Gays, lesbians and transgendered: What the hell did the Democrats ever do for you??

Great Debates
41

IIRC, none of them were elected as openly gay Republicans - they all came out after winning office (there may be one exception to this, but I’m not sure). And the religious right actually called for Jim Kolbe to be arrested for being gay (“practicing sodomy,” illegal in his home state of Arizona) when he spoke at the RNC. And I don’t think I’m wrong in saying that the number of openly gay Democrats overwhelmingly outnumber the number of openly gay Republicans. So, yes, there are openly gay Republicans, but the Democrats still sound like the better party for me.

These laws protect everyone equally. As ridiculous as it sounds, who’s to say such a law wouldn’t protect, for example, a straight man in the hairdressing business? I know, it’s a stretch, but it’s also possible. Sexual harassment laws were put into place to protect women, and yet they have also been used to protect men (there was a case of an oil rigger who was harassed by his workmates as being gay when he was actually straight, and IIRC he won the case).

You know little of hate crimes legislation. I suggest you do a little reading and check out the numerous hate crime threads here on the SDMB, but let’s not hijack this one.

No, they’d use them to their political advantage, duh - why do you think George P. was allowed to speak at all? Puh-lease - gimmie a break. In '96, George Sr. was overheard referring to his grandkids as “the little brown ones” - yeah, there’s a paragon of inclusivity. :rolleyes: And Cheney has completely sidestepped his own daughter’s lesbianism, refusing to talk about it, and still supporting an anti-gay stance - if that isn’t “disowning” in a political sense then I don’t know what is.

And I’m not saying Republicans are “nazis,” I’m saying they take an actively anti-gay stance in their political platform, and the Democrats do not.

I’ll agree with you about public opinion and politics, but doing what is expedient vs. doing what is right has always been the bane of our society, unfortunatley.

Esprix

42

I don’t like being paraphrased for effect…
As I pointed out several times, if you continue reading, it is a legal issue, a State legal issue. The federal government, to the best of my knowledge, never made any laws concerning the institution of marriage. It has to be done State by State. And with Democrats ‘owning’ California and quite a few northeast States, you can’t blame the Republicans for this being disallowed. Perhaps the federal government could pass a token law, i.e. that for federal tax purposes, the IRS will recognize same-sex marriages. Or that inurance companies must recognize same-sex marriages for their insured. But it would be a violation of States’ rights to make marriage a federal institution. I’m not sure what the proposed legislation was, perhaps that a federal marital licensing bureau be created? That could be another option, but if you can’t pass it in some 2:1 D:R and higher States, you can hardly blame the Republican Party for it failing at the federal level.

Guinastasia

A. I have yet to see Bush claim any opinion on same-sex marriages. If such a law was introduced and vetoed in Texas, that would be the only way to verify his position.

B. The whole above statement regarding one woman’s potential inability to deal with her childs’ homosexuality somehow relating to why there are no same-sex marriages is reaching pretty far.
I think the problem is that some people consider it personally offensive when you insult their Party. Kind of stupid really. But perhaps good that some Republicans, self included, consider their Party’s views insulting. Considering that we are talking about Party lines versus the individual opinions of people in those Parties…

agreed that the Republican Party line is not embracing homosexuality and the Democratic Party at least claims to do so, though the legal support in 8 years of Clinton has been a bare minimal effort at best. I think it is also evident that Clinton has been more supportive of homosexuality, women, and racial minorities through appointments than any other President, hopefully that is a trend that will continue. So, to the OP, it makes alot more sense for homosexuals to support Dems who give publicity to the problem even if they can’t pass or don’t really want to pass the legislation than to Reps who downplay and come out vocally against the issue and would never introduce similar legislation.

