Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Rights and Liberties

Laura Flanders: To Beat the Right, Clinton and Obama Need to Be Clear About Supporting Gay Rights

By Laura Flanders, AlterNet. Posted April 9, 2007.


Democrats will keep getting attacked on sexuality, marriage and abortion for as long as they dodge the discussion.
Advertisement

The following excerpt is adapted from Blue Grit: True Democrats Take Back Politics from the Politicians by Laura Flanders (Penguin, 2007).

In 2004 it was Swift Boating. In 2008 will it be gay-baiting that skewers the Democratic candidate? It's not too late for Democratic contenders to start thinking about the so-called culture wars. Indeed they'd better do more than think, if the campaign so far is any indication of where it might be headed.

Ann Coulter's not going anywhere. There was tut-tutting in the media when she told the annual Conservative Political Action Conference that she couldn't talk about John Edwards without using the word "faggot," but the crowd in attendance roared. I suspect her trial balloon's not burst yet.

When General Peter Pace, the chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff told the Chicago Tribune that homosexuality was immoral and should be prosecuted, the response of the Democratic front-runners was worse than weak. Asked to respond to Pace's assertions, both of the Democrats' lead money-raisers prevaricated.

Is homosexuality immoral, an ABC reporter asked Hillary Clinton point-blank: "I'm going to leave that to others to conclude" she answered. When asked by Newsday, repeatedly, if same-sex relationships were immoral, Barack Obama changed the subject: "I think traditionally the Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman has restricted his public comments to military matters...That's probably a good tradition to follow."

Both candidates' spokespeople tried to massage those messages in the hours that followed, to little effect. A few days later, Senator Clinton released a third statement, in writing: "I disagree with what he [Pace] said and do not share his view, plain and simple," said Clinton.

But nothing Senators Clinton or Obama has said so far is anywhere near as simple as a "no" to the question of whether homosexuality is immoral. Or as plain as a plain-old "yes" to the notion that this nation's constitutional protections are supposed to apply equally to everyone. Only John Edwards seems to have learned that a direct answer isn't fatal. Asked by Wolf Blitzer "Is homosexuality immoral" he answered "I don't - don't share that view."

The reality is that national Democrats rarely speak plainly about anything to do with the so-called culture wars. To the contrary, Democrats running for a president typically run for cover when any gay related topic comes up. Worse, having utterly failed to tackle the topic with anything resembling principle (or panache) they blame the victim when homophobes win the day.

In 2004, election night wasn't even over before the best paid consultants in the land were blaming Kerry/Edwards defeat on gays, abortion, and the so-called "social issues." On a conference call with high ranking campaigners, Matt Foreman, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, (which had turned out voters and trained key activists in several battleground states) heard Clinton consultant Harold Ickes sum up the race in a single sentence: gay marriage "lost us Ohio."

By the end of the week, the pundits weren't only diagnosing the problem, they were prescribing solutions for it: "The Democrats have become a party too dominated by social issues ..." wrote Nation contributor Marc Cooper. Democrats need to turn their attention "away from culture and back toward class," wrote Alan Brinkley in the liberal American Prospect.

The culture wars, wrote Thomas Frank, are not about culture at all, "they are a way of framing the ever-powerful subject of social class," which is what Democrats must confront directly "with genuine economic populism." In his book, liberal evangelical James Wallis urged a departure from the "bifurcating politics of liberal and conservative, Left and Right," to open up a new "politics of solutions."

In the years since, we've heard a lot from national Democrats, liberals, and the traditional Left to the effect that "cultural" matters (like abortion, marriage, sexuality, secularism, and family "lifestyle") are a trap dreamed up by the Right to distract good working-class people from their ruling-class enemies. The solution the conventional-wisdom purveyors propose is for liberals and the left to abandon the "culture wars," get religion, and get down with blue-collar America again.

The unfortunate thing about this analysis is that it dooms politicians like today's crop to yet more years of defeat-by-denial. Worse, by casting queers, people of color, women and assorted other "culture warriors" as "problem" groups, this analysis leads Democrats to distance themselves from the very people and movements who know how to fight -- and win -- the culture wars.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: democrats, republicans, election 2008, culture wars

Laura Flanders is author of Blue Grit: True Democrats Take Back Politics from the Politicians by Laura Flanders (Penguin, 2007).

