If it’s not, it probably will be very soon.
Wanna bet?
From the 2000 Donkeycrat platform:
http://www.democrats.org/about/2000platform.html
I can’t imagine a significant change in wording for 2004. It’s vague enough to give the Dems a lot of wiggle room, but the line about “alignment of benefits” seems to indicate a commitment to some sort of civil-union.
From the 2000 Republiphant platform:
http://www.rnc.org/GOPInfo/Platform/2000platform4.htm
As far as I can tell, for Republicans, it’s a definite “no way,” and for Democrats, it’s a “maybe, we’ll see” when it comes to gay rights.
You error is in assuming that you know what this thread is about. Try rereading the OP and you’ll notice I mentioned this Senate Policy as well as the remarks from Sen. Santorum. The point of the thread is that there is growing evidence that the Republican Party is anti-gay and the Log Cabin Republicans are ineffectual and counter-productive.
You don’t think it will? If the Republicans (or even a small part of them) make an issue of it, you don’t think the Democrats will go the opposite direction?
By the way, Homebrew, your second link doesn’t work.
Ok, I’ve got some confirmation here:
http://www.txgop.org/library/RPTPlatform2002.pdf
This is the official 2002 Texas GOP platform (in pdf format). On page 8 are the sections concerning homosexuality and sodomy.
Seems pretty clear to me. The Texas GOP wants gay people in jail.
Whatever, dude.
I can’t believe the dodging and juking you’re doing. I’ve asked questions that you just want to blow off (like whether Democrat leaders who have taken public stands against marriage status for gay unions should be rebuked) and you’ve punted. And yet you wonder why I think you’re giving one political party a pass.
The piece from Planet Out that you quoted focuses exclusively on marriage status. Your follow up comments in the OP focus on marriage as well…
Yet now you’re saying this thread is not about marriage but the whole spectrum of party policies dealing with gays (including Boy Scout policies).
Uh huh. :rolleyes:
The fact that you can only discuss one topic at a time doesn’t mean that we are all confined to your limitations. If you can only talk about one thing at a time, then perhaps GD is too high functioning for you.
I’ve not dodged your questions. I’ve not given a pass to Democrats. But DOMA was passed in 1996. Clinton is no longer president so it’s irrelevant to dredge it up now. If you had a way-back machine, then you could hear the vitriol I had for him and the Democrats who stabbed gay people in the back. If you were reading the letters I sent to my local legislators, then you’d know what I thought about them.
But this thread is about the Log Cabin Republicans and their continued support for a party that doesn’t support their, and my, civil rights. Notice the thread title doesn’t mention marriage, but rather, LCRs. Furthermore go read any damned thread in GD and see if it stays one a single issue mentioned in the OP. You are blowing smoke up your own skirt and telling me that I’m confused? Get a grip.
And again, as to giving a pass to Democrats, I addressed your comments by quoting the OFFICIAL policy statement of the Republican Party and contrasted it to statements made by the DNC. What more response could you want?
Okay, I wanna give background. On August 21st, I will turn 18 and register Democrat. I love my party and am a full supporter, although I do disagree with it on some issues. I gotta right… its cool like that. I have read this and taken notes so here I go (also I am female, Hispanic and white, and straight… just to answer the demographics of it all)
A) to Mr. Mace’s analogy b/t Republicans being antichoice and female Republicans: MANY women (but not the majority) are antichoice. Being a woman does not make you pro choice. Being queer makes you queer. You’re analogy is flawed.
B) BrightNShiny said something about how busy are the Dems? Local/State parties tend to be busier with things like this than the national party right now. But many Dems are committed. I would think that a party that believes in criminalization of homosexual love wouldn’t be a homosexual’s first choice… just like a party of wolves wouldn’t be a sheep’s but hey, do whatcha will, shoot your own foot.
C) If you are socially liberal but fiscally conservative… try the Libretarians. Move to N. Dakota with them (they are trying to take the state over, kinda). It is the 3rd or 4th party in the country and check it out.
Homebrew’s post from 8/03: Amen
Beagle Dave: the whip is, I believe, Pelosi (and that’s a woman… which is so cool)
A recommended book about the high-jacking of the Republican party by the neo-cons and religious nuts and about being gay in the party: “Blinded by the Right: The Conscience of an Ex-Conservative” by David Brock. Well written and very very interesting.
I gotta little more:
I am for gay marriage. I think the definition of marriage as one man/one woman is a religious notion. The religious bodies can decide what they will. There is a union service in some reform Jewish temples (I can’t spell synegouge). Some churches join gay couples. Some don’t. That is the church/mosque/temple/etc’s choice. But as long as kids aren’t hurt/used, the government should be forced to recognize any two people’s joining in marriage. I am concerned about civil unions b/c they seem to say “not quite” and I fear gay couples who have civil unions instead of marriage will never fight for full rights.
But honestly, if we have a constitutional amendment to define marriage as one man/one woman… we have reached pathetic. This is the same document which guarantees religious freedom, speech, due process, legal equality and so much more. A document of freedom marred by a statement of hate.
I know not all Republicans hate gays. But your party does a hella good job of oppressing them and hating them for you.
Uh, no.
Nancy Pelosi is the House minority whip.
Harry Reid is the Senate minority whip. (I was responding to Homebrew’s remarks comparing Senator Clinton’s status to the whip.