43

Then you haven’t been paying attention. I mean, he stated his position in the frickin’ debates, fercrissakes. Some cites for you:
http://www.ngltf.org/elections/bush.htm

Bush Says He Opposes Homosexual Marriage

http://www.labyrinth.net.au/~dba/pa981012.html

44

A while back, I mentioned that the GLBT community doesn’t have same rights of privacy as heterosexuals as per the 4th amendment. Here’s the cite for that:

Bowers vs. Hardwick

JAG, You seem to think that the GLBT community is asking for “special rights.” What we are asking for is the phrase “sexual orientation” to be added to existing civil rights legislation. This protects both the GLBT community and the straight community. Back in the early 90s, the restuarant chaing Cracker Barrel institued the policy of firing anyone who was found to be GLBT. No matter how good an employee they were, the could be fired for that one unalterable aspect of their personality.

Bush’s record regarding GLBT legislation is appalling. I’ll work on cites for these. I’m just remembering what I’ve read in the local papers over the past year. He opposes gay marriage or civil unions, is against gay adoption and even opposes repealing the sodomy law because “it’s a token gesture to the sanctity of marriage” whatever that means. How two men (or women) have consensual sex in the privacy of their own homes damages the sanctity of marriage is beyond me. I believe he’s just kowtowing toward the conservative Christians in his party.

Regarding gay marriages on the Federal level; there’s the “Full Faith and Credit” clause of the Constitution, which ensures that each state recognizes the validity of each other’s marriages, etc. It was DOMA that was the first piece of federal legislation that defined marriage. Hopefully DOMA will be ruled unconstitutional.

One last note; while the Democrats give us just a token gesture of support, the Republican party seems openly antagonistic toward us. Just the party itself, not all individuals in it. What I consider most damning is the quietness of the moderate Republicans. After the infamous speech by Pat Buchanan at the '92 convention; there was hardly a voice of prostest raised for his “cultural war” speech. If the Republicans want their party to be considered more inclusive, those moderate voices need to speak out.

45

Uh, hello? The wholly anti-gay Defense of Marriage Act? Jeez, read a paper…

Yup - and despite the fact that DoMA passed on a federal level, many states have enacted similar measures - redundancy at its worst. As mentioned, these have all wholly been denounced as unconstitutional and will eventually be struck down by the USSC - we’re just waiting for a test case.

Right - which explains why California also passed a DoMA carbon copy last year. Yeah, they own California. :rolleyes:

Would you listen to yourself? A “token law?” Yeah, I’m not a second-class citizen, no, nope, not me, nope… :rolleyes:

Then it’s already been done, with the states’ tacit approval so far. We just have to wait and see what happens in Vermont.

I think this has already been answered.

The woman may someday be our first lady - her opinions do, indeed, matter to the country, and if the lady at the top (and her man) say, “homos are bad, m’kay?” that sends a clear message to the rest of the country.

Esprix

46

Gaudere…

Bush quote accepted, I stand corrected.

Freyr, I understand that you aren’t asking for special rights. And I flipped my earlier position on the Civil Rights Acts. However, before I did, I believe I made some of the ‘standard’ arguments used by those who are not anti-gay, but have rationalized other reasons why this is a bad idea.

Homosexuality is the fodder of teasing and humiliation for young boys (not sure about girls). They are brought up to despise homosexuality by their peers and family. It is not an easy yoke to throw. I believe, as I must to maintain my trust in humanity, that attitudes will change over time just as they have significantly, though not completely towards black people in America. I think we are sitting smack dab in the middle of the SOR, Sexual Orientation Revolution.

So, does that mean homosexuals should sit back and wait for the public to accept them in majority? Hell no! Make as much noise as you can. That is the only way such lifestyles and activities will be accepted in mainstream.

The only point I am still throwing opposition to, because it seemed to be the theme of the OP and the theme of many of the posts, is the same-sex marriages is a State issue, not federal. I have no problem with it, in spite of the foolish allegations of some that it might drive insurance rates through the roof :frowning: (Lord forbid them AIDS-infected homos should share our health care, then we God-fearin’ Republicans will have to supplement their life style!)
I think that is the same group that didn’t want them thar negros ruinin their youngins schools.

Anyway, I hope you get your adjustment in the Constitution, and I hope you can get a few States to start a trend. If Florida holds for Bush, it will probably be the best thing for your cause because in four years you can get a do-something President in office, whereas now you will be stuck either way with no positive legislation for the next four years.

47

Except that isn’t what the case law cited here says.