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Rights and Liberties! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Why don't Democrats do what Bush does -- exploit PATRIOTISM?
Posted by: HughScott on Apr 9, 2007 1:38 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Rather than duck the so-called “gay issue,” Democrats should address it head-on with nationwide television spots quoting famous Americans who favored homosexuals in the military.

One such citizen is the late and great Arizona Senator Barry Goldwater, my favorite Republican, who also hated neocons with a passion.


Hugh E. Scott, Vietnam vet, lifelong registered Republican, John Kerry supporter in 2004 and the editor of FreedomCentralUSA.com, an investigative website dedicated to the destruction of domestic fascism (neoconservatism) using truth and the Internet as WMDs.

I also edit King-George.biz -- the only website with hardcopy proof of White House corruption.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» EXPLOIT patriotism? Posted by: Chickensh*tEagle
Support individual freedom in all things.
Posted by: drblack on Apr 9, 2007 3:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The whole bundle of issues that are simply the American Ideal: that is that each person has an absolute right over themselves. All people have the right to put in or take out of their bodies and minds,use their bodies and minds and determine their own destinies.
this was what American Freedom has always been about. It has yet to manifest absolutely,so let us make it so.
What people believe,eat, do with themselves is no ones business.
I cannot understand how gay people bother non-gay people. It is the worst kind of bigotry and hatred.
Whatever consenting adults do sexually is their business.
Smoke weed,go to church or don't do either.
What a person does to themselves should be 100% protected behavior. That is what freedom is.
I hope someday The USA will be a Free Country.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Two obstacles... Posted by: EagleMB
» RE: Two obstacles... Posted by: righteousbabe
Strange.
Posted by: Rolomax on Apr 9, 2007 3:32 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
.. Strange how the word 'Liberty' doesn't appear anywhere in this article.

What else does 'personal freedom' mean?

I'm not gay, but at least I have the freedom to be a heterosexual.

An awful lot of people obviously don't know what the word Liberty (and the statue of) represents.

Should we chop it up and send it back to France in crates?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Strange. Posted by: Dboy
» RE: Strange. Posted by: rg
Dems are showing their lack of ability to lead....
Posted by: kgs1947 on Apr 9, 2007 3:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The so-called culture war is about bringing to the light the deep homophobic, heterosexist, sexist foundation on which many people have built their beliefs system. It's time for queers and the Dems to speak out and take a humane stand on this issue of gay rights and to shed the light on how destuctive this neocon/religious right bs has been for people in this country. Until this is done, the ackward dance that the politicos are doing is going to hurt everyone and keep us in the pre-Stonewall age of fascism and hate-mongering.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Nation-wide Gay P.R. campaign...
Posted by: jwc on Apr 9, 2007 4:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why not?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» the word is mum Posted by: buffeliscious
The big problem.
Posted by: Lincoln fan on Apr 9, 2007 4:17 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Unfortunately, traditional political calculus takes people of color, sexual minorities, and abortion-rights defenders for granted because they're unlikely to defect to Republicans.

This is the big problem for the entire left-wing. The Democrats do very little for us because they know that we won't vote Republican. They ignore us to triangulate to capture "moderates". The Republicans know this too and write us off.

The obvious way to combat this is to give the Republicans a chance to win our votes. Instead of holding your nose and voting for the Democrats, let's give both parties the chance to win our votes. Let both parties know, before the election, that you, as an individual, won't vote for a party that doesn't support your most important issue.. It's that simple.

Why should we vote for the Democratic Party that doesn't back our issues? Why should we vote for the Republican Party that doesn't back our issues? We shouldn't.

We should each state our most important issue to both parties, before the election, and tell them that we won't vote for a party that doesn't back our issue. If enough eligible voters do this, both parties will be forced to compete for our votes on our terms.
Bob Reichenbach,
Director, The Lincoln Initiative.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The big problem. Posted by: hms2004
» RE: The big problem. Posted by: Lincoln fan
» RE: The big problem. Posted by: Steve Adair
» RE: The big problem. Posted by: Lincoln fan
» RE: The big problem. - The Wrong Answer Posted by: MartianBachelor
tHE RicH fuND NON-prOFit pRO-GAY prOPagANda, buT Not PRo-pROgrESsive taxATion prOPAganda
Posted by: emmanuel_goldstein_fights_fake_lefties on Apr 9, 2007 5:06 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
NON-profits LIKE alternet ARE FUNDED by THE rich, AND these NON-PROFITS spend A LOT more ENERGY and TIME talking ABOUT things LIKE gay RIGHTS and RACE and GENDER, but RELATIVELY little TIME or MONEY or EFFORT on PRO-progressive TAXATION or PRO-single PAYER healthcare.

