Skip to main content

View Diary: Will the Democrats say 'I do' support marriage equality in 2012? (133 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  every point you just made (0+ / 0-)

    underscores how unnecessary this effort is.  

    unnecessary + potential for backlash = not a good idea

    My goal is to make the world safe for anarchy. - 4Freedom

    by Cedwyn on Sun Feb 26, 2012 at 09:22:00 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Terror over the potential for backlash (7+ / 0-)

      Emanates from a misguided idea that people who hate gays do not already reliably vote Republican in every race.

      •  the GOP base is in complete and utter disarray (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        right now.  their lack of enthusiasm this cycle is very much to our advantage.

        the surest way to get them fired back up is to give them a read meat issue like this to drool over.

        My goal is to make the world safe for anarchy. - 4Freedom

        by Cedwyn on Sun Feb 26, 2012 at 09:40:02 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yes, they will suddenly see an opening (5+ / 0-)

          to campaign on the theme of fighting the evil gays.  

          •  i take it that was snark? (0+ / 0-)

            anyhoo, your previous point has a corollary:

            Believing this action is necessary emanates from a misguided idea that people who support gays do not already reliably vote democratic in every race.
            both statements are true for the most part.

            as to the poll indicating a 56% sentiment that the GOP should avoid the issue, it's critical to keep in mind that that is the opinion of  GOP insiders.

            but the real question is why do they feel that way?  it could be they feel the birth control kerfuffle is enough red meat for this cycle; i doubt we've heard the last of it.  maybe they're not complete idiots and rightly perceive that they had bloody well better be presenting economic solutions, given the current environment.

            whatever beliefs are underpinning the sentiment, the GOP insiders cannot control the Focus on the Familys of the world.  They cannot stop the Hagees and Grahams and whoever elses of the world from inveighing on the evils of teh ghey and exhorting their followers to keep satan's handmaidens out of elected office.

            even if they fail to take the white house, they could still do a lot of damage to downticket races.

            i think progress on this is best served by keeping GOP enthusiasm depressed this election and go for a strong push to repeal DOMA in obama's next term.

            sorry, but i just don't think the change in the platform language is significant enough to warrant the shitstorm it would invariably cause.


            My goal is to make the world safe for anarchy. - 4Freedom

            by Cedwyn on Sun Feb 26, 2012 at 10:31:10 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Reaaonable pragmatist may be able (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Cedwyn, pot, FogCityJohn

              to beat down the LGBT constituency and the orgs effort on this in 2012.

              But they should be prepared to surrender in 2016.

              •  by 2016 (0+ / 0-)

                we won't need it!


                My goal is to make the world safe for anarchy. - 4Freedom

                by Cedwyn on Sun Feb 26, 2012 at 01:03:47 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Do you need it at all, now or then? (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  liberaldemdave, pot, FogCityJohn

                  Or are you not waiting for your right to marry the person you love?

                  •  i'm referring to the arc of progress (0+ / 0-)

                    and it is unquestionably in our favor.  we've won this one.  is it immediate or all-encompassing enough?  no.  deep and abiding change rarely comes about that way.  

                    but state by state, it is changing.  

                    and it's not like modifying the dem party platform will directly lead to legalized same-sex marriage everywhere.  

                    or at least it's true that keeping the GOP base depressed and winning congress solidly would have more of an effect.

                    My goal is to make the world safe for anarchy. - 4Freedom

                    by Cedwyn on Sun Feb 26, 2012 at 01:25:01 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Just clarifying "we're" not waiting (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      pot, FogCityJohn

                      For anything.

                      I am waiting.

                      And you are telling me to wait, but not actually waiting for anything yourself.

                      Which is a luxury a lot of LGBT families do not enjoy.

                      •  i'm not telling anyone to do anything (0+ / 0-)

                        good grief.  

                        i am just stating my OPINION that this is not an effective tactic to pursue and that it could produce a backlash.  i didn't realize having opinions was verboten.

                        i am certainly NOT telling you, or anyone else, to wait for anything, either; altering the democratic party platform isn't going to usher progress along any faster than it's already moving, in my OPINION.  it's not like the party platform gets to vote in congress.

                        i am really curious, though, how you simultaneously believe that santorum with a megaphone poses a risk of anti-gay violence and that putting same-sex marriage front and center in the news cycle like this is salutary.

                        My goal is to make the world safe for anarchy. - 4Freedom

                        by Cedwyn on Sun Feb 26, 2012 at 07:33:11 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  I realize that this comment was not directed to (3+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Cedwyn, FogCityJohn, Scott Wooledge

                          me, but if I may, just my thoughts on your last paragraph. Apologies if this is out of line.

                          First, I don't expect the kind of 24/7 attention to the DNC  that we've had from this republican primary mess. And no one thus far, pre-convention, has seemed to notice we're even considering this.

                          Second, what we're considering including as part of the party platform is a positive message. It has the added benefit of letting younger voters know that we hear them, and are listening.  

