Did you really ask that question in sincerity or was that rhetorical?

There is a good argument to be made that while in power the Republicans have done NOTHING (legislation becoming law) about gays.

Um, not exactly. The Republicans have done something for gays. The Republicans have eliminated (or are eliminating) the federal estate tax. Although I’m sure that they did not intend that it would benefit gays, that is certainly one of the side effects of its elimination.

You see, given the current tax code (or at least as it was a few years ago), a married person could inherit a deceased spouse’s estate essentially free of federal estate taxes. Since gays would not marry–in the eyes of the federal government–they were discriminated against when they wanted to pass their estates to their partners or “significant others.” Eliminating the federal estate tax would, of course, reduce the discrimination.

I have little doubt that the Republicans would try to correct that oversight if it was pointed out to them, but it is far from clear how they might go about drafting legislation to do that.

#17 Calarato — May 11, 2006 @ 3:20 pm – May 11, 2006

Clinton proposed DOMA…

No, Calarato. Bob Barr, then Republican Representative from GA, initially proposed DOMA. (Actually, someone else in the House might have initially proposed it, but Barr became closely identified with it as a sponsor.) Bob Dull, then Republican Senator from Kansas, latched onto it because he believed that it would help his presidential ambitions. More than a few of us were wondering which of Bob Barr’s three marriages he was aiming to protect with DOMA, and which of Bob Dull’s two marriages he was aiming to protect with DOMA.

After the Republican-dominated Senate and House passed it (the only Senators who voted against it were Democrats) Clinton signed it and then crowed about it in re-election ads on right-wing Christian radio stations. As I’ve said, Clinton was nothing more than a snake-oil salesman. He could sell a used car to an eskimo on an ice flow.

The irony is that, after Barr left the House, the ACLU was hired by the ACLU–for some purpose, I don’t know. And that’s one reason that I refuse to contribute to the ACLU.

#41 Lucas — May 13, 2006 @ 1:50 pm – May 13, 2006

DADT, while falling short of giving gay people what they wanted under Clinton’s administration…is still an improvement over the previous policy. So while the Democrats “gave” us DADT (which is bullshit and you know it), it is still a better policy than what was in place before DADT.

Sigh. Apparently, you do not understand the issue. The issue is not whether DADT is better than the previous policy–that assertion is highly debatable, anyway. The issue is that Clinton initially came out in favor of a policy that would allow gay people to serve openly, that he (Clinton) was unwilling to even make a token effort to follow through on. See if you can find a copy of Andy Sullivan’s article “Sex, Lies And Us” in an Oct 1998 issue of the Advocate. He laid Clinton’s defalcations out quite succinctly–not only in regards DADT, but also DOMA.

#42 North Dallas Thirty — May 13, 2006 @ 8:28 pm – May 13, 2006

For once, we are in agreement. Apparently, Dean does not know that the job of the national party chairman is to raise money for the party. That’s all. Dean, who never seems to have been an advocate for equal rights for gay people (he only signed the civil unions bill in VT because the state SupCt left him with little option), obviously does not know that. If he wants to be an effective chairman, instead of run for office, he should shut up.

It’s amusing that Dean went on the Diamond Pat Robertson clap-trap show. People who watch that show won’t believe anything that he says, anyway.

What in the hell do you think Howard Dean was doing with that appearance on The 700 Club?

We’ll see since the Governor and many state business leaders pushed for it. It may indeed be struck down.

I know Mitch. He’s one of the most genuinely nice men I’ve met. That doesn’t surprise me. But similar ordinances in Bloomington, Lafayette, Muncie, and Indianapolis over the last thirty years have been slapped down by the Indiana court.

The point was that there was a bipartison effort to pass the ordinance.

I realize that. Speaking of Indiana, we’re heading back from Indiana home to Pennsylvania more or less now.

Not talking, he’s doing and wsiely keeping the options open.

I haven’t paid attention to local politics in so long. Last I heard he adamantly denied interest in running. Have you heard otherwise or are you just sayin’?

That being said, a new Human Rights Ordinance in Indianapolis was passed this year

Every such ordinance in Indiana has been stricken down by the state Supreme Court when challenged. It is therefore a well-established precedent that “human rights” laws on the local level that go beyond state law are not constitutional, and therefore, not valid.

They’re going to have real problems when Jeb Bush wins… or in 15 years, when the 4th generation of the Bush political dynasty start running for office. Yeow.

I was actually *for* gay marriage before I was against it, right?

So the libs have shat on Christians, shat on the blacks, shat on gays, shat on the military, etc. One has to ask who the hell is left to vote for them? Do they think there’s enough illegals, felons, fictional characters and dead people to fill in?

Sooooo….why am I supposed to vote for these traitorous ass clowns, again?

Fine I’ll extend it to state and local politicians as well. However, I’m less concerned about what individual states do. With the exception of Massachusetts, such measures have no real effect on the status quo. And most of these being passed are not nearly as hard to undo in the future as an amendment to the US Constitution. And a change to the latter would eliminate the foothold we have in Massachusetts. Time is on our side and ironically, DOMA may provide the delay necessary for minds to change such that a few more states will endorse SSM. If we can hang on long enough, eventually it will become a non-issue. However, a change to the US Constitution would ensure that we would not see SSM in the US in my lifetime and probably not in yours.

“I’m still interested in your reaction to Kerry’s support of a draconian MO amemdment”

I deplored it and even though he has stood against the FMA, unless he changes his mind on gay marriage, I can’t see myself EVER voting for him again. Still, the FMA is my main beef and my line in the sand.

I’m still interested in your reaction to Kerry’s support of a draconian MO amemdment while simultaniuosly opposing the FMA.

What they believe is less important to me than what they are prepared to legislate. Most of the GOP in Congress supported passage of the FMA; most of the Dems did not. Regardless, I renew my pledge NEVER to support nor vote for any politician of whatever party if that politician signs onto or supports legislation that would amend the US Constitution to ban gay marriage. Will you join me in such a pledge?

Also, it appears that you are outraged by Dem “misstating” the Dem Platform but