The rich seek to divide the populace. That way their money is safe from the kind of progressive taxation europe has. Also that way the rich can control the america worker by keeping him tied to his job because we Americans have no single payer healthcare, mainly because our leftism has been mutated by nonprofit propaganda such as this article.

The rich control the political debate by using their money to fund pseudoLeftist nonprofits like Alternet. The funding mainly comes in the form of startup funding, after which these falseLeft organizations can seek donations from the liberal pseudoLeftist activsts.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hamish
Posted by: JDBishop5 on Apr 9, 2007 5:07 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I support gay rights, but I hate to see the gay community torpedo the country AGAIN. (After all, Clinton lost his first term and effectiveness as a president by jumping on the gays in the military bandwagon early in his first term. I would have let the courts handle that hot potato.) It is true that gays have been treated badly is this country, but their problems are not the only issues with which this country must deal. The constant yammering about this minority’s real and imagined difficulties has been aired very thoroughly. Put this category on the back burner and get on to Global Warming and War as two issues, among others, that present existential threats to all people, gay, straight and what the hell ever.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Hamish Posted by: hms2004
» RE: Hamish Posted by: pass the ammo
» RE: Hamish Posted by: swifturtle
» How Clinton lost his Mojo ... Posted by: AdamSelene40
Please do....
Posted by: dikaiosyne on Apr 9, 2007 6:02 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You can bet that I certainly want the representatives of the Socialist Party to make "gay issues" front and center for their campaigns. Although I have no objection to issues such as civil unions per se I do have issues with the constant harangue from the pro gay folk that they have to be given all the rights associated with hetero marriage. Asides from that being a moral issue which conservatives won't support because it IS anti-children and anti-family AND because it IS an issue of immorality in a Judeo-Christian ethics based society. The way I see it.... The more the gay lobby screams the more conservative voters come out against them. That guarantees that those politicians supporting and enabling the gay deathstyle will LOSE. I ask Hillary and Obama to please continue acquiescing to the gay lobby. Seeing them go down in flames makes me want to smile REAL BIG.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Please do.... Posted by: buffeliscious
» RE: Please do.... Posted by: Steve Adair
I didn't know that gay rights was a left/right issue
Posted by: rwa on Apr 9, 2007 6:37 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Isn't Clinton on the right extreme anyway? Gay issues will always be there to divide the popular oppinion. It offers a false sense of choice. It's interesting that in some eras it's the left that moralises against gays and conservatives that want government to back away, and in a generation they flip roles.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Dems need to stay on basic economic issues; rebuild middle class, away from social issues
Posted by: scott.gregory on Apr 9, 2007 6:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This author has got it all worng. The Dems absolutely have to stay away from the Repub divide-and-conquer social issues. DEM campaign themes need to be "SPEND OUT TAX DOLLARS HERE AT HOME, IN WAYS THAT BENENFIT AMERICANS" and "higher tax rates on incomes above that paid to the President"( meaning a return of progressive taxation)...and of course a National Health System.....

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Jim Williamson
Posted by: jimzoltan on Apr 9, 2007 6:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The gay issue is a foolish battle to fight before achieving power. It will only polarize a large and powerful group against you. When will the Democrats wake up and lose their albatrosses that have been sinking them for years?

Probably never.

The only thing that will put the Dems in power is the unrestrained greed and arrogance of the Republicans.

Jim

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Jim Williamson Posted by: CatDad
» More than just that. Posted by: kittynboi
Why is it assumed LGBT folks are Democrats?
Posted by: sausage on Apr 9, 2007 6:54 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hasn't Laura Flanders heard of Log Cabin Republicans? And hasn't she seen the hottest neoFascist, homoerotic motion picture of the decade, 300, where tanned and buffed "Ayran" Spartans, not overly given to introspection or dialogue, slaughter, by the carload, blacks, Latinos and Asians standing in for ancient Persians?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» 300...??!! PLEASE! Posted by: buffeliscious
Frame The Discussion
Posted by: NoPCZone on Apr 9, 2007 7:24 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Where the G.O.P. media manipulation/echo chamber/spin machine seems to have it's greatest success is in framing the boundaries of the public and political debate. When Democrats or others accept those boundaries they have already put themselves at a disadvantage. Ms Valdez in Dallas, mentioned in the essay, didn't accept the G.O.P. framing and got her message out. Other Democrats and Progressives should learn from that.