                          Third (and last), even if there is a backlash, it won't be a new or surprising message these kids aren't pummeled with every stinkin' day. At least this way there is a national voice of counterpoint.

                          I'm not a generally optimistic person, but so far, this is what I think, although I am anxious to read more, and learn. (Oh, and I support including this in the platform for other reasons as well).

                          •  thanks for being real with me (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:

                            i guess i just don't see the changed language as being that substantially different from the stated opposition to DOMA that's already there.

                            it's definitely a positive message, so i get that it's different from santorum's rantings.  but i think this has more potential to cause an anti-gay backlash, only bringing the issue up in the dem party platform would galvanize and motivate the GOP base during the election to boot.  

                            santorum is just one guy spouting nonsense; putting same-sex marriage in the dem platform like this provides a rallying and focal point for the haters -- "look what the dems and gays are doing now; it's a direct assault on our freedoms! we have to get these people out of office!!!"

                            basically what it boils down to is i just don't see that the benefits of a slight modification to the party platform language (which is even more non-binding than congress' non-binding resolutions) outweighs the risk of backlash on this, electoral and real-world.

                            i think time and momentum are on our side and we should be picking our fights carefully, like things that are concrete wins.  changing the wording in the dem platform would have no immediate effect on rights for gay people/couples and i just don't think we should be enjoining battles over what amounts to positive messaging.


                            My goal is to make the world safe for anarchy. - 4Freedom

                            by Cedwyn on Mon Feb 27, 2012 at 04:34:09 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

        •  you can make that argument for every election (4+ / 0-)

          cycle to infinity. Interracial marriage still makes their blood boil. Your point may have been valid when only 25% of people believed in equality or half the country thought gays could infect you with AIDS by looking into your eyes.

          A majority of Republicans, religious fundamentalists, and neo-confederates will always hate gay people just as they will always hate black people, immigrants, and any policy that doesn't conform to 12th century standards. These issues will always enthuse them. The point is they don't make up a majority of the country and cowering in fear at them being whipped up by hate is not a strategy that will pay dividends anymore. It really really really isn't 2004 anymore. Just look at the graph, and look at it again, and again until you finally realize that a majority of people support marriage equality.

          "People place their hand on the Bible and swear to uphold the Constitution. They don't put their hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible."

          by michael1104 on Sun Feb 26, 2012 at 10:31:00 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  The cowering in fear thing. I'm really really (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            tired of it too, and I thought one reason we were so enthused, and successful in the 2008 election is because so many others, both in our party, and just outside it, were as well. I thought a part of the Hope/Change strategy was because it was sensed that so many were tired of both cowering and fear, or as you put it so well, that it just doesn't pay political dividends anymore. Part of the Change to believe in was supposed to be an answer to the perennial charge that Democrats are weak, even from a position of strength/majority.

            •  so you have no problem with operation hilarity? (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              and we shouldn't worry about santorum inciting anti-gay violence?

              My goal is to make the world safe for anarchy. - 4Freedom

              by Cedwyn on Mon Feb 27, 2012 at 04:47:12 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  NO. I don't support OH. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                I could immediately picture OH being picked up by television media, NYT, etc., as it was. This I see as less, much less likely to be of interest. BUT, then I read your thoughtful response to my comment upthread, and now I'm thinking again, although still not 100% persuaded. One seems like a goad just made for publicity, while this, in terms of opposition seems less likely to generate outcry--but I am considering hard what you said. I take the bullying, the terror, the harm very seriously, enough that I've once come between something that I thought might start at a convenience store (I'm an old lady, so fuck it, what the hell. I can't have anyone else, young or old, hurt if I can buy time, or assist in some way. My aunt, for whom I am a full-time caregiver, is in full agreement and support of me with this).  OTOH, there is that positive message to be sent, and again, I read your thoughts, which I appreciate BTW, so that I can continue to learn come to the best conclusion that I can. Santorum? I come from a military family, and have wept for this country long before him, but honestly, he is a terror. So I really do appreciate your response to me. I'll continue to read, and think, and now maybe, I am undecided. Hmm.

                •  thanks for the thoughtful reply (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:

                  we will get there; it shouldn't be this hard, but we will get there eventually.


                  My goal is to make the world safe for anarchy. - 4Freedom

                  by Cedwyn on Mon Feb 27, 2012 at 07:05:38 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (125)
  • Community (60)
  • Elections (31)
  • Media (31)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (30)
  • 2016 (29)
  • Law (27)
  • Environment (27)
  • Barack Obama (24)
  • Civil Rights (24)
  • Hillary Clinton (23)
  • Culture (23)
  • Republicans (22)
  • Science (21)
  • Climate Change (21)
  • Labor (19)
  • Economy (19)
  • Jeb Bush (18)
  • Josh Duggar (18)
  • Bernie Sanders (17)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site