Democrats are anti-gay bigots

Here's what the New York Times poll from today revealed about the incredibly anti-gay views of Democrats. I really don't understand how any self-respecting gay person could belong to a party filled with anti-gay bigots like this:

RESPONSE OF DEMOCRATS TO POLL ON HOMOSEXUALITY

**Do you favor or oppose a law allowing homosexuals to marry?

Favor - 39%

Oppose - 57%

no opinion - 4%

**Do you favor or oppose a constitutional amendment allowing marriage only between a man and a woman?

Favor - 52%

Oppose - 44%

no opinion - 3%

**Should homosexual relations should be legal or illegal?

Legal - 46%

Illegal - 46%

no opinion - 9%

___________________________________________________

The vast majority of Democrats are against allowing gay people to marry. A majority of Democrats favors amending the Constitution to discriminate against gay people!

And - most amazingly - half of all Democrats think it should be a crime for gay people to have sex!

How can any gay person belong to a political party filled with anti-gay bigots like this? How self-hating do you have to be?

With regard to each question, the response of the Republicans was marginally worse - about a 10-point swing on each question. Maybe some day gay political groups and their liberal followers will see how pitiful it is to act as though the Democratic Party is filled with enlightened, gay-loving, equality-supporting saints and that the Republicans are the root of all evil. Democrats just want your money and votes and will give you nothing - will you ever stop falling for that trick?

>With regard to each question, the response of the Republicans

>was marginally worse - about a 10-point swing on each

>question.

Doug:

This is just too funny......you think a ten point swing is marginal? If this were an opinion poll on Bush's performance on some issue, and those polled supported Bush by ten points, you would be telling us it was evidence of "overwhelming support by a majority of the American people". What a hypocritical fool you are!

You still haven't dealt with the issue of which party will make the constitutional amendment against gay marriage a party platform plank. We know the answer to that, the Republicans.......but you don't want to admit it.

Most polls have a 5% margin of error, so a 10% difference between the parties is very little indeed. Certainly not enought to justify the demonization of Republicans which characterizes most gay forums. But, I doubt if either party will have a plank against gay marriage. I say this because, as the issue heats up, the hateful extremists will come out with their calls for killing all the gays etc. Both parties will then shun the issue to avoid being associated with the extremists. It is a very dangerous issue for both parties, but probably more dangerous for Republicans.

Riiight, why not link the source?

http://graphics7.nytimes.com/images/2003/12/20/national/poll_graph.gif

For one thing, because the republican/democratic difference was actually at least 11% on each question?

I think, in whole, it's pretty encouraging. The stark difference in the beliefs of the young, for example (even with all this BS lately of them being conservatives), and the 'know a gay person' part as well.

The other thing Doug is of course leaving out is the strength of the feeling. Answering a hypothetical question on the street or phone is a lot different from actually expending time and effort to fight gay rights or basing your support of a candidate in part on their position on the issue.

I think it would be an incredible shame if the first amendment passed in 30 or so years was this bigoted BS, which it is indeed mostly Republicans who would work towards that. Yes, some milquetoast Dems would sign it, or their mother's life away, if polls 'told them to'. Remember when there was actual leadership in DC?

>How can any gay person belong to a political party filled with

>anti-gay bigots like this? How self-hating do you have to

>be?

As many of us (even those not consumed my partisanship) have pointed out, the significant difference is in Party leadership and control of the agenda. Until you folks throw off the yoke of the religious right, you are never going to convince the majority of gay Americans that the GOP is a viable choice.

Can you name a single leader of the GOP equivalent to Andrew Tobias the treasurer of the DNC? Any example at all of that kind of acceptance and inclusiveness at the leadership level of the GOP?

RE: Riiight, why not link the source?

>For one thing, because the republican/democratic difference

>was actually at least 11% on each question?

I linked the source in the other thread where I first mentioned the poll and, in this thread, made clear that it was from today's New York Times. Do you think it's hard to figure out where the poll is based on the information I provided? You managed to do it.

Let me make this clear - this poll was on the front page of the New York Times - in the right-hand column. Why do you think that is? It's not becuase it revealed that lots of Republicans hold anti-gay views. That ain't news!

It's news because of the astonishing support for anti-gay measures among Democrats. Can you drop your partisan hat for just a minute and contemplate what it means that half of all people in the Democratic Party think that 'homosexual relations' should be illegal? And a majority of Democrats support this odious, vile constitutional amendment? And a huge majority oppose gay marriage?

That's why this is an interesting poll; it's why it made front-page news. Because not just Republicans, but also Democrats, are - in huge numbers - embracing these AFFIRAMTIVELY anti-gay views. That's just fact.

As for suggesting that I tried to hide that the difference between Democratic and Republican responses was 11%, did you read where I wrote that the difference on each question was roughly 10%???