Those not trading in fear-mongering should use EVERY occasion to remind voters and the press that we live in a secular society, where individual faith-based morals are separate from public policy. What two consenting adults do in private sexually is nobody else's business unless one or both of them is married to someone else. In that case it is still a private matter, but now includes the additional parties.

As to civil union/ gay marriage, I see no basis under the Constitution for LGBT people to be denied marriage. I also see the state laws designed to prohibit such unions to be illegal. Marriage is a function of the state- not any church. When an ordained minister/preist/Rabbi/Cleric conducts a marriage ceremony it is under the authority of the state- not the faith body that ordained them. In a Christian context, Holy Matrimony is an ordinance of the Church and Marriage is a legal construct of the state.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Pointless "moral", family, social issues are just a distraction
Posted by: ateo on Apr 9, 2007 8:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
These issues do nothing but shift people's attention away from important things like America's imperialist wars of aggression and the destruction of the American middle class.

That is why these are such "huge" issues today, they are some of the only things the politicians are allowed to debate by their corporate masters. Let the peons waste their time and energy debating this tripe while the rich rob you blind and laugh all the way to the bank.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Time to Cowboy the Frak Up
Posted by: LoveYourEnemies on Apr 9, 2007 8:39 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Okay.... For me, it's this simple. If you know that a certain demographic (the religious folk) won't vote for you ANYWAY, then why pull a McCain and try to kiss up to them or be afraid of them?

It's this simple. The Religious Right will NEVER vote for Democrats. They're trained not to. If you, as a Democratic contender, feel strongly that gay marriage is okay, then take a freaking stand on it. Who we consider the Republican wingnuts don't have a problem doing it. You have Tancredo who hates illegal immigration and is running his whole campaign on illegal immigration. Bush, bless his misguided, foolish soul, still believes that Iraq is winnable (or is so cynical that he will let the clock run out so that he won't have to deal with a pull-out) and is sticking to his guns. Like it or not, Bush was able to be in a position to do what he did in the elections because he stuck to his guns. Because of it, people knew where he stood.

It's only milquetoast Democrats and Republicans who are more politicians than people who have a problem. McCain, Romney and Guiliani are trying to be whores to the Religious Right. Hey, that's their thing because that's their base. They can't conceive of winning without the religious conservative vote, so they are going through a period of rhetorical gymnastics.

What I don't understand is why Sens. Clinton and Obama feel they have to do the same thing. Take a stand. Man up. If people don't like where you stand, then they have the right not to vote for you (and they won't). It's okay. Take the hits and know that you stood on your beliefs. If you try to kiss up or seem ambiguous, NO ONE will vote for you. This is about principle. No one knows where they stand. In my opinion, they're unclear about everything that matters (just like Romney, McCain, and Guliani).

I would rather take a stand and lose, than to try to please everyone, win, and then be considered a traitor. I would STAND UP for gay marriage, because I truly believe in the separation of church and state and the right to the pursuit of happiness. I believe that denying gay marriage is an unjust position. Just because a church won't marry you doesn't mean the state can't respect the union of two people. If a church won't marry you, you can always go to another church, in my mind, a mere consumer choice. If your state, which takes your tax dollars, which you contribute to through your labor (you work for a company that brings in revenue which is taxed) doesn't respect your choice of life partner, then that is injustice. We don't like you, but we'll take your money all the same. It's time for us to stop being influenced by the likes of Focus on the Family, the Family Research Council, and the American Family Association. Who ARE they, anyway? They are people just like us and our opinions are just as valid as theirs, I don't care what ghost they claim to follow. It's time for them to understand that not everyone believes what they believe and that their ideas are just one item in the marketplace of ideas. If ANYONE wants to earn my vote, they will have to take a definite stand FOR gay marriage (although I'm straight). No hemming and hawing.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Time to Cowboy the Frak Up Posted by: kittynboi
» RE: Time to Cowboy the Frak Up Posted by: PopRox80
» RE: Time to Cowboy the Frak Up Posted by: Lincoln fan
A GREAT IDEA FOR DESTROYING THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY
Posted by: poppop_schell on Apr 9, 2007 8:57 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It never ceases to amaze me how much homosexuals think the world centers around them and that a national party that represents the values of the middle class and working poor should destroy itself with promoting the homosexual agenda. If homosexuality is critical to world success, why not start your own party. This Blue Dog Democrat would cheer you on just as long as you don't destroy the party of Jefferson and Jackson.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Are You Kidding? Posted by: CatDad
» RE: Are You Kidding? Posted by: poppop_schell
» RE: Are You Kidding? Posted by: CatDad
» RE: Are You Kidding? Posted by: poppop_schell
» RE: Are You Kidding? Posted by: PopRox80
» RE: Are You Kidding? Posted by: poppop_schell
Habeas corpus
Posted by: sonex on Apr 9, 2007 9:06 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Who cares about Habeas corpus as long as we have gay rights !

