Did the Democratic Party abandon gays in the 2004 campaign?

[Brian_Expat]

I cannot seem to recall a single strong move by state parties, in particular, to lobby against the anti-gay amendments to the constitution that the Republicans brought up. In fact, even John Kerry supported a number of them, including the anti-gay amendment being proposed in Massachusetts.

We keep hearing about how we're to blame for the loss and all that, but I seem to recall the Democrats doing ABSOLUTELY NOTHING substantial, on a national or state level, to take on the right wing on this issue.

[queerart]

1. They Sure The Fuck Did.....

At Break Neck Speed!

Funny thing is.....

They are going to run from Women's issues as next.....

I can't wait to hear the "Howling"......

Should the Queers then say to Women... you should have quit pushing it for that "Emergency Contraception"... see where it got you?

[mairceridwen]

2. YES

a resounding YES


Aside from Sharpton on AAR and Clark somewhere else, I didn't hear ANYONE talk about gay marriage in terms of civil rights and all over the country people thought NOTHING of voting for legislation that basically PUNISHES people for being gay.

(I'm sure there were others who talked about it that way...but none that I can recall at this moment...certainly not from Kerry or Edwards)

I'm sick if it. Thank god I renewed my subscription to the gay agenda. I'm utterly horrified and saddened by the lack of mainstream support for one group's CIVIL RIGHTS

[fertilizeonarbusto]

3. Damn right

and it was not only craven, it was stupid. There's enough "out" gay people now that just about everyone knows and loves one. IMHO, if the issue had been framed as protecting your child, nephew, sister, neighbor from abuse the fundies would have been handed their heads by the majority of Americans, who are decent people. But, leadership had to be shown.
Why can't our "leadership" understand that people will follow honest conviction-especially if they sense its basic decency?

[cali]

4. I respectfully disagree.

Most dems spoke out against the federal constitutional amendment restricting marriage to a union between a man and a woman. What else would you have had them do? Proclaiming support for gay marriage itself was a losing issue for dems. Many supported civil unions. Frankly, and I know I'm going to get flamed for this, gay marriage is not on the top of my list of concerns. Yes, I'd like to see it, but other issues take precedence for me. I think we forget how much progress has been made in the gay rights arena, in a fairly short period of time. Five years ago, the passage of Vermont's civil union law was considered revolutionary, today it's the fall back position.

[fertilizeonarbusto]

5. not a flame

Gay marriage not at the top of my concerns, either-believe it or not. But the "leadership" running away from the issue made them look like thay lacked courage and convictions-which they do. I find that extremely damaging, not just on this issue, but across the board. To me, this was just the most egregious example. Really, who wants to vote for a wuss?

[cali]

6. Of course I believe it.

A couple of weeks ago I was talking to a friend of mine. He's a radical lib poly sci professor, oh yeah and gay, who's completely uninterested in gay marriage as an issue. He's far more concerned with imperialism. He believes that the gay community as a whole was way too focused on the issue during this election cycle. OTH, I understand what you're saying. It is emblematic of dems to run from issues that they see as thorny for them. Perhaps Kerry and Edwards could have spoken more clearly about this.

[Brian_Expat]

8. He's probably single and promiscuous too n/t

[cali]

14. Not sure what that has to do with anything but

no he's not single. He's lived with his partner for approx. five years.

[Brian_Expat]

15. Just an elitist academic out of touch with the gay mainstream n/t

[Brian_Expat]

7. Except the Republicans ran on with their hate and spittle

And the Democrats did nothing except whimper out a sorta-agreeing protest. . . "yes, homosexuals are icky and NO, I don't support their equality under the law, but I think you're being a little too mean."

[renaissanceguy]

27. Let me tell you something.

I don't know if you've ever been discriminated against... but when you live in a country that treats you as a subordinate, where you have to fight individual by individual for a shred of dignity...you get sick of it. As far as I'm concerned, without basic rights, we have no rights. Look at it this way: if Lawrence v. Texas is overturned by the fundies, and sodomy laws spread throughout the country, we'll be put in jail. Than what rights will we have? BushCo also wants to do away with any positive portrayal of gay people in the media. Without a voice, what do we have? NOTHING!

THAT'S what the big deal is. This isn't just about marriage. It's about our inclusion in society. It's about our dignity, damn it.

-------------------------------
JESUS W. BUSH has arrived! Outspoken political merchandise at www.cafepress.com/liberalissues

[livinginphotographs]

9. Yes they did.

As they always seem to.

Much like they constantly abandon African-American voters as well. They keep both groups around during the primaries, but once it's GE time, off to the closet with ye.

Gay marriage/civil unions was one of my pet issues this election, and very rarely did I hear anything about it, except when Kerry was defending Republican attacks that he liked gay people TOO much or some such shit.

[Brian_Expat]

10. Maybe black and gay voters should set up our own party. . .

. . . and invite the Democrat to prove he's worthy of our nomination and vote too.

[queerart]

11. You Hit The Nail On The Head My Friend.....

Make them "earn" the vote......

