|
I got my yard sign for the NC vote, woo! That's really about the most I can do (besides give money, which has already happened) because I'm subject to the Hatch Act and I don't trust the bigots to not harass anyone they can.
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2012 01:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 17:19 |
|
|
CaptBubba posted:I got my yard sign for the NC vote, woo! That's really about the most I can do (besides give money, which has already happened) because I'm subject to the Hatch Act and I don't trust the bigots to not harass anyone they can. Pretty sure the Hatch Act only applies to partisan elections -- even those subject to the most restrictions under it are allowed to "campaign for or against referendum questions, constitutional amendments, or municipal ordinances", according to the Office of Special Counsel.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2012 02:41
|
|
|
Technogeek posted:Pretty sure the Hatch Act only applies to partisan elections -- even those subject to the most restrictions under it are allowed to "campaign for or against referendum questions, constitutional amendments, or municipal ordinances", according to the Office of Special Counsel. I can campaign for or against it, however due to the extremely partisan nature of the issue I am concerned that the prohibitions on collecting money would kick in, and as I work from home I worry that someone would attempt to argue that I'm not allowed to do anything in the house because it became a "government office". In reality I don't think they would be successful at all, however I am not in any way interested in being a test case on the issue so I'm just avoiding it while being as vocal as possible in my views on the amendment.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2012 13:45
|
|
|
The Massachusetts-based cases against DOMA Section 3 (federal refusal to recognize same sex marriages) will be argued April 4th in the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals. In the California based case (against DOMA, not Prop 8), Dept. of Justice has asked for an 11 judge en banc review from the 9th Circuit. Rather than going the slow route (3 judge judge->11 judge panel->SCOTUS) with arguments relying on High Tech Gays vs. DISCO (the most amazingly named case ever) which is kind of outdated in light of Romer and Lawrence they want the 9th Circuit to "directly consider afresh whether, as the government argues, heightened scrutiny applies to classifications based on sexual orientation". I don't know if they'll speed the process along but we'll surely win because there's no legitimate state interest in refusing federal recognition.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2012 19:39
|
|
|
UltimoDragonQuest posted:The Massachusetts-based cases against DOMA Section 3 (federal refusal to recognize same sex marriages) will be argued April 4th in the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals. And in related DOMA news quote:Ever since House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) signed on last year to defend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in court, it's been a mystery trying to figure out where, exactly, he was getting the taxpayer funds to pay for it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2012 01:43
|
|
|
I think this is the best place to post this considering how influential NOM is in the gay marriage debates. http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ggVIwPUsnDkAiTRJcC46mTqYoFMQ?docId=36fa8ba7239147d2836de6dfe1aac0ac Gay-marriage foes sought to split gays and blacks posted:The leading national organization opposing same-sex marriage has sought to split the Democratic Party base by pitting African-Americans and Hispanics against gay-rights groups, according to confidential strategy memos made public by court officials in Maine.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2012 02:15
|
|
|
I was just about to post that and when I did a refresh you had beaten me. What a bombshell. I mean that's how I figure NOM types think but to see it all spelled out on a confidential paper is nauseating. Glad to see they're still intentionally conflating gays and child molesters in 2009.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2012 02:20
|
|
|
Zero VGS posted:I was just about to post that and when I did a refresh you had beaten me. What a bombshell. I mean that's how I figure NOM types think but to see it all spelled out on a confidential paper is nauseating. Glad to see they're still intentionally conflating gays and child molesters in 2009. The really funny thing about this is it gives the people who hate Dan Savage some heavy ammunition. I was pretty neutral about him before, but seeing how what people like him said following prop 8 become the NOM line of attack is really damning.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2012 02:43
|
|
|
Speaking of equal rights for all: Meet the two newest ads for Prop 5 in Anchorage Alaska John owns a gay bar and hires gays..." TRANSGENDER DAYCARE WORKERS!!!! WOMENS LOCKEROOMS FOR DUDES! I thought the Pete Hoekstra ad was bad but these are reprehensible. Why is Anchorage so upset? quote:Prop 5 is a proposed ordinance to extend anti-discrimination legal protections to gay and transgender citizens
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2012 21:34
|
|
|