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Habeas corpus Posted by: buffeliscious
What a nothing article
Posted by: Wassermann on Apr 9, 2007 9:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How much did this author or her publisher have to "donate" to AlterNet to have her book plugged up-front-and-center?

Yes, I'd like to know if the Penguin Publishing Group is a sponsor of AlterNet...that's something to find out.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» What a nothing comment! Who cares? Posted by: buffeliscious
This is insane.
Posted by: WitchyNy on Apr 9, 2007 10:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We could not even get a WHITE MALE WAR-VET elected last time!

Now we are running a woman or a black man???
And they are not strong enough on ---Gay Rights???

Just on the off chance that the voting machines are not rigged this time...could we get real here?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hillary doesn't need to prove ANYTHING...
Posted by: xbj on Apr 9, 2007 10:54 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It was the first Clinton Presidency (like that?) that took on the military's ludicrous "Don't ask, don't tell" policy HEAD ON and lost.

Hillary doesn't need to prove a damn thing... people that say she does HAVE NO MEMORY beyond who won on Idol last week.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

If you can't beat `em, join `em.
Posted by: MartianBachelor on Apr 9, 2007 12:19 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think the gay movement should do an about-face and actively campaign against gay marriage.

While this may blow people's minds initially, there's a very good reason which could be made clear and would serve a greater purpose which many could relate to: marriage these days is little more than notorized shacking up.

Yea, yea, I know there are supposed to be over a thousand rights and privileges accorded to married couples. I doubt anyone could name more than one or two and they have little to do with why people marry in the first place. In other words, they don't constitute substantive rights. The state will enforce a contract with the cell phone company or the local health club way more vigorously than it will the so-called marriage 'contract'. (In fact, a divorce is the state helping someone abrogate the 'contract'.)

Put another way, the gay community, which has invested lots of time, energy, and emotion into fighting the no-gay-marriage movement, has been hoodwinked into wasting it's resources defending or trying to get something which is essentially worthless to begin with. And the same could be said for those who think they're doing something noble by defending (hetero) marriage. In the legal sense there's nothing there to defend. The sooner the gay marriage beast is buried the sooner things can move on to issues which really matter.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Destroy marriage Posted by: ateo
» RE: If you can't beat `em, join `em. Posted by: MartianBachelor
leo the lion
Posted by: johnp on Apr 9, 2007 12:24 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As long as the American public, in general, are ambivalentt about gay rights, politicians, especially those running for president, who have the most to lose by not precisely gaugeing public sentiment, will also make ambiguous and ambivalent remarks about that issue. There is much confusion concerning the way political principle plays out in midst of these presidential campaigns. You can fault a politician for refusing to make principled, i.e. clear cut and definitive statements about such matters as gay rights, but you can't pretend to know that he's an unprincipled politician simply on the grounds that he refuses to make clear cut statements about those principles. To expect him to do so, is to fail to understand the first principle of politics: "first get elected." It doesn't much matter how principled you are, if you're out of power. The more serious the issue, the more important is this point: honesty is a principle, and often must compete with other principles in our lives. To demand forthright statements of a politiican, when the demands of his campaign requires a less than forthright response, is to fall into a serious confusion about principle. A politician must be more or less honest, to win our support, but to expect a scrupulous honesty in all matters, can subvert your principles. What matters to me, is not the rhetoric I hear from Clinton, Obama, Edwards or Kucinich, it's not what they "say" that impresses me, what matters is what they "do," once in office; and if they can't possibly get into office, what difference does it make what they say? Often, the ability to speak with complete forthrightness, is a product of the knowledge that a politican has, that he cannot win. If I allow someone like Bush, who I 'know" to be adamantly opposed to gay rights, to get into office, because I've required a scrupulous honesty from a candidate, on my side, which has caused that candidate to lose votes , and so to lose the election, I've subverted my principles, by subordinating my support of equality for gays, to the mere honesty shown by candidates when they speak of the issue. I've given a greater importance to the rhetoric used by politicians when they seek high office, than I have to gay rigthts. You may think that there's a easy way out of this intellectual quandary, but you're mistaken. An intelligent voter must be, among other things, a shrewd gambler, knowing where to place his bets for a candidate, based as much on hunches and guesses, as he does on the candidate's record. There are countless situations where a murky and equivocal statement, as compared with a definitively honest statement, has less importance for me than the greater good that follows its successful implementation. It's not a matter of truthfulness on the one hand, and dishonesty on the other. There is a vast inbetween, that makes our task a complicated, but essential one for us all. It's this willingness to read between the lines when we hear out a politician, that will determine whether we eventually have gay rights or don't have them; whether we have the brutal invasion of a sovereign nation or don't have such an invasion. Often, we demand clear cut statements of principle from politicians, not because we're more upright than the next guy, but because we can't deal with the uncertainty that ambiguous statements force on us. But, the reality is that we'll have to deal with this uncertainty, because the alternative is too dreadful to comtemplate.
jp