.....and there is strength in numbers... with out a doubt!

I also refuse to give any more funds to a group that is dismissive to anyone's Civil Rights....

[livinginphotographs]

12. Maybe not even necessarily a party,

But an advocacy group, kind of like the NAACP combined with GLAAD or something. We could call it HMFIVFYLTBUYPATMNA (Hey, Motherfucker, I voted for you last time but unless you start paying attention to me, never again).

Suggestions for another name are definitely welcome, though. I'm just brainstorming. ;)

Think about it: if the NAACP came out against the Dem nominee, that would be a serious blow. If there was a group concerned about ALL of the issues the Dems take for granted, with the same amount of clout, it could be very effective in forcing the mainstream Dems to take our issues seriously ("our" in the general sense, since I'm neither gay nor African-American).

I'd also like to see less gutless-ness (if that's a word) on the death penalty and drug legalization. Funny, Sharpton spoke about that too.

[Brian_Expat]

13. All hail the new HMFIVFYLTBUYPATMNA Party! ;) n/t

[Q3JR4]

36. A kick to the

HMFIVFYLTBUYPATMNA Party.


:kick:

[queerart]

16. That Really Was Funny........ n/t

[davidinalameda]

23. HMFIVFYLTBUYPATMNA

where do I sign up?

[OneBlueSky]

17. they did . . . and they didn't have to . . .

the Democrats could have muted this issue by simply adopting the classic conservative approach to government sticking their nose into people's bedrooms . . . simpy stated, you don't do it . . . whether it's gays, single people, divorcees, or whomever . . . the case to be made is that it's none of the government's business what two consening adults do, as long as it doesn't harm others . . . and two people entering into a committed, loving relationship -- be they gay of straight -- certainly doesn't harm others . . . case closed . . .

[Technowitch]

18. Hell yeah.

And the Repugs demonized us.

I've about given up on this sorry excuse for a country. Seriously.

[Lisaben2619]

19. Locally, other than Sen. Feingold, the Dems completely abandoned us.

They wanted our money. They wanted our time. They wanted our mailing lists. But, they wouldn't even say "gay" or "lesbian" and certainly not "bisexual" or "transgender." "Discrimination" became code for "see how much I support gay people."
In Wisconsin, we are fighting another state constitutional amendment which will ban marriage equality, civil unions, even pre-negotiated domestic partner benefits. If this isn'the the civil rights issue of our time, then I can't imagine what is. Yet, 15 Democrats in the state legislature voted for it. It was, finally, the thing that pushed me entirely Green. If my candidates are going to continue to lose elections, I might as well support candidates who value decency over political expediency.

[queerart]

20. Thank You For Saying The "G" Word!

Truley, Greens seem to be the only hope.......

[Brian_Expat]

21. We're so screwed

We either choose the Greens (who have no political savvy or power) or the Democrats (who have no political savvy and fading power). Aieeeeeeeeeee!

[queerart]

22. You Are Right!

..... and there is no doubt that things are going to get harder for us...

You know tho... if the Greens get the help they need (money more than anything else)....

Maybe things can be turned around?

There are (I won't post it here) but many Green victories this past election... and there were many that were already in office.....

Of course there is a really long way to get them whipped into shape... but really it's an impressive start....

... and I guess all things have to start somewhere....

[Behind the Aegis]

24. YES!

It was pretty obvious that the Democrats left us out for the wolves. The noticeable lack of mentioning GLBT issues and the fact that our presidential candidate refused to stand up against bigotry directed at gays. Hell, look at DU after the election! People here were quick to attack gays at every thread! It got so bad here that I noticed many gay DU'ers weren't posting. My partner even refused to read DU since a few days past the election because it was so bad in here. Look at the apologists we have within the gay community...they make the maddest! If your a 'fag' and you can't be concerned about your own damn rights, how can we expect others to be?!

Gay 'marriage' doesn't have to be a personal priority for you, but if you cannot support it for the community, then you are loser as far as I am concerned! I support a number of rights that have nothing to do with my personal life, but know it they are for the greater good. Not all of us can live in "safe" states or cities, and after this election, I am not sure they really exist in this country anymore.

[Brian_Expat]

25. Amen n/t

[La Lioness Priyanka]

26. no they didnt

did rich gay men make marriage vs protections against discrimination a priority? i think they did.

it was a stupid push...because while i support gay marriage we just walked into roves trap!

[solinvictus]

28. I agree...

First, the basic issue of workplace, housing, and other discrimination needs to be addressed before the leap can be made to either marriage or civil unions. My view is the classical conservative position: it's none of my damned business if two members of the same sex wish to be legally recognized as a couple. It does absolutely zero harm to society and it encourages long term relationships, which are better for the collective good. I can definitely see your position that the agenda was set by those who don't have to worry about such bread-and-butter life issues anymore. This is no different than the rest of the Democratic "leaders" in that respect.