Here’s what happened, in summary:

  1. A man named Hardwick was charged with criminal sodomy, which was alleged to have occurred in his home.

  2. The state declined to prosecute.

  3. Hardwick sued the state of Georgia in federal court by arguing that the law was unconstitutional; the basis for his standing was that the law places him under imminent threat of arrest.

Hardwick’s suit was against the constitutionality OF THE LAW AGAINST SODOMY, remember. He was not using the Fourth Amendment as a defense against a charge.

The court’s finding was simply that there is nothing in the Constitution that makes homosexuality a right, and therefore that the suit was groundless. Now, I’m not sure I agree, but there’s simply nothing here that even begins to suggest that the Supreme Court was implying the Fourth Amendment does not apply equally to homosexuals. In fact, the defendant’s appeal was based not on the 4th, but on the 5th and 14th Amendments.

There is Nothing here that suggests that you are any less protected by the 4th Amendment as anyone else.

48

… which, of course, is another thread entirely - and there have been quite a few!

Esprix

49

Esprit, I read the Baltimore Sun every single day, never seen a mention whatsoever in this 2:1 Democratic State of the Defense of Marriage Act. Sorry, it probably makes the front page where you live, but not here. Perhaps the exact reason why you can’t understand why people aren’t rallying behind your flag, is because you don’t understand that they don’t know your cause.

I’m not as out of the loop as you would like to think. Perhaps you are, because you seem to think that the key issues in your life, which I completely understand how important they are to you, are not key issues on the tongues of most of the Country. Alienation assuredly will not gain you the support you need to push your legislative agenda, particularly amongst moderates who might support you.

I do know that my State has a same-sex marriage law written up and is lobbying for support amongst the State legislature. Whether they signed your DOMA, I assume they did, yet this same-sex law is being pushed by some.

Wonderful, I wish the collective you the best in your pursuit.

They do, 54 electoral votes, no opposition to the outcome with a sorry candidate like Gore, perhaps what you are continuously failing to recognize is that there is a difference between Democrat and support for homosexual rights. I think you even agreed earlier, they might not help you, but they don’t oppose you. Please see above regarding the importance of this issue to you and the importance of this issue to the majority of Americans.

Well, considering there is NO FREAKING BASIS for the federal government to be involved in State marital law, and that your DOMA has to be ratified by each State makes that obvious, yes, any federal law condoning some behavior that hinges on State’s rights is token, political and for what could be a positive marketing effort ONLY. Would you listen to yourself, mocking and attacking the views of people who might dare to support you. :rolls eyes

Sorry but marriage is not now, nor has it ever been, nor will it ever be a right under federal law. It began as a religious event and was picked up by States as a legal event. Do you remember the national speed limit laws? 55 mph or no federal funding? Some States kept their higher speed limits and funded their own roads. Others folded for the money. The thing is it was a STATE decision. It was token legislation with money to back it up, more pull than the DOMA and more pull than any federal same-sex legislation will have.

However, like you said, it is a one-by-one decision amongst the States. So it was a token law. There was absolutely no reason for you to be personally offended by that statement. If you are offended by the law, you have every right to be, but again, take it up with your DEMOCRAT OWNED AND OPERATED STATE, don’t blame it on the Republicans. You could also, and I believe you did, blame Clinton, who you said supported gays more than any other President before him. I believe the OP was on how much the Democrats support the gay movement, not generally whether homosexuals get a fair shake.

Sorry, I disagree that being in denial of your child’s homosexuality is equivalent to saying “homos are bad, m’kay?” It may not have come up a whole lot in the previous 224 years of this country, but I doubt you had many Presidents or Presidents’ wives spouting out their pride in their gay daughter… ever.

Noone, to the best of my knowledge, raises their children to be gay, so it follows that they might be in denial or disappointed when they turn out to be that way. Same as if you expect your child to go to college and they decide to go to work as a dishwasher right out of high school. Some parents might say, he/she is just finding out what he/she wants to do with his/her life. Denial. Not that they believe a dishwasher is the antichrist. They had just hoped for something different and that isn’t what they got so they are in denial.

