At least the Republicans are open and honest with their bigotry. What have the Democrats done for gays that remotely resembles something like the Civil Rights act? In other words, something more than token lip service.
Oh, please. Is that the standard–the Civil Rights Act? Nothing less will do–will only be considered “token lip service”? and being “open and honest” about bigotry is somehow a positive? You are quite muddled. I’d like to see some of the evidence of token lip service and I’d like an explanation of why open prejudice is somehow morally superior to supposedly hidden bias.
I believe in this thread we are discussing Huckabee’s positions re issues of the day and the days past, and by extension, the GOPS (to a much lesser extent). By all means, start a thread about your perceived bigotry of the Democrats re gays.
How many of the Democratic candidates support SSM? It’s pretty much just Kucinich, right? I don’t think Lib is being fair when he says the Democrats aren’t honest about their positions on gay rights: they’re very openly opposed to giving gays the same rights enjoyed by heterosexuals. They’re just not as opposed as the Republicans. I don’t think the Republicans deserve any credit for being honestly bigoted, but I don’t think the Democrats deserve any for being less bigoted than the other guy.
Still, what can you do? Vote Libertarian? This year, as every other, I’m going to hold my nose and vote for the guy who thinks I should be a second class citizen, if only to keep the guy who thinks I should be a third class citizen out of office.
Oh, and yes, the Civil Rights act is the standard. Nothing less will do.
Which is more plausible:
(1) Barack Obama (to pick a random example… replace with Hillary or Edwards or whomever) thinks that gays should have the right to marry (as does any reasonable compassionate person with even the slightest ability to think for themself), but has been told (likely correctly) by his political handlers that to openly support gay marriage is absolutely political suicide, and has made the decision to wafflishly support civil unions in some way and speak about the issue as rarely, and as obfuscatorily, as possible.
(1a) He thinks that gays should have the right to marry, but also believes that in the current political climate, the correct strategy for ending up at that desired endpoint is to start by working for legalized national civil unions, and thus, somewhat dishonestly, but with good intentions, openly supports that position.
(2) He is actually a bigot who opposes gay marriage and hates gays, but has been told by his political handlers that gays are a big enough liberal voting block that he should throw them a frickin’ bone, so he has made the decision to wafflishly support civil unions in some way and speak about the issues as rarely, and as obfuscatorily, as possible.
(3) He actually holds the honest position that gay civil unions but not gay marriages are the way things really should be, in an ideal world.
If I had to guess, I suspect that most of the democratic candidates are somewhere in 1 or 1a. Why would anyone in 2 be a democrat? And why would anyone honestly hold 3 at all?
Since he doesn’t believe in evolution, I doubt he feels the need to keep up on current scientific thinking.
Democrat voter or democrat politician?
Because I have heard Democrats expressing those views.
And it is funny that you chose Obama as an example, since he’s threading this needle rather closely. He already got stung not long ago with the Mary Mary/Donnie McClurkin fiasco.
So, you’re saying that most Democratic candidates really think gays should have full equality with straights, but for political expediency, they say that they should have slightly fewer rights. Which, according to you, is a position no one would honestly hold. So, if no one really holds position #3, exactly who are the Democratic candidates who pretend to hold it caterering to?
Yeah, it’s nice to think that most Dems hold one of the first two positions. Damned few of them will admit to it, though, which makes them functionally identical to position 3. They may have the best intentions in the world, but based on their actions, the Democrats cannot credibly claim to be the party of gay rights.
So we’re voting between the bigots and the liars? At least you know where you stand with the bigots.
Dio, Huckleberry Cornpone doesn’t hate America, he hates you. And me, of course. Bunch of other Dopers, sure, but only a few thousand, tops.
Sure he does. Don’t you know that the Bible is a peer review journal. 
I’ll preface this by saying that I don’t like Huckabee. He’s the exact opposite of what I’d want in a candidate: He’s a fiscal liberal and a social conservative. He’s George Bush II.
But that said, I think most people here are misinterpreting that comment by Huckabee. Maybe because you’re not familiar with his brand of Christianity. I am. I grew up going to Baptist and Evangelical churches. Saying ‘we have to accept Christ in our lives to do xxx’ is uttered about everything. Off your golf game? Accept a little Christ. Work got you down? Find Christ in your heart.
It doesn’t mean “convert the heathen”. It means dig deep into your spiritual values, as embodied in Christ. Something like that. Accept Christ as your savior, and you’ll achieve peace of mind, clarity of spirit and morality, and gain character and strength.
I see nothing threatening in that statement at all, especially when uttered by a pastor speaking to other pastors. When those types are together, you can’t pass the salt wiithout accepting Christ. It’s just part of the lingo.
However, I pretty much feel as John Mace does - this statement aside, Huckabee remains entirely too close to his faith in the public square for me to feel comfortable about him. I don’t think he’s scary or the incarnation of Nehemiah Scudder or anything like that - I just think he’d push the dial a little too much in the wrong direction.
