Dems Court Gay Voters
By California Yankee Posted in 2008 — Comments (34) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Democratic presidential candidates demonstrate their support of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender voters tonight by participating in a televised forum on gay rights:
All the major Democrats favor civil unions for gay couples, and repeal of the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy against openly gay service members that front-runner Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's husband initiated.
In a previous debate, the eight Democratic hopefuls all raised their hands to acknowledge they would work toward lifting Clinton's policy against openly gay service members. Surveys filled out ahead of tonight's forum, indicate the leading Democratic candidates are committed to the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell:"
"This is a matter of national security, and I will fix it," wrote Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, the Democratic front-runner. Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois and former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina wrote similar statements.
None of the Democrats, except for fringe candidates Ohio Congressman Kucinich and former Alaska Senator Gravel, supports the gay community's top goal - marriage rights:
"No viable mainstream contender for president is going to support gay marriage in this election cycle," said Ethan Geto, an adviser to New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton. "I hope that's going to change in the next couple of elections."
Read on.
The public still largely disapproves of gay marriage and remains closely divided on whether homosexual relations are morally acceptable:
Public opinion overall is moving slowly toward greater acceptance of a range of gay-rights positions, and passions have cooled since same-sex marriage erupted as a key issue on the verge of the last presidential campaign.
The Democratic candidates will be between a rock and a hard place. Opposition operatives will be watching for a video Macaca moment that can portray a candidate as out of the social mainstream, gay-rights advocates will be alert to signs of discomfort or hedged commitment:
"I think people will be looking for body language, the choice of words to see how comfortable the candidates are. Are they passionate?" said Geto.
The event, co-sponsored by the gay-rights activist group Human Rights Campaign Foundation and Viacom Inc.'s Logo network, reflects the gay community's increased importance to the Democratic Party. The debate also will be available online at logoonline.com.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | Stupid Lawyer tricks. [Updated and bumped.] — Comments (8) »
Dems Court Gay Voters 34 Comments (0 topical, 34 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
These people will pander to anybody who listens to them. They will lie cheat and steal. Their statements keep getting more outrageous
Red Wolverine
Editorialist
Copious Dissent - Your Daily Dose of Liberty
Great . . . every issue under the sun is gonna turn into "a matter of national security" between now and Nov. 2008 . . .
a position on the gay agenda that is more than "Say NO to gay marriage".
I'm as conservative as I anyone can on most issues, including social ones, and I don't care what gays do privately. I will support gay unions with the same legal guarantees given to married couples. I would however, stop short of recognizing the union as a marriage, which is what they really want because they believe it gives them legitimacy and equality with heterosexual marriages. I would also oppose gay adoption and the spread through our public schools of the propaganda of the homosexual lifestyle as just another acceptable alternative.
The conservative response needs to be to decrease government. Decrease government, and there is less of an incentive for "gay marriage." Gay marriage - and civil unions - are merely expansions of the government that need to be stopped.
And I say that as an anti-gay marriage, anti-civil unions gay conservative.
For good or ill, there are a couple of things that are viewed as significant advantages of Marriage that I can't see the US Government *ever* getting rid of. First, the ability not to have to testify against one's spouse. All of the legal documents that a gay couple could put together can't get them that. The other is the ability to file Taxes jointly, I just can't see the federal government getting rid of that.
I'm not really sure how you can have gay unions with all of the legal guarantees of marriage and not have adoptions by them. If anything, the second is allowed in a lot more states than the first right now.
When they all raised their hands saying they support civil unions and repeal of "don't ask, don't tell," that's good enough? Tells one something about both groups.
Why no "Then, how come you haven't introduced a bill yet?" How many years has Hillary been in the position to repeal DADT? Edwards, you had six years to end the policy. Obama, you're on the clock.
...not to ask Democrats any probing follow-up questions about gay marriage. That way, they can avoid pointing out for the public all of the contradictions in the Dem position.
Of course, this wasn't an event hosted by the mainstream media, but the point holds.
What a great way to appeal to Middle America!!!
about same sex marriage or civil unions or whatever you want to call them. Quite frankly, having gay people marry will make no difference to my life or my marriage. My preference would be to have civil marriage available to both same sex and traditional couples. Individual religions can decide on their own whether they will perform same sex marriage ceremonies or not.
Most Americans, even in Middle America, approve of civil unions that would give same sex couples the same rights and responsibilities of traditional married couples.