OK, try this out…
I’m a queer woman Republican, pro-life (and I find the sneer antichoice as frustrating as calling a pro-choicer antilife)…
For me, party affiliation is about a realm of choices and issues. Not everything comes down to who I want to sleep with. And while I do think that gay people should be allowed to marry, that issue cannot be the be-all, end-all of who I vote for. There are too many other important things going on right now for me to worry about how I label a gay relationship.
Not to change the subject of this board but I refer to this as an issue of choice for a reason. I am pro life. I wish every situation turned out with a bouncing baby boy or girl going into a loving home. I know that’s not realistic. I am pro choice b/c I believe a woman should have a choice as to whether or not to allow that potential baby boy or girl to develop into something different. It’s not a slight or a sneer. Its my frame of reference. I am not pro-abortion, I am pro-choice. That is the issue to me. I am sorry if you were offended.
beagle dave (btw, I love that name… I have a great mental image)
Sorry, wrong House. I got the position right, not the situation. Oops!:smack:
**
Sigh. You started a thread about the LCR’s support of pubbies given the party’s (and Pres) stance on gay marriage. That’s what I responded to. If you then later want to examine the totality of the pubbies vs dem on gay rights…groovy, but don’t then accuse me of using a red herring when my response IS on topic with your original OP. :rolleyes:
Huh, so I only mentioned Bill Clinton and the DOMA?
Perhaps you may wish to bone up on your reading skills as well. 
Hillary Clinton IS the current junior senator from NY. I mentioned her stance in my first post.
Tom Daschle IS the current Senate minority leader. I mentioned him in response to your notion that Hillary ain’t a significant democrat.
Harry Reid IS the current Senate minority whip. I mentioned him in response that again said Hillary wasn’t even as significant as the whip.
All of those folks have taken public stances in recent years in opposition to marriage status for gays.
Surely you don’t need a “way back machine” to send them some of that “vitriol”?
And looky looky here
(Of the 9 candidates, only Sharpton, Braun and Kucinich favor granting marriage status to gay unions. I can’t imagine that any of these 3 are considered serious presidential candidates come caucus and primary time)
So. In all liklihood, the candidate the Democrats will put forward against Dubya in 2004 will be opposed to marriage status for gays. That same stance is the thing mentione din your OP questioning why the LCR supports the pubbies. Huh.
Once more, beagledave, let me quote myself from a Pit thread:
So much for your idea that I’ve given Dems, and specifically the Clintons, a “pass” without comment. AGAIN, we’re talking about official goddamned party positions not the opinions of individuals.
NotWithoutRage:“And while I do think that gay people should be allowed to marry, that issue cannot be the be-all, end-all of who I vote for. There are too many other important things going on right now for me to worry about how I label a gay relationship.”
It’s about so much more than the label. There are so many benefits for marriage that we are denied because we’re not allowed to marry. Until recently, we could end up fined or spend the night in jail in several states because of who we loved. There are countless instances of custody challenges, frequently lost, solely because of a parent’s homosexuality. Florida, for instance, forbids gay people from adopting. Texas recently tried to ban gay people from even being foster parents - fortunately they ran out of time in the legislative session. Official Republican policy is to continue that oppression. I cannot fathom how you could vote Republican in good faith. Our lives are so much more important than fiscal policy.
I thought it deserved repeating. This isn’t about labels. This is about equality and rights. And not to sound dogmatic, it is also about decency and respect. Until we afford homosexuals the same rights in our country as heterosexuals, we are a bigoted nation. You can vote for conservatice fiscal beliefs, plenty of Dems and Libertarians and others have them. In fact, many New Democrats are social liberals and fiscal conservatives. But a homosexual who support the Republican party by voting for anti-gay equality politicians forces themselves into a second-class when it comes to family rights (like adoption, insurance, burial) and other situations.
I think it was very appropriately symbolic when Ashcroft covered up the bare breast of the statue of Justice because is was obscene. This administration doesn’t believe in your right to love… there is so much more than your pocketbook. There is 10% of the population’s legal rights at state.
Think about it please
Once more? LOL
This is the first time in thisthread that you’ve had anything bad to say about a democrat who opposes marriage status for gays and it’s in a completely different thread.
…umm were ya thinking I was going to kill some hamsters in my quest to look up every Homebrew thread on gays/marriage/Republicans/Democrats before wondering about your opinions on them (since, again you ONLY focused on (1) marriage status for gays and (2) Republicans in the OP)?
I mean damn, the first time John Mace and I mentioned Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton (just for example purposes, not to say that they’re the ONLY dems who felt that way)…instead of calling those notions red herrings you could have said, umm "Hey guys those folks are twits for their position as well…and here is the pit thread where I said so <link>… "
So if I got it now. Homebrew recognizes that plenty of Democrats (I’ll go way out on a limb and guess that the vast fucking majority of Democrats) are hostile to the idea of marriage status for gays.
He’s please and pacified though that the DNC has a nicely worded statement about gays (even though the actual actions of the MEMBERS of the DNC don’t (in large part) support the main goal mentioned in this thread (marriage status for gay unions) ).
This is because the RNC statement is flat out and specific about their opposition to gay marriages (among other things).
I’m neither gay nor Republican, but it seems that NotWithoutRage seems to bring a relevant viewpoint to the table about single issue politics for gays.
FWIW.