The best part of those ads is the end with, "Anchorage is already a tolerant community..." It gives the impression like, "Tolerance? We're all full up on that. If we had anymore tolerance we'd be bursting." Like we're all just supposed to hear that and go, "Oh, right! I see. Tolerance is something akin to garlic and having too much would spoil the whole dish. That makes complete sense." I also love that no matter how "totally not bigoted" they swear they are up and down it comes out whenever they try to describe any scenario involving anyone in the LGBT community. Transgender becomes "transvestite" complete with a man-in-dress caricature. A gay bar owner becomes a rainbow-clad militant that refuses to hire straight people. You can tell they really crafted these in such a way that they were trying really really hard to not let their bigotry show. Hence, they're lame in every possible respect and they try to frame it in terms of restricting the rights of LGBT business owners. Yet based on their choice of symbols the entire thing is just completely shot through with it. It's quietly, and with an amazing lack of class, one of the most offensive things I've seen. ErIog fucked around with this message at 10:23 on Mar 31, 2012 |
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2012 10:12
|
|
|
Shalebridge Cradle posted:I think this is the best place to post this considering how influential NOM is in the gay marriage debates. To paraphrase someone in the GBS thread, it's like they're aware that the only way they could ever convince people of their position it to lie to them, but they're unwilling to take that final tiny step and consider what that actually means.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2012 13:33
|
|
|
Anybody else think Obama might come out for marriage equality if he gets a second term? I think he might. Or at least something like not letting states ban civil unions. There's been rumors and hints and I think he'll do it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2012 20:37
|
|
|
I wouldn't be surprised if he does once he wins a second term but I don't see him doing it one second earlier than that unfortunately
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2012 20:42
|
|
breaklaw posted:Anybody else think Obama might come out for marriage equality if he gets a second term? I think he might. Or at least something like not letting states ban civil unions. There's been rumors and hints and I think he'll do it. I can see him supporting a constitutional measure to "one and done" the whole issue in his second term. It's so lovely that the LGBT community has to have their rights suspended in the face of politics, but Obama is really their best shot for a decisive victory, so you just have to grin and bear it until the re-election, when it's "too late" and all the campaigning is done and it isn't a massive splinter issue that can cost him the general because of hateful bigoted poo poo heads.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2012 20:42
|
|
|
breaklaw posted:Anybody else think Obama might come out for marriage equality if he gets a second term? I think he might. Or at least something like not letting states ban civil unions. There's been rumors and hints and I think he'll do it. I would prefer a (much less likely) change in action to a change in policy. It would be great if he got serious about opposing anti-gay legislation. No more soulless press releases but instead videos explaining exactly why it is wrong to repeal or ban civil rights. I think the tipping point on marriage is when Hawaii and probably Illinois legalize it the next 4 years. His position will be completely ridiculous and it's hard to believe there will be any internal polling showing it hurts the party to be the de jur party of marriage equality after 4+ years de facto. If nobody dies/retires and they don't make a comically narrow decision, SCOTUS is ruling DOMA Section 3 unconstitutional in 2013 and we're getting federal recognition. I don't think an amendment is a good way to repeal Section 2, because it would take 60 Senators and 30+ states while giving federal courts a great excuse to ignore the issue for 10 years.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2012 21:56
|
|
|
Loving Life Partner posted:I can see him supporting a constitutional measure to "one and done" the whole issue in his second term. Obama isn't a 'best shot for a decisive victory' any more than the democratic party as a whole, which has at best been a opportunistic rhetorical supporter of lgbt rights (during election season) -- it's like referring to a mousetrap as a mouse's best shot at a decisive cheese. You might say Obama is our best shot for a mealymouthed campaign promise.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2012 00:45
|
|
|
Ialdabaoth posted:Obama isn't a 'best shot for a decisive victory' any more than the democratic party as a whole, which has at best been a opportunistic rhetorical supporter of lgbt rights (during election season) -- it's like referring to a mousetrap as a mouse's best shot at a decisive cheese. You might say Obama is our best shot for a mealymouthed campaign promise. I agree, Democrats are total sell-outs on LGBT issues. Which is why it was some hypothetical third party, not Democrats, that passed marriage equality in Washington, Maryland, Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont, and DC. Oh, wait.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2012 01:27
|