>The other thing Doug is of course leaving out is the strength

>of the feeling. Answering a hypothetical question on the

>street or phone is a lot different from actually expending

>time and effort to fight gay rights or basing your support of

>a candidate in part on their position on the issue.

It's one thing to oppose gay marriage. It's another thing entirely to want a constitutional amendment to make marriage for heteros only - as A MAJORITY of Democrats want to do. And it's yet another universe of bigotry higher to FAVOR THE CRIMINALIZATION OF GAY SEX - as half of all Democrats do.

Do you have anything to say about that? Does that bother you at all?

>I think it would be an incredible shame if the first amendment

>passed in 30 or so years was this bigoted BS, which it is

>indeed mostly Republicans who would work towards that. Yes,

>some milquetoast Dems would sign it, or their mother's life

>away, if polls 'told them to'. Remember when there was actual

>leadership in DC?

The only good news from this poll (aside from the widespread support among younger groups, and the younger they are, the more pro-gay they are) is that it takes way more than 50% or even 58% support to pass a constitutional amendment.

I think these poll numbers are largely a backlash against the Judicial Imposition of Gay Marriage - people tend not to like it when they have things shoved down their throats by judges, especially on controversial social issues that are nowhere to be found in the Constitution. That gay groups have seemed to adopted a stragey of imposing social change through the courts rather than by convincing our fellow citizens is particularly regrettable because we were winning the war of public opinion and didn't need the Courts to hand down from their little perches decrees dictating what is Right.

>As many of us (even those not consumed my partisanship) have

>pointed out, the significant difference is in Party leadership

>and control of the agenda.

Where do you think that DOMA - the single most odious piece of anti-gay legislation ever - came from? Huge numbers of Democratic congressional sponsors and a Democratic President who signed it into law. Also, EVERY major Democratic Presidential candidate OPPOSES gay marriage. Now, what were you saying about the views of Party leadership with respec to gay issues?

>Until you folks throw off the yoke

>of the religious right, you are never going to convince the

>majority of gay Americans that the GOP is a viable choice.

This is really dumb. Do gay people care about any other issues - such as, oh, I don't know . . . war . . . terrorism . . . the economy . . . other social issues? DOMA had a serious devestating impact on the lives of a lot of gay people- name one thing the Bush Administration has done that is anti-gay that is even remotely comparable.

Every time I saw anti-war marches, I saw signs such as: "We support our troops . . . when they kill their commanders." How come gay people don't mind being associated with things like THAT?

>Can you name a single leader of the GOP equivalent to Andrew

>Tobias the treasurer of the DNC? Any example at all of that

>kind of acceptance and inclusiveness at the leadership level

>of the GOP?

Oh, boy - the treasurer of the DNC - there's a position of real power. It's amazing that little token appointments get you so excited. So the Democratic party supported DOMA? So it opposes gay marriage? So half its members think gay sex should be criminalized? Who cares - they appointed a homo as the party treasurer. You're bought that easily?

>This is really dumb. Do gay people care about any other

>issues - such as, oh, I don't know . . . war . . . terrorism .

>. . the economy . . . other social issues?

As we’ve discussed in other threads, when we are limited to two viable parties, we do not have the luxury of finding some little niche party that aligns perfectly to all our beliefs. Often the choice is between lesser evils. At this time, for most gay people, the lesser evil is very clear.

You often ask people how they feel about being so out of synch with the majority (the vastness of that majority is debatable) of Americans. You assume this causes them some kind of cognitive dissonance. Is that what is going on with you when consider your minority position within the gay community?

If the best you can do is try to make the point that the Democratic Party is ALMOST as bad as the GOP, you are really just confirming my belief that it is clearly the lesser of two evils.

>Oh, boy - the treasurer of the DNC - there's a position of

>real power. It's amazing that little token appointments get

>you so excited. So the Democratic party supported DOMA? So

>it opposes gay marriage? So half its members think gay sex

>should be criminalized? Who cares - they appointed a homo as

>the party treasurer. You're bought that easily?

Actually, he was elected by the 440 members of the DNC whose members are selected from the party at large. Representatives come from all state organizations so it is reasonable to assume they represent a cross-section of the Party leadership. I guess a lack of response means that you can’t name any equivalent – token or not – from the GOP. Like I said, clearly the less of two evils.

Doug69 is right. The only reason for a Constitutional Amendment would be to prevent the liberal activist judges from legislating on the issue. If the Courts leave it alone, the public in a few years will probably support the idea of gay marriages. But, no, it is only a matter time before the US Supreme Court issues one of it dictatorial legislations requiring the states to provide gay marriages, and, in a few years, polygamy and polyandry.

Much ado about not much?