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Civil rights apply to all
Posted by: Swedish liberal on Apr 9, 2007 12:45 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As a European living in the US I do not understand the debate over abortion, Women’s and Gay rights. The total lack of middle ground and open discussion!

One of the reasons that comes to my mind is that 92 % of the US is religious, not only that but most of them are more or less fundamentalists in their faith, if I am not mistaken some 40 % take the scriptures literally the Torah, Quoran and Bible.

A further issue as we see in Europe and in the US immigrants hold very strong "family values". In Europe it is them Moslem community and in the US it is the rising Asian and Latin American populations values, do not forget that there is also 6 % of Moslem faith in the US nearly all extremely conservative when it comes to family values.

For most Christians and Moslems as well as Hindus as Confucians it is “immoral” to act out a homosexual lifestyle, females are subjugated to men, their main task is to bear children. I think it is abhorrent and values belonging in the Middle Ages but are these people wrong when the perceive this? Is not immorality in the eye of the beholder?

For me as a liberal according to John Stuart Mill you may hold any views you want as long as you do not act out on those and cause harm to others. That is way I find it extremely important that universal rights apply to all, gay rights, female rights as well as other minority rights should be protected BUT because I am JSM follower I am also very much afraid of political majorities making moral laws. Moral laws can be either religious or laws like Affirmative Action etc, such laws should not be passed. (In Sweden Positive Discrimination laws such as Affirmative Action have no been struck down by the Supreme Court as violating Universal Human Rights, a very wise decision.)

You should never force your views down somebody else’s throat but you must never discriminate because of sexual orientation, gender or race.

The US Religious Right has unfortunately very cleverly put a deadlock on us that believe in a secular and liberal society were Universal Human Rights apply and not the values from God. This deadlock seems very hard to break in the US.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

IS IT ANY WONDER THE COUNTRY BOUGHT INTO BUSH'S WAR?
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Apr 9, 2007 1:56 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We're bogged down by social issues that have nothing to do with running the country. Four years of bloodshed, American and Iraqi. We have to get our priorities straight. Every special group can't possibly demand all of our attention. Not to say these things are not important. But they have their place. It's not possible to love everyone and it's foolish to make promises that can't be kept. Let's get real.
Thanks, ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Why Don't You Get Real.... Posted by: CatDad
What About Queer Rights?
Posted by: hole11 on Apr 9, 2007 2:57 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I thought all rights are gay. If you are talking about a certain segment of people who only have sexual relations with each other isn't that queer?

Use a word for it's intended purpose. Don't borrow another word in order to exploit it's political correctness. Gay used to be a word queers used in the military or navy back during WWII to recognize each other. Now it's no longer an underground word with a secret meaning. It's widespread use has even pushed the original meaning of the word to a number two definition.