Especially when you are talking about people their age, in the age when homosexuality was whispered and hidden behind locked doors or lived openly only in ‘those’ neighborhoods. Esprit, I am reasonably sure that you don’t believe that straight parents of that generation or any parents are overjoyed to find out their child is homosexual. Some are more accepting than others, some are proud of their children’s openness. But I doubt that you sincerely believe that any heterosexual parent would be looking forward to the day their child comes out of the closet.

I am sure that no matter how hard I try, I cannot see these issues from your point of view. I don’t suffer the same biases that you feel on a day to day basis and I don’t feel the same exclusion that you undoubtedly feel. For some reason, I thought it would be easier for you to see it from a heterosexual point of view, because you were probably pushed in that direction during your youth.

But alas, any view that differs seems to gain your wrath and view of bigotry. I am certain I have biases, yet, I am supportive of equal rights. Make noise, now is your hour, but be careful you don’t cut off your nose to spite your face.

50

Er, no offense intended, but I think anyone who hasn’t heard of DoMA has had their head in the sand for the past couple years. Which may well be true for the majority of Americans, but it’s not really to your credit to be among them. I doubt it made the front page in any major newspaper, but I am sure it was mentioned repeatedly. Never having heard of DoMA is roughly comparable in my mind to have not heard about the Brady Bill; it is by no means an obscure piece of legislation.

I would (though I’m not a parent yet). Shit, I hope any child of mine never feels the need to be in the closet regarding his/her sexuality. I find the prospect of having a homosexual child just as appealing as having a heterosexual one, although I would be concerned about the predjudice a gay child would likely face. Of course, women and mixed-race children also suffer from predjudice, but I doubt you’d condone someone who was unhappy because their child was a girl or didn’t look “white”, solely due to other’s predjudice. The fact that a gay child would suffer from predjudice does not make me not want to have a gay child.

51

Well, seriously, I have heard of the Brady bill all over the place. Never heard of DoMA outside of this board. And like I said, I get and read the local paper every day on the metro on the way to work. I also watch the evening news on occasion. It apparently wasn’t as big a media hit here as it was wherever else.

Gaudere, I don’t know whether to applaud that sentiment, but I assure you, you are in the minority. Not to say that most parents would be openly antagonistic towards their homosexual child, but most picture them growing up to be heterosexual. Most parents incidentally, through their behavior discourage homosexuality and encourage hetero-.

You can teach a child to act as a heterosexual, just as you can teach a girl to ‘act’ like a boy or a Hispanic child to ‘act’ white. As the child gets older and develops a stronger independence, their homosexuality or gender or a link to their Hispanic roots can emerge. Until then, the combined ‘pressures’ of the school place and the home (and Church for those who so desire), will undoubtedly create a sense of need to obscure any homosexual behavior until a later age.

I’m not preaching right and wrong, just stating the truth, the way things are. Maybe it sucks, but it is what it is.

52

Gaudere you dont think white males experience predjudice?:slight_smile: I remember a quote that was in this forum where when trying to question something the teacher did they said “your white you don’t know predjudice”.

were you talking about Gore or Bush?

The problem is neither party will support GLB untill someone like Nader campaigns to steal votes for that purpose. Transgendered will probably always be quiet since they have it pretty good as far as legalities go.

If you vote for either Gore or Bush for the specific reason to help gays then you threw away your vote.

The specal rights act, has anyone given a need for it? Ive seen a example of 1 company that fired because of that. If there is no or a small need of it it will be a bad thing because then gays can threaten lawsuits to not be fired. So first determine the need.

53

Oh, really? Whyever not? <eg>

54

I’m sure they do. However, I would venture to say they are probably the least discriminated-against group.

55

Several hopefully insightful sidebars to the discussion going on:

RickJay, a good summary of the legal decision in Bowers v. Hardwick. Except that that is not how the case has been perceived, legally and otherwise.

A little background. The arrest for sodomy, which was dismissed, was made by a police officer who entered Hardwick’s home, being allowed in by a visitor, without a warrant, pursuant to a totally different issue, observed Hardwick having sex with another man, and proceeded to make an arrest under the then laws of Georgia. (The law has since been found to be in violation of the Georgia state constitution, and hence thrown out.)