How are DOMA votes turning out in "Middle America" - and darn near every place else for that matter - eh?
Just saying your claim about "Most Americans" may be all Pew thinks it's cracked-up to be.
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
As in, you can support SSM and still be adamant against having it imposed via judicial fiat. Bad precedent. Bad precedent.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
Do you not think there's a disconnect between the premise that "most Americans support civil unions/SSM" and the proliferation of DOMA passages (and perhaps coincidental lack of proliferation of civil unions statutes) since the SJC of the Commonwealth decided homosexual marriages were "legal"?
Or perhaps I made that point poorly. Wouldn't be the first time.
We're completely in agreement with regard to precedent, by the way - regardless of our disagreement on the base issue.
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
The problem here is that the pro-SSM people have decided to use a tactic that seems almost deliberately designed to anger conservatives. Darned if I know how many people are out there who are both receptive to a law extending marriage privileges to same-sex couples* and vehemently opposed to having judges determine social policy, but I suspect that it isn't trivial.
Moe
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
*Which aren't being proposed, by and large. You'd think that more people would notice that CT somehow managed to pass a civil unions bill with minimal fuss and bother, but no...
the link you provide (which is broken, by the way) doesn't come close to supporting your position. Not only does it state that the majority of Americans rejects gay marriage, it says that the "support" for civil unions is 54-42 - hardly "most" Americans.
But you can continue to live in your little social liberal fantasy world if that makes you happy.
...when they see me they'll say, "There goes Loren Wallace,
the greatest thing to ever climb into a race car."
54% is more than a majority. So, it supports my positiion exactly. I never claimed that the majority of Americans supported same sex "marriage". I think many oppose it because it sounds like the government would force religions to conduct and condone those marriages against their will. I would never support that. Also, as Moe mentions above, I believe that we need to come to a democratic/legislative solution to this issue and not have anything dictated to us by unelected judges.
"Most Americans, even in Middle America, approve of civil unions". Fifty-four percent is not "most". It's barely a majority. In fact, it's probably not even within the bounds of a margin of error, so it may not even be a majority.
...when they see me they'll say, "There goes Loren Wallace,
the greatest thing to ever climb into a race car."
When was that Pew data you cite made public? Pew released findings in July that showed a plurality opposed to civil unions;
Whatever the case, votes are more important than polls. The one time a state has put the question of civil unions/domestic partnerships to the people for a vote was last year in Colorado. It was a Democratic year in that Democrat-trending state just like the rest of the nation, yet domestic partnerships were voted down decisively by 53% of the vote.
Also consider that most of the state marriage amendments that have passed have not only banned gay marriage, but also anything that would be a euphemistic substitute like civil unions. You can of course argue that in most of the cases the public was given an imperfect choice, but the overwhelming margins in most cases suggest the people are quite okay with banning civil unions as well. It is true that the margins came down quite a bit in some states last year, and its also true that for the first time a state marriage amendment actually went down to defeat in Arizona. But these 'gains' by the Left were not made by arguing for gay marriage, or in most cases for civil unions either. Instead they used a very deceptive, yet clever, tactic of telling people that the more comprehensive amendments would interfere with traditional heterosexual unions.
You say later that you prefer a democratic/legislative solution instead of judicial imposition. If that is so, then you must be willing to accept that most states will not offer any recognition to gay unions, no matter what they are called. That is the case now, and there is no reason to expect it to change anytime soon in most states so long as the courts stay out of it like they should. This is also the present policy of the federal government.
In light of this, are you really okay with keeping the courts completely out of it?
...it was making the page load funky. Sorry about that.
Anyway, to answer the question you asked shooflyguy, yup, I'm really OK with keeping the courts completely out of it. If the situation reverses and states start amending their constitutions to permit civil unions, will you?
Moe
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
If the people decide they want to recognize civil unions, or full-blown gay marriage, and they take the proper steps to do so, then I would be okay with it. I do hold the traditional view on this issue, but what matters most to me in this is the question of how the issue is resolved.
As with abortion and Roe, a court imposition of gay marriage/civil unions would not be acceptable. If the people, their state legislators, and Congress act to implement gay marriage/civil unions, and do so free of any judicial decision, then I could graciously accept it.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
Here is the link again in non-html format: http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=235
I think it's interesting that your source sites the poll but does not link to it. Oh, well. You are right that so far citizens of the individual states have rejected civil unions at the ballot box and that's what counts. However, as with most of these issues, the libertarian "live and let live" will eventually win out, in my opinion. It has happened on issues of race, gender and I believe, will happen on issues of gay rights.