|
|
gohuskies posted:I agree, Democrats are total sell-outs on LGBT issues. Which is why it was some hypothetical third party, not Democrats, that passed marriage equality in Washington, Maryland, Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont, and DC. Oh, wait. To be fair it was the court here in CT, but at the same time that's because we had a Republican governor at the time who said she'd veto any gay marriage bill out of the Dem controlled assembly. But yeah one party is considering this year as adding marriage quality to their national platform at their convention, one party runs on a platform of a constitutional amendment to ban same sex marriage. There's kind of a difference between the parties on this issue. Also traditionally GOP dominated states aren't doing so great in employment protection either http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:LGBT_employment_discrimination_law_in_the_United_States.svg Hell two southern states actually rescinded protections.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2012 01:39
|
|
|
gohuskies posted:I agree, Democrats are total sell-outs on LGBT issues. Which is why it was some hypothetical third party, not Democrats, that passed marriage equality in Washington, Maryland, Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont, and DC. Oh, wait. In some states public pressure has compelled them to enact overwhelming popular measures yet they are running behind the times. Look how swimmingly efforts in Illinois have turned out -- the democratic state government follows Obama's lead by rejecting equal marriage. In fact, they've been quashing same-sex marriage bills for over a decade and only passed civil unions to get folks to shut up. It is interesting that you bring up third parties, but I think you fail to develop the point. While there is no realistic alternative, democrats have nothing to lose by taking the politically expedient route of sidelining civil rights until they can no longer afford to ignore the issue.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2012 01:46
|
|
|
gohuskies posted:I agree, Democrats are total sell-outs on LGBT issues. Which is why it was some hypothetical third party, not Democrats, that passed marriage equality in Washington, Maryland, Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont, and DC. Oh, wait. The Democratic President of the United States was against gay marriage when elected in 2008 and stated in 2010 that his views were "evolving". That's pretty much the definition of "opportunistic rhetorical supporter of lgbt rights".
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2012 02:14
|
|
|
A GIANT PARSNIP posted:The Democratic President of the United States was against gay marriage when elected in 2008 and stated in 2010 that his views were "evolving". That's pretty much the definition of "opportunistic rhetorical supporter of lgbt rights". Yes, if you ignore all the things that Democrats are doing for LGBT rights, then it looks like Democrats aren't doing anything for LGBT rights.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2012 02:17
|
|
|
^^^ Complaining about the Democrats in federal government is more than fair, but it's ridiculous to deny that Democrats in state government are the most effective force for LGBT rights.Ialdabaoth posted:In some states public pressure has compelled them to enact overwhelming popular measures yet they are running behind the times. Look how swimmingly efforts in Illinois have turned out -- the democratic state government follows Obama's lead by rejecting equal marriage. In fact, they've been quashing same-sex marriage bills for over a decade and only passed civil unions to get folks to shut up. It is interesting that you bring up third parties, but I think you fail to develop the point. While there is no realistic alternative, democrats have nothing to lose by taking the politically expedient route of sidelining civil rights until they can no longer afford to ignore the issue. The voters of Illinois did not support marriage equality in 2010. Survey of Chicago and suburbs Do you support same sex marriage? Yes-No-Don't know 42-42-14 Statewide survey Which recognition of same sex couples would you prefer? Marriage-Unions-Nothing-Don't know 33.6-33.9-26.5-6 The legislature has killed marriage bills for decades because there has never been public support until very recently. UltimoDragonQuest fucked around with this message at 02:22 on Apr 1, 2012 |
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2012 02:19
|
|
|
gohuskies posted:Yes, if you ignore all the things that Democrats are doing for LGBT rights, then it looks like Democrats aren't doing anything for LGBT rights.  guys you'll get your rights when we get around to iiiiiit
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2012 02:26
|
|
|
The Democrats care about 1 thing: getting elected. If they see pushing for/allowing gay rights to be a detriment to that, then they will squash it. It is poo poo, but so is our system. And expecting anything else is dreaming.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2012 02:43
|
|
|
Glitterbomber posted:
yourself. I phonebanked for marriage equality in Washington, calling voters in the districts of swing legislators to tell them to contact their legislators with messages of support for the bill, at phone banks organized by our local Democratic party. What have you done for marriage equality lately?