[Brian_Expat]

31. I think most people who want gay marriage aren't exactly secure. . .

. . . in other areas either. And marriage isn't a "rich" thing. In fact, marriage has a lot to do with ensuring that gays and lesbians live economically secure lives with adequate housing (co-ownership), health care (partner benefits), financial security (divorce law and social security benefits) and other major areas of the law.

Walking away from marriage IS walking away from poor and middle class and minority gays and lesbians.

[Lisaben2619]

29. This attitude borders on blaming the victim.

What were the final numbers? 3/4 (I'm guessing) of the LGBT vote went to the Democrats? And what did the party do to deserve it?

If 11 states in America would have had referendums on the rights of African Americans or Jews or any other minority, for that matter, the Dems (hopefully) would have been climbing all over each other in a mad rush for camera time. It isn't so much Kerry and Edwards that piss me off (although how ridiculous was their position on marriage equality) as it is the state Dem parties who continue to stand mute on all these amendments. It's wrong. Period.

The LGBT community needs to start addressing why it is that we continue to allow the Dems to continually "forget" or dismiss our issues of equality while keeping our votes, time and money. Are we this codependent?

I refuse to accept that it isn't the "right time" to allow LGBT folks the right to choose to marry.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

32. its not blaming the victim

but have you taken a look at the people who set our agenda? i think they have very different lives from the rest of us. i think most gay peopel need protection from discrimination more than marriage..

[Lisaben2619]

33. Marriage inequality is discrimination.

Every LGBT partner is discriminately denied benefits and so are all of our children.

The people who have set our agenda include women like Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon. You're right; their lives have been very different from mine-I wish I had their determination, courage, and commitment.

[Brian_Expat]

38. Who "sets our agenda"?

Who is "us?" Who has "very different lives" from "us?"

[Brian_Expat]

30. Rove made gay issue a marriage, not gay men

And the Goodridge decision in Massachusetts was led by a lesbian couple and lesbian-led law team at GLAD. Bless them for standing up for what's right.

We should yield ground on NO front, and I don't think that non-discrimination laws would be any more successful than gay marriage under the Rovian system -- he'd STILL play the gay marriage card even if every gay in the country made it "not a priority."

[arwalden]

34. Yep! And They'll Do It Again...

Just look at all the WHINERS we have running around DU who are BLAMING queers for Kerry's loss.

The new paradigm... the new way of thinking... appears to be that queers should quit being so uppity and just take-one-for-the-team... and that we should be more "diplomatic" instead of being "hateful".

Frankly, I think it's the "being diplomatic" and "turning the other cheek" business that's simply served as an invitation for the faith-baed bigots to run roughshod over us. It's also served as consent and approval to let the stealth bigots in our own party to feel emboldened enough to suggest that we should all just sit-down-and-shut-the-fuck-up.

I'm fed up with it.

[queerart]

35. You Stated Things Perfectly!

I am sick to fucking death hearing how we should wait....

We should wait for rights....

We should wait for marriage.....

We should wait to be treated like humans....

We should wait, and not say anything about the hate being spewed from the pulpit.....

If everyone expects us to "wait", as Queer Rights is not their "little problem"...

Then I say it's every fucking man for themselves...

Until others help support Queer rights...They can go fuck themselves for help with their rights...

Many of us "Filthy Queers" have over the years, supported rights that have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with us "personally"... and have Absolutely No Impact At All In Our Own Personal Lives.... and frankly, some of the rights that I have helped to support.....

I DID NOT AGREE WITH THEN... AND I STILL DON'T! But I was there to fight all the same.....

Funny thing is... they (Repubs, as well as "some" Dems) are going to come for all the rest too! Don't even fucking think anyone is safe....

Anyone who thinks just because they are straight, and white... that they are safe...

FORGET IT! The Religious Right is going to be "COUNTING YOUR PUBIC HAIRS TOO"... and you can take that to the bank!

Then there is going to be "Howling" as the straights get pulled in to the little trap the Religious Right set for them as well... all the while they believed that it was just the Queers everyone was after.........

Ohio is a prime example... that more "Religious Government Control" is on the way for straights too.....

"Welcome To The Freeper Fiesta"....

[Q3JR4]

37. I gave my time,

and money in the last election toward helping Kerry get elected. I registered members of my family, friends, and others who have never in their lives voted before, and every single one of them voted Dem mostly because of the gay marriage issue. Never again.

When minority rights aren't enough to make you take a stand, I for one wonder what is. Further, if you are too afraid to stand up for our rights because you'd loose votes, well, you already have. I hope that others in the 3/4 of the gay community that voted your way in 2004 make the same decision in 2006 and, if need be, in 2008. Maybe then you'd listen.

Yes it would split the vote, but as far as I'm concerned you've already lost your spirit. The minute that g.w.b. was sworn in as president (when we all KNEW about the voting irregularities in florida and you rolled over and let it happen) is the minute you began to die. When a majority of your members voted the patriot act into law, the rest of us knew that it would only be a matter of time. Now with Diebold and the constant voting irregularities to contend with, you've already lost what little ability you had to pull in new voters.

Without any major changes, you the democratic party is dead. You and your members just don't realize it yet.