To me, 'live and let live' in no way requires the state to offer the same or similar recognition to gay unions that it offers to traditional marriages.
To me, 'live and let live' would be pretty much as it is now in most states; homosexuals can live as they choose with who they choose, but the state and society at large is not going to bestow them with the same status, benefits, and obligations that it chooses to give to marriage.
homosexuals in the US are totaled up to be 2 to 5% of the population depending upon where you get your information and the democratic candidates will go speak to them, but will skip fox news, the highest rated news on TV.
not condeming gays here, but its obvious the democrats are avoiding issues that will effect all of america to pander to small groups of americans.
i hope most of america will notice this.
to" that showed castro, chavez, kim jung il and ahmedinjad
then showed who they would not talk to
brit hume
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
http://www.gocomics.com/glennmccoy/2007/08/01/
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
The Democrat (read Communist) solution.
"The solution to this ultra-right domination lies in building the broadest, most inclusive unity among our multinational, male/female, multigenerational working class, starting with the labor movement, racially and nationally oppressed people, women, and youth. We must unite lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and straight people; professionals and intellectuals; seniors; and the disabled; and the mass people’s movements including the peace, environmental, health care, education, housing, and other movements."
http://www.cpusa.org/article/articleview/758/1/8/
An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject
Even the Log Cabin Republicans are still making gay marriage their top issue, even higher than the other things necessary to preserve the freedoms they enjoy.
Perhaps the Democrats are worried about splitting the gay vote on economic issues, and are trying to overshadow tax concerns with the gay marriage issue?
They're telegraphing their concern and their appropriate views to the much larger portion of Democrat Party voters who are going to decide which of those dwarfs shall be their pure and true standard bearer.
-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
Running for office as a lefty Democrat means showing you support the 'class struggles' specific to every 'oppressed group' in America. Women, 'minorities,' 'the GLBT community,' 'workers,' etc. etc.
You have to show solidarity with all their unique and diverse issues.
The position of the Democratic party and most Democratic candidates for President on gay marriage/civil unions is a complete sham, and of course the media helps them get away with it. One thing we can be sure of is that the mainstream media and the eventual debate moderator(s) will not in any way call them out on the contradictions in their position. This is to be expected, but I'm surprised at how little I've heard conservatives bring this up.
I'll try to do a small part here, by offering some points/questions that should be put to the candidates, but never will be;
1. Democrats claim to support both civil unions for homosexuals and states rights in setting policy. But what if they conflict with each other? What about all the states (a majority) that choose not to recognize gay unions at all, no matter what they are called? Should they be allowed to do so, or should the federal courts impose civil unions on the entire nation?
2. Democrats claim to support letting the states decide, but what authority w/in each state do they think should have the final say? Do they support having state courts set policy, or the people and their elected legislators.
AND MOST IMPORTANT OF ALL
3. Democrats claim to support letting the states decide, but that is a completely empty pledge that borders on outright lying in light of the type of leftwing activist judge they would put on the Sup Court and lesser federal courts. This is the most salient point of all, because we all know that the four liberal activists on the current High Court would rule to impose gay marriage/civil unions on the entire nation, and we all know that Hillary, Obama, Edwards, or any other Democrat would put like-minded activists on the courts. This is why smart gay activists will not make a big stink about their leading candidates not coming out for 'marriage' for homosexuals. They know that Hillary and the gang would appoint judges who would do the dirty work for them.
Just once, I'd like to hear Jim Leher (or whoever the moderator turns out to be) ask the Democrat a question along these lines. Just once I'd like to hear;
"Senator Clinton, you say that marriage policy should be set by the states, but isn't it a near-certainty that the type of judges you would put on the federal courts would not respect state laws, and would instead issue a decision imposing recognition of same-sex unions on the entire nation?"
or
"Senator Clinton, who should have the final say on marriage policy, the people and their elected representatives, or the courts?"
or
"Senator Clinton, do you think that the Constitution requires federal and state govts to recognize same-sex unions?"
But of course no such questions will ever be asked by a debate moderator, or a mainstream media personality.
I don't think that's necessarily true. I think that they ALL support full-blown gay marriage. Only 2 are willing to come out and say it, though.