?

when we tinker around with politics and we buy into the myth of the political spectrum, we end up forced into idiotic positions ...

either we stand unhesitatingly for human liberty or we are political equivocators ...

gay marriage, as with any other human right, cannot be compromised into a "middle ground" ... that's no different than allowing Negroes 3/5 of a vote ... we are either a nation of citizens with equal rights or we are bigots and undemocratic and un-American ...

these views are not intended to ignore the very unfortunate political realities ... if, solely due to the current political climate, we are forced to settle for compromise with such nonsense as civil unions, than i support that as a "pragmatic" measure ... HOWEVER, having said that, we must make it eminently clear to all Americans that our deeply held belief is that every single American deserves equal rights and that we are deeply committed to continuing the struggle for human equality no matter what effort it takes and no matter how long it takes ...

therein lies my greatest gripe with today's Democratic Party ... if the political center seeks short-term pragmatic gain, fine ... on some issues, i can support that ... but that support will only be forthcoming on the very critical condition that our values and ultimate objectives are very clearly stated ... the political center too often fails to express those values and ultimate objectives ... to seek pragmatic compromise in the center to make progress is fine; to hypocritically yield to the abhorrent idea that any citizen's right to marry whomever they choose can be compromised away as a permanent solution is unconscionable ...

if our party refuses to represent the values we should hold most dear and refuses to fight for those values, those leading the party and those we elected need to be replaced ...

[ulysses]

15. whatever the DLC says it is

which is to say that it's whatever mushmouthed crap seems to offend the fewest focus group participants.

[welshTerrier2]

16. political viability and "pragmatism"

one of the key roadblocks to progress in the party, if progress is even possible at all, occurs between "value based" beliefs and "politically calculated" positions ...

my view is that the only path to possibly closing that gap, and i believe the gap is killing all involved, is to demand of the "politics first" wing that they more clearly define their VALUES AND BELIEFS ...

i think they are choosing "politics over values" ... and if they were to state that they share our values but don't consider pursuing them at this time to be prudent political strategy, i think the gap narrows at least a little ...

on the other side, if values based voters could hear a clear commitment to our beliefs from party centrists, perhaps we would be more willing to "go a little slower" ...

to conclude, the "left" will yield on pace for a commitment on direction and the center will yield on direction for greater tolerance and understanding on pace ...

i am failing miserably pushing this view on DU or anywhere else ... frankly, i don't know how to say it any more clearly ...

[ulysses]

17. heh - I misread your post at first blush

and thought for a second that the only way to close the gap was to kill all involved...what's scarier is that it sounded like a plan for a minute. :D

You know, of course, that not having any more clearly defined values than they absolutely have to have is central to the strategy of the "politics first" crowd. All the easier to shift with the prevailing winds.

Other than that, seems like a solid idea to me. Of course, people have to want to make it work.

[welshTerrier2]

18. that's funny, uly ...

i went back to reread my post with your "twist" ... that is scary ... and maybe it is worth thinking it through ...

DU is remarkable in many ways and has grown into a political force - still, on the issue of working towards a common platform or a shared strategy we seem unable to make any progress whatsover ... and that's too bad ...

my view is that, long-term, as long as the party is run by "political mechanics", we will be seen by the voters as soulless and passionless ... there could be a ton of daylight between pragmatic compromise and "selling out"; right now, there is NOT ...

[ulysses]

19. it could be that DU is best seen

not as a venue for the creation of a common platform across all members - and god only knows we've sucked at that - but as a sounding board for ideas (which it is now) and an organizational point for activism (which it is at times). And your point about "political mechanics" is, of course, well taken.

[Stinky The Clown]

20. Well, Welshie .......

I'll take that up right here, on this issue:

Stinky the Clown is FOR complete equality in matters of partnership. Marriage for all or marriage for none.

Yes, there is nuance and a tiny bit of equivocation in that stance. And it is pragmatically political.

My honest, heartfelt stance is my personal belief: No committed couple shall be excluded from the right to marry and to gain all the rights and benefits of marriage. There shall be no difference based on any human trait. In short: I support gay marriage unequivocally.

Now to my political view: I do not think gay marriage can be passed in the US today. Therefore, I would like to see all official state sanctions of **all** marriages eliminated. The state would sanction only civil unions. Marriage would be a purely religious matter and completely separate and apart from civil unions with the state having NO say in who, how, where, by whom, to whom, with whom or what (religiously based) rights it confers. I hasten to add that this is not the end game. Rather, it is that step forward you speak about.

[welshTerrier2]

21. that's great !!

my reference to civil unions in an earlier post was meant only in the context that they discriminate between marriage for some and civil unions for others ...

my "real" position is exactly as you have stated the issue ... the government should recognize a legal set of rights and obligations that accrue to those entering into this "special relationship" ... just as an aside, i suppose some might label it polygamy, it is not entirely clear to me that this "special relationship" should necessarily be limited to only two people ... perhaps the rights and obligations could be extended to an "extended family" ... connotations of "inappropriate multi-partner sexual conduct" (as some might label it) should not constrain what qualifies as a "family" ... any individual or group of individuals should be able to "bind themselves" (no kinky pun intended) to the terms of a government recognized "special relationship" ...

so i would fully support eliminating the term "marriage" from the "legal vernacular of government" ... let's allow all the religious freedom in the world to religious groups so that each can define its own set of rules and regulations about who can "marry" and under what conditions they can marry ... as for government, give unto Caesar that which is Caesar's ...

btw, mrs wt2 and I are approaching our 29th anniversary of unmarried bliss ... we have chosen to not have a state or religiously sanctioned recognition of our relationship ... still, if "civil unions" were offered to us, and when they are available they are usually (not always) made available only to gay couples, we would take advantage of civil union status to afford ourselves a wide array of legal protections that we currently either don't have or would have to jump through hoops to obtain ...

it's interesting to hear the reactions from many gays i've spoken to about extending "freedom of choice via civil unions" to heterosexual couples ... not much support there!!! it's very disturbing ... "well, you people can get married whenever you want to; we don't have that choice" they argue ... thanks for nothing!!

[Stinky The Clown]

22. 29 years???? Wow ... that's longer than I've been alive!

Jack? Jack Benny? Is that you?

That's an interesting concept .... 'special relationship'. I gotta chew on that one a while. I can see some benefit in having such a status. Like an older person and a younger person becing the legal equivalent of parent and child so as to gain the rights in which a natural parent and child share. Hmmmmmm ..........