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2012 03:12
|
|
|
BattleMaster posted:Well it looks like my idea is bunk anyways since it looks like any random person can gain the rights to make marriages official, not just priests. My idea was to make marriage "nothing special" by removing the legal rights from the religious organizations so that all they can perform are unofficial ceremonies but clearly I was confused about how things work. I have this idea that what the government should do is actually remove the concept of marriage from government and replace it with a concept of dependency. That is, people are free to arange their families any drat way they want, and the government then recognizes that for the purposes of tax/inheritance/insurance/whatever. So gay dudes can start a gay family, mormons can have their silly polygamous marriages, people can have communal families, whatever rocks peoples socks. The govt just has to acknowledge it has no role in deciding peoples morality in this, and simply acknowledge peoples choices and support them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2012 03:32
|
|
|
duck monster posted:I have this idea that what the government should do is actually remove the concept of marriage from government and replace it with a concept of dependency. That is, people are free to arange their families any drat way they want, and the government then recognizes that for the purposes of tax/inheritance/insurance/whatever. So gay dudes can start a gay family, mormons can have their silly polygamous marriages, people can have communal families, whatever rocks peoples socks. The govt just has to acknowledge it has no role in deciding peoples morality in this, and simply acknowledge peoples choices and support them. It's absolutely what should be done, EXCEPT it would involve re-writing too many other laws, starting with about half the tax code and moving through military regulations and probate & estate planning and so on down the line. It won't happen until everything you're talking about becomes socially accepted as a form of "marriage" anyway.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2012 03:56
|
|
|
gohuskies posted:
Oh hey, I put a shitload of time into R-71, and have driven my rear end down to Olympia on more than one occasion to lobby Joe Fain face-to-face (oh hey, look how that turned out). Speaking as someone who's probably done more for marriage equality lately than you, the national Democratic party has been lukewarm at best on marriage equality, a lot of state-level Democratic parties have been absolutely shameful on marriage equality, and the fact that our state has been one of a handful of kickass exceptions still doesn't do much more than prove the rule.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2012 04:24
|
|
|
Mrit posted:The Democrats care about 1 thing: getting elected. If they see pushing for/allowing gay rights to be a detriment to that, then they will squash it. What else are they going to do? Just willingly become a minority party forever? It's not like President Romney would anything to further rights and would probably be persuaded to take rights away.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2012 11:04
|
|
|
gohuskies posted:
Log Cabin Republicans work their asses off for marriage equality too. It's absolutely true that individual Democrats have paved the way for marriage equality on the state level (in some states), but that doesn't magically make the Democratic Party as an organization a serious force for LGBT rights. The Democratic Party doctrine seems to be "Decide for yourself how you feel on this issue", which is certainly better than the Republican doctrine of "We hate gays and you better hate them too". But just because it's better than the alternative doesn't mean it's good. A GIANT PARSNIP fucked around with this message at 14:55 on Apr 1, 2012 |
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2012 14:47
|
|
|
gohuskies posted:
I've done a lot of local activism, my biggest helps here in Texas were actually the Socialist and Green parties. I'm not saying the democrats are as bad as the right, but yea pretending democrats inherently are best just by being democrats is childish. We right now have a democrat president who won the election saying 'marriage is between a man and a woman', when not throwing fundraisers for our sweet sweet gay money of course, and then later when even the famously lazy and downright vile Log Cabin Republicans were lapping him on equality he decided his view was 'evolving'. Yea, I'd rather have Obama than the dudes saying 'what, no, gently caress gays, Lawrence v Texas for life!' but I'm not going to pretend he's an ally to me either, he's just not an active enemy. We shouldn't have to settle for passive enemies.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2012 17:04
|
|
|