>I think these poll numbers are largely a backlash against the

>Judicial Imposition of Gay Marriage - people tend not to like

>it when they have things shoved down their throats by judges,

>especially on controversial social issues that are nowhere to

>be found in the Constitution. That gay groups have seemed to

>adopted a stragey of imposing social change through the courts

>rather than by convincing our fellow citizens is particularly

>regrettable because we were winning the war of public opinion

>and didn't need the Courts to hand down from their little

>perches decrees dictating what is Right.

This is either the front edge of a big repressive swing, or not much of anything. There's no way to know which yet.

Public opinion gets stirred up by lots of things, court rulings among them, but it often settles back down. When FDR first pitched his plan to pack the Supreme Court by constitutional amendment expanding it to 15 justices, the public was all for it. But the Senate wisely refused to limit debate, and after half a year of hearing it argued out, the public decided the Court should be left alone. The frenzy of feeling completely went away.

The same could happen here.

On the other hand, the very fact that public acceptance of gay civil rights is so fragile and easily swayed could be used to argue that now, while the window is somewhat open, is the best time to push even harder. There's no guarantee that history is progressive rather than cyclical.

doug is just hot :9

>doug is just hot :9

[/font color]Anagrams!

o just doug shit

thus to doug jis

so just hit doug

Go Slow

>That gay groups have seemed to

>adopted a stragey of imposing social change through the courts

>rather than by convincing our fellow citizens is particularly

>regrettable because we were winning the war of public opinion

>and didn't need the Courts to hand down from their little

>perches decrees dictating what is Right.

Had you been a black citizen in the 1950s, would you have sided with the Go Slow approach, and chided the troublemakers like Thurgood Marshall to pipe down?

>If the best you can do is try to make the point that the

>Democratic Party is ALMOST as bad as the GOP, you are really

>just confirming my belief that it is clearly the lesser of two

>evils.

Hey, Phage - assume there are two candidates running for office. With regard to the following issues, I'm going to assign values to each candidate for each issue which reflect the extent to which the candidate's views are in harmony with yours - with 1 being totally out of harmony with your views, and 10 being completely in harmony, on a sliding scale:

Terrorism - Republican (8); Democrat (3)

Economic policy - Republican (7); Democrat (4)

Death penalty - Republican (8); Democrat (3)

Welfare reform - Republican (9); Democrat (2)

Speech codes - Republican (9); Democrat (4)

Gay issues - Republican (3); Democrat (6)

All other things being equal (i.e., equality with regard to all other issues), which candidate do you prefer? Or, probably a better question: assume that this scale applies to the 2 political parties generally, rather than a particular candidate, which party do you support?

>All other things being equal (i.e., equality with regard to

>all other issues), which candidate do you prefer? Or,

>probably a better question: assume that this scale applies to

>the 2 political parties generally, rather than a particular

>candidate, which party do you support?

I understand this concept – I honestly do – and have acknowledged in another thread that for you the GOP must be the lesser of two evils. Considering your position on the other issues you have listed, it may make sense for you, and other gay people with similar views, to subordinate issues affecting their personal freedom in favor of the issues that affect their wallet. (That was a cheap shot, I know. I just couldn’t resist.)

However, even though I believe your positions on the other issues are probably a minority within the gay community, this thread was specifically about the gay issues and why a gay person would belong to the Democratic Party in light of this recent poll. I know that some of your comment was just a tongue-in-cheek regurgitation of what is commonly hurled at the Log Cabin set, but the point remains. No matter how bad the Democrats are, the Republicans are worse. You admit a 10% variance, but describe it as marginal. While in other situations, such as Bush’s popularity, which is just about 10% over half, you describe that margin as an “overwhelming majority.” (Just trying to enforce consistency.) In either case, I would characterize that number as relevant and material but hardly indisputable.

As far as your question about “which party do you support?” I’m assuming that was a third-person (or rhetorical or whatever it is called) kind of “you” because I think you know by now that that would hardly be the way I would rank issues. I guess I’m fortunate that the Party the best fits my beliefs also has the best track record on the issues that affect me most personally.

It’s an interesting exercise though. Were those really your personal weights or did you just throw numbers at it to make a point?

My ranking would be:

Terrorism - Republican (6); Democrat (4)

Economic policy - Republican (4); Democrat (6)

Death penalty - Republican (2); Democrat (8)

Welfare reform - Republican (2); Democrat (6)

Speech codes - Republican (0); Democrat (0)

Gay issues - Republican (2); Democrat (8)

I’m not sure I know what you mean by “Speech codes.” If you are referring to the issue of unrestricted free speech versus legislation that regulates hate speech, I have opinions, but I’m honestly not sure that there is a Party position on that. At least not one that I am familiar with.

Let’s not forget...

Abortion - Republican (2); Democrat (9)