Disliking the government is about as American as it gets. You should read the writings of our Founding Fathers sometime.
The hypocrisy is even larger when you examine issues of actual substance, such as corruption, torture, wars, the mixing of corporate and government power, and general authoritarianism. For some bizarre reason many, many online Democrats partisans believe that the Dems don’t really believe in that stuff and just go along with the Republicans to get elected, or whatever.
So, if you were to press them, they’d probably tell you that the Dem politicans aren’t really that religious. They just go along with it because hey, it’s America. You gotta talk about Jesus. Obama doesn’t REALLY believe what he says. If he did, he’d be a dangerous nut job, right? And he obviously isn’t, because he’s a Dem. Yep.
As for religion in politics as usual, well, we’re better off now than we used to be. Tell me when one of the GOPers starts talking like this and I’ll be scared:
The United States is religiously heterogenous? I guess it’s a subjective viewpoint, but I don’t think so. Depending on where you look, something like 80-90% of the population describes itself as Christian. The second largest bloc is atheists/agnostics, followed by a bunch of 1 and 2%ers. I suppose if you cut up the main Christian blocs into all the separate denominations it could work.
That’s because six million Jews died in the holocaust and are thus protected against public criticism. If there was a Muslim or Buddhist candidate and one of their Christian rivals/organizations was handing out anti-Islam/Buddhist literature I don’t think there’d be much of a peep outside of liberal blogs. Just like no one really cares about the anti-Mormon literature (except Mormons, I imagine – of course, their plight is even worse since not even liberals care about them).
I believe Obama believes what he says he believes. I believe most all politicians really believe what they say they believe. It does not bother me if a politician is religious. That’s a red herring in this discussion. My problem is only with creeping theocracy. Private faith in politicians is a non-issue to me. The vast majority of partisan Democratic voters are religious, so it’s baloney to suggest that they have any reason to downplay the sincerity of those who they vote for.
Christianity itself is not homogenous, and the fact remains that scores of other religions are practiced by millions of people in the US.
I care about them. I’ll say right up front that Romney’s faith should be off-limits for candidates of either party. If he gets the nomination, I will be sorely disappointed if the Dem nominee tries to make his LDS affiliation an issue in the election. It would probably bug me enough to drive me to a third party, and if it was egregious enough, might cause me to vote for Romney just out of spite.
Aww, come on you big softy. What if the Dems/rival GOPers ran ads which described various kooky stories of the LDS church? Nothing slanderous, you understand. But you know, they’d make sure everyone knows what Romney hypothetically believed. An overview of their beliefs with regard to the Native American Indians and the true nature of god would be a good start. Wouldn’t that be a great er, educational outreach video?
I think you (and kidchameleon) are over-simplifying the issue. Well, actually, first, let me start with a BIG disclaimer, which is that I really have no idea what any major candidate honestly believes in his or her heart of hearts. That said, let’s say that you are a gay person and are going to vote for someone for president, and let’s also assume that you have two candidates in the democratic primary who are basically equivalent on all non-gay issues, and who take the following positions:
Candidate 1 is fully and vocally in support of gay rights in all ways, and publically and loudly states that gays are in all ways equal citizens of the US, should have full rights to marry, adopt, be scoutmasters, etc. Candidate 1 also promises that if he is elected, the US will immediately cease placing contracts with any business that does not have a gay-friendly coporate culture and benefits package, and also divest all business and remove foreign aid from countries which do not recognize gay rights.
Candidate 2 hems and haws and talks in vague terms about how marriage is a fundamental institution but he supports some civil union issue, and basically tries to never talk about it at all.
The republican nominee, meanwhile, promises to support a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.
I think it’s quite reasonable to believe (although also quite reasonable NOT to believe) that C1 has a FAR FAR FAR lower chance of winning the actual election than C2.
Which one do you vote for?
For that matter, is it plausible that C2 is every bit as committed to gay rights as C1, but takes a more pragmatic, realpolitik-esque approach, and has deliberately adopted a “first, get elected, then make gradual changes” approach?
Let’s go one further: Suppose you vote for C1 and he DOES get elected. And he DOES put all his changes into effect. It’s certainly possible that there will be a massive backlash among more socially conservative, usually elderly, Americans who just aren’t ready for it yet, who will vote his party out of power in congress two years later, vote him out four years later, and pass a whole bunch of preposterous anti-gay legislation in a big orgy of anger; whereas if C2 has been elected, we would have continued on our current slow-but-noticeable drift towards more and more mainstream acceptance of gay rights.
Now, that’s all just hypothetical, and I’m not saying that I’m endorsing a C2-like position. I’m just saying that thinking and planning and considering issues like that is not some betrayal, nor is obfuscating about your position always a bad thing
No more than y’all hate him, obviously.
Huckabee now believes that god intervenes in primary campaigns, and is responsible for his recent rise in the polls:
And your point?
That Huckabee has so little confidence in his own qualifications for president that the only explanation for his rise in the polls is the intervention of a supernatural power? That Huckabee believes god prefers him over other candidates?