Space Gopher posted:Oh hey, I put a shitload of time into R-71, and have driven my rear end down to Olympia on more than one occasion to lobby Joe Fain face-to-face (oh hey, look how that turned out). Speaking as someone who's probably done more for marriage equality lately than you, the national Democratic party has been lukewarm at best on marriage equality, a lot of state-level Democratic parties have been absolutely shameful on marriage equality, and the fact that our state has been one of a handful of kickass exceptions still doesn't do much more than prove the rule. Good work, Fain was a big fish to land on that vote. My point is this - marriage equality will happen because the Democratic party works to make it happen, or it won't happen. Does the party need to be pushed? Obviously yes. But pretending that some hypothetical third party is going to make this happen in any of our lifetimes is ridiculous, when we already have a proven path to victory from within the Democratic party that's already worked at the state level. It's slower than it should be, but at least it will work, as opposed to masturbating over third parties, which won't. Obama is not where he should be on LGBT issues, but he's still better than any President ever. The 2016 Democratic nominee will be better than Obama. The 202X nominees will be better than them. The change is happening, and to say things like " guys you'll get your rights when we get around to iiiiiit" I find ignorant and insulting.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2012 18:39
|
|
|
gohuskies posted:Good work, Fain was a big fish to land on that vote. "Obama's not good but don't worry the 202X guy will be better. Woah buddy don't you dare say I'm saying your rights will come when we get around to it!"
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2012 20:24
|
|
|
Glitterbomber posted:"Obama's not good but don't worry the 202X guy will be better. Woah buddy don't you dare say I'm saying your rights will come when we get around to it!" The Democratic Party is on a trajectory to equality. Third parties are on a trajectory to nowhere. Marriage equality has been enacted by the Democratic Party in several states. Marriage equality has not been enacted by any third party in any states. Pushing the Democratic Party to support marriage equality over time is a realistic strategy towards national marriage equality. Creating or promoting a third party that will support marriage equality is not a realistic strategy towards national marriage equality. I would rather have marriage equality actually happen. You would rather adopt a holier-than-thou attitude and look down your nose at those who are creating actual results.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2012 20:35
|
|
|
gohuskies posted:The Democratic Party is on a trajectory to equality. Third parties are on a trajectory to nowhere. Marriage equality has been enacted by the Democratic Party in several states. Marriage equality has not been enacted by any third party in any states. Pushing the Democratic Party to support marriage equality over time is a realistic strategy towards national marriage equality. Creating or promoting a third party that will support marriage equality is not a realistic strategy towards national marriage equality. I would rather have marriage equality actually happen. You would rather adopt a holier-than-thou attitude and look down your nose at those who are creating actual results. Voting for a more liberal third party tells the Democratic Party that they need to shift left to get your vote. Voting for the Democratic Party unequivocally because they are better than the Republicans does nothing in the way of pushing them to champion an issue.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2012 20:43
|
|
|
gohuskies posted:The Democratic Party is on a trajectory to equality. Third parties are on a trajectory to nowhere. Marriage equality has been enacted by the Democratic Party in several states. Marriage equality has not been enacted by any third party in any states. Pushing the Democratic Party to support marriage equality over time is a realistic strategy towards national marriage equality. Creating or promoting a third party that will support marriage equality is not a realistic strategy towards national marriage equality. I would rather have marriage equality actually happen. You would rather adopt a holier-than-thou attitude and look down your nose at those who are creating actual results. Gohuskies, I want to be super clear here. Are you tell me that because in a few states local level democrats have gotten things done, I as a gay man am in some sort of Wookie life debt with the Democrat party as a whole, and must only vote for them? Obama, who I've always been talking about, has done nothing for gay rights. The Log Cabin Republicans, the guys who proudly vote for the party who has 'gays are second class citizens' in their platform, were able to scoop DADT's repeal from him and make him look like an idiot. Good for the state level people who have, but yea, I'm not gonna vote for the Democrats who do nothing just because they share a D. Also I have no reason to believe the Democratic Party as a whole is on a 'trajectory to equality', you're talking about theoretical maybe candidates, so far all we have is Obama, who we had to twist his arm to get 'eeeh I'll think about it' while happily taking our money.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2012 20:49
|
|
|
Do you think that SCOTUS would have upheld the ruling that found DADT unconstitutional? Do you think a Republican president would have signed the repeal of DADT?