The issue, which the courts proceeded to carefully ignore but which aroused a furore in the press at the time, was that the Fourth Amendment right to privacy had been violated. The officer had no legal grounds to be inside that home.

Now, the whole question of whether he had a “right” to consenting adult sexual relations with another person of the same sex was something Hardwick pursued, and which the courts gleefully jumped on to render a decision that he did not have such a constitutional right, does cast a major pallor over the basic issue, which is, at rock bottom, that no case should have come up in the first place, because any policeman worth his salt knows that you may not make an arrest on a warrantless entry without having the consent of the person having the usufruct of a residence (pardon the legalese – the homeowner of a owner-occupied residence or the renter/leasor of a rental property). This is not Supreme Court material; local courts throw cases like this out all the time.

Hardwick made an issue of it in the expectation that the court might find a reason to throw out the sodomy law. But that does not disguise the basic question that was left totally open, and about which the Berger court was pilloried for rendering the decision it did – in my opinion, justifiably. Whether or not a state has a constitutional power to pass a law on what forms of sexual behavior are considered illegal, under the “police power” (as apparently they do), a case which disregards the violation of a defined constitutional right with precedent in order to make a statement about such laws is bad law. Jodi? Other lawyers? Comment?

And one very strong point that the gay posters have missed: It is not that Bowers v. Hardwick takes away from gays the right to privacy enjoyed by straights. It removes that right from all of us. It happens that the decision was made in the context of a gay sodomy case; but it’s precedent for checking up on what anyone cares to do in their home, so long as whoever wants to snoop can get someone, with or without rights to do so, to allow the snooper entry. Bad, bad law.

Just Another Guy said:

Uh, you’re missing the whole damn point on this one. Article IV, Section 1 of the Constitution, says that any action taken by any one state is valid in the other 49 states. If I in North Carolina buy land in Vermont from Swimming Riddles, sell it to Manhattan in New York, who gives it to Gaudere in Illinois, and a partnership organized by three California posters under Delaware law buys it from her, and one of those posters goes through a divorce and his wife claims a share in that land under California community property law, the overall title to the land passes under Vermont law and the sharing of it in partnership under Delaware law, with the wife’s interest in it being covered under the California divorce and community property laws. And any state in the union is honorbound to uphold that complex series of transactions, and end up with the ex-wife holding a 16.67% interest in the land.

That’s a constitutional requirement. Congress’s sole power and duty is to prescribe uniform terms for the proving of such claims. The idea here is that no judge in Oregon is expected to know the ins and outs of Louisiana civil law; Congress is to define how, at the person with a case in Oregon’s request, Louisiana is to certify that such and such transaction happened for the benefit of the Oregon court.

But DOMA provides that any state can ignore any marriage laws passed by other states that they choose not to like. I believe it’s specific about same-sex marriages in this instance, but I’m not positive on this and don’t have a copy to refer to. And this is blatantly unconstitutional; Congress has no power to pass such a law, and it violates the Federal system, vitiating the right of any state to pass a law on an important matter (marriage) and have actions taken under that law recognized in the other 49 states. In short, any states rights advocate should be jumping all over it.

And it doesn’t need “ratifying” by any states – it improperly empowers them to do something they cannot legally do under our constitution.

Gaudere, while I can only honor you for your noble spirit – and state that if I had a child of my own, I hope I would feel the same, you fail to take into account that most parents invest a great deal of themselves into their children, and expect that as they grow up they will share the values of the parents. Rather obviously, the vast majority of parents are straight, and inclined to see that as the norm to which they expect their children to adhere. Those who do accept their children as gay have almost as hard a road as the gay children do, to achieve that acceptance. I love and respect your view, but in fact it is not in accord with (typical) human nature on this point.