Call a queer a queer. The word fits.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: What About Queer Rights? Posted by: thirdmg
Phillips
Posted by: subue on Apr 9, 2007 3:37 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
http://www.familyresearchinst.org/

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A matter or priority..........
Posted by: ekipnrut on Apr 9, 2007 3:54 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
From poster (supra)
It's bizarre that America's left so often tries to run away from gay rights' issues under the flimsy excuse that other issues are more important
Ummmmm..Sorry to break it to you , but there are slightly more imminent concerns than 'the 'yammered' ad nauseam gay rights issue(s). In this current issue of Alternet ,the
The Iraq Debacle: A Failure to Communicate article is a prime example of fundamentally misplaced priorities and more importantly how a blind allegiance to the advancement of a particular identity politics can result in ambitions of inclusion in a (war crime) depravity. There is no political dimension to homosexuality...there have been as many gay fascists as egalitarians.Therefore there is no intrinsic, natural common bond between the struggle to provide basic economic/social /racial 'justice' and the gay agenda of lifestyle issues. That which benefits humanity as a whole de facto benefits the gay population...the converse simply isn't true. Furthermore it is often claimed that progressively 'advanced' Europe is an example of how a political agenda can accomodate both gay and other issues. Well first of all Europe is awash in racist right wing xenophobia from the UK to Western Russia..GDR, France Scandinavia..resurgence of neonazis and fascists. And you can bet that there would be plenty of gays who would goose step down Picadilly with their straight anglophiles.
From Wiki article on murder of Nikolai Girenko:
In the beginning of 2000s extreme nationalists committed at least 26 hate murders in Russia, according to Moscow Bureau for Human Rights.[9] Since year 2003, St. Petersburg's militia investigated ethnic hate murders of the following individuals.
* 5-year-old girl Nilufar Sangboeva of Gypsy ethnicity. Skinheads beat her and another 7-year-old girl near the Dachnaya station in the suburbs of St. Petersburg on 21 September 2003. She died the next day in the hospital.
* Kim Hen Ik, a citizen of DPRK. Criminals killed him in St.Petersburg on 14 December 2003.
* Sergei Beldy, student of the Institute of People of North, of Nenets ethnicity. Skinheads killed him in St. Petersburg on 26 December 2003.
* 9-year-old girl Khursheda Sultonova of Tajik ethnicity. A group of skinheads attacked her along with her father and her cousin when they approached their St. Petersburg apartment building after skating on 9 February 2004.
* Abdul Kadyr Boddavi, student from Syria. Criminals pushed him onto the subway tracks on 13 March 2004.
* Two Mad Crowd's own members, Rostislav Gofman and Alexei Golovchenko. They disappeared in June 2004. Investigators found their bodies in 2006 close to the village of Zahodskoye near St. Petersburg. Gofman left a list of Mad Crowd members shortly before his death.
* Nikolai Girenko, candidate of historic sciences. Anonymous criminals shot him on 19 June 2004.
* Wu An Tuan, a student of St. Petersburg's Polytech University of Vietnamese ethnicity. A group of skinheads attacked him on 13 October 2004.
* Lampsar Samba, a student from Senegal, an activist of a human rights movement African Unity. An unknown shot him on 7 April 2006. Investigators found a pump-action shotgun decorated with swastika nearby.
...Lots of similar stuff in UK, France, GDR Scandiavia, and, as I read this over,we had recently in California two four year old black girls shot in the head..gangs are suspect...
So I really don't give a good goddamn about 'gay rights' as a priority right at the moment...sorry...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Waste of Space..... Posted by: CatDad
» RE: A matter or priority.......... Posted by: goldenkorat
Thank You, Laura Flanders, For Common Sense And Political Savvy
Posted by: thirdmg on Apr 9, 2007 4:49 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thank you, Laura Flanders, for expressing the common sense and the political savvy that a political party should run towards its base, not away from it, if it wants to succeed.

Just as importantly, the Democratic Party's leaders should stop trying to move the party to where the public is. Obviously, for the last several decades, the public has been led to the right by the Republican noise machine. "Led" is the important word here. A successful party doesn't follow. It leads the public to where the party is.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Obama is quite clear on his stance
Posted by: goldenkorat on Apr 9, 2007 6:00 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SG5u04Gbg0A

Quoting Obama in this video "I believe marriage is between a man and woman."
Though when asked if he believes that homosexuality is a choice, in this video, he answers, "No, I don't." Later he says, "...I think that being able to transfer property is a civil right, I think not being discriminated against is a civil right..."
So, it would seem that obama's proclaimed stance is, no to marriage, yes all the other rights.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Tired of candidates taking the fall.
Posted by: Marjorie G on Apr 10, 2007 11:40 AM   
Current