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2012 21:06
|
|
|
Glitterbomber posted:Gohuskies, I want to be super clear here. Are you tell me that because in a few states local level democrats have gotten things done, I as a gay man am in some sort of Wookie life debt with the Democrat party as a whole, and must only vote for them? You're not in a life-debt to anyone. My point is simple: the best strategy to enacting marriage equality is pushing the Democratic party from within to support equality. My evidence to support this assertion is that this strategy has already worked in several states. It didn't work instantly, and activists time and time again had to settle for less than they wanted in the short-term, but bit by bit we got closer and closer and eventually marriage equality. You think this strategy is flawed - presumably you have a different strategy in mind, but it's not clear to me exactly what is it or what your evidence is that it will work. I'd be interested to hear what your strategy is and how it will get marriage equality enacted.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2012 21:18
|
|
|
My 'strategy' is to vote based on the individual rather than party loyalty. I have voted for democrats who are progressive (shock of shocks, in Texas that didn't end on my favor), and in the national race I voted for the SPUSA candidate because, along with agreeing with their economic and foreign relations views for gay rights their party platform says, among other things, that same-sex marriage is a goal they work for, while the Democrat platform says civil unions and vague 'federal rights equality'. Also they've managed to put forth dudes who haven't said 'I believe marriage is between a man and a woman' while asking for my money, so that's always a plus.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2012 21:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 17:19 |
|
|
gohuskies posted:You're not in a life-debt to anyone. My point is simple: the best strategy to enacting marriage equality is pushing the Democratic party from within to support equality. My evidence to support this assertion is that this strategy has already worked in several states. It didn't work instantly, and activists time and time again had to settle for less than they wanted in the short-term, but bit by bit we got closer and closer and eventually marriage equality. You think this strategy is flawed - presumably you have a different strategy in mind, but it's not clear to me exactly what is it or what your evidence is that it will work. I'd be interested to hear what your strategy is and how it will get marriage equality enacted. You appear to be operating under the assumption that people must hold a one-way-or-the-other-way, with-us-or-against-us strict dichotomy to heart here. The Democratic party probably is our best shot at marriage equality, but that doesn't mean they're not, as an organization, terribly, terribly flawed. It doesn't mean that the Democratic party is somehow immune to criticism. And it doesn't mean that all Democrats are created equal - or that criticisms of Obama such as Glitterbomb are making are not completely true and justified. The Democratic Party has a long history of telling GLBTQ folks "Stick with us, you'll get your equality" and then doing gently caress-all to follow through on that promise; they have remained the GLBTQ community's go-to party because the only other major party, the Republicans, are a thousand times worse. And the Dems know this, which is why they don't have to work very hard to keep the GLBTQ vote in their pocket; they can ignore us all they want knowing full well that we won't leave to vote for the other guy, and they don't have to take the risk of alienating anyone else by actually fighting for the equality they've been talking about. Now, Democrats on the state level have recently done a hell of a lot more for equality than any of the national Democrats have, and that is laudable and awesome and hopefully some of those state-level officials make it up to the national level before too much longer so that hopefully the Democratic Party will actually follow up on equality for the GLBTQ community instead of just paying lip service to the notion... but that hasn't happened yet, and so it's hardly invalid to evince frustration with the Dems. If they can keep taking the GLBTQ vote for granted at the national level then nothing will change, and illustrating to them that they can't continue taking that vote for granted is one way to illustrate that point to those people who have been slow at learning it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2012 21:34
|
|