56

I don’t consider homosexuality a “value”, personally–it’s who you’re attracted to, not a “right” or “wrong”. If a person thinks homosexuality is wrong, then I can understand why he would not want his child to think homosexuality is OK. However, I can’t really see the justification for someone who does not think there’s anything wrong with homosexuality saying they don’t want their child to be gay, aside from possibly fear of the child encountering predjudice or a feeling that you would not be able to raise a homosexual child well due to being heterosexual. Sure, we may want our kid to be like us so we have something in common; for example, I’d like for my child to love reading. However, if my theoretical daughter honestly prefers jock-type stuff to reading…well, I’d just accept that that’s the way she is, and it’s not a bad thing to have a kid that’s different from me. Heck, I’d argue that having a kid different from you is often a good thing; you’ll learn a lot from them. The point of parenting (IMHO) is to raise a child to be the best person he or she can be, to help them fulfill their potential and be happy and good people, not to create a carbon copy of yourself (shut up, genes).

I just realized that I am probably the fundamentalist’s nightmare of What Will Happen If We Keep Prayer Out Of School And Don’t Teach That Homosexuality Is Wrong. I was visualizing my theoretical son at the dinner table:

Son: Mom, Dad…I have something to tell you.
Me: ::tense pause:: What is it?
Son: I’m…um, uh, I’m gay.
Me (hugely relieved): Oh, thank the IPU. I thought you were going to say you had found religion. So, do you have a boyfriend?

Seriously, isn’t that they way they claim people will be like if they don’t defend the “rightness” of heterosexuality and Christianity against those weird gays and atheists? :smiley: (Yes, I think atheism is a true belief and therefore would like my child to be an atheist. However, I would not be too upset if s/he “finds God”, so long as it’s not some wacko cult that’s going to screw him/her up…it’s just having my child decide atheism is bunk would be rather like having my child decide art is stupid and meaningless; they’re both things very personally important to me. As a heterosexual, my sexual orientation doesn’t have to be important to me since it’s the norm and I don’t have to defend it or get commonly discriminated against becuase of it…it’s just a personal preference.)

57

Possibly a bad choice of words for me to use “values” – since it’s been co-opted by the “Family Values” mob. But honest to Gaud I didn’t mean it pejoratively – just that there are certain attitudes, behaviors, points of view, etc., that are subliminally communicated from parents to children through the years of babyhood, childhood and early adolescence, and those are what I meant by the term.

And I cracked up at your hypothetical dinner-table conversation with your son! :slight_smile:

On a more serious note, I’d be interested in knowing how David and some of the other atheist posters with children feel that they would react in the same situation.

And if you ever have a kid that “gets religion,” please count on me to help keep him from “going off the deep end.” (Unless you think I have!! :eek: )

58

That’s a wee bit of a hijack from the OP, I think. :wink: You would probably want to start a different thread for that. I wonder what religious sorts would do if they found out their child was an atheist. (Hetero parents find gay porn in the son’s room and know, Christian parents would find a copy of Russell’s Why I Am Not a Christian and American Atheist brochures. ::snicker:: ). They’d likely get more upset, I suspect; unless it’s the aforementioned wacky cult, the worst that’s going to happen in an atheist family is likely annoying witnessing and the kid wasting his time on a belief the parents think is wrong. Many theists, however, think their atheist sons and daughters will go to Hell, or at best they can never live up to their true potential and happiness because they are denied a loving relationship with God, yadda yadda yadda. Mother’s never cared one whit about my and my brother’s atheism, but then she’s a Deist and so the prospect of Hell and lack of a relationship with God are nonissues.

59

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by JustAnotherGuy *
**

Attack? This wasn’t an attack on him so much as a statement of fact. But since you wanted it:

I also thought this one was sad/funny/predictable:

All these and more can be yours at: http://www.stonewalldemocrats.org/pressold/press25.htm

Sorry to be getting back so late to your query.

60

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by JustAnotherGuy *
**

This is soooo irritating to me. Do you know anyone at your work who wears a wedding ring? Do you know anyone who’s married? Guess what, you know their “sexual activities.” It’s the same heterosexuals who go on about marriage and babies and the importance of their concept of “family” who say they don’t need to know “what goes on in your bedroom,” yet I (unfortunately) know that Bush has sexual intercourse with that simpering silent woman at his side. As soon as he keeps that private, I’ll keep silent about my sexuality.

It’s a double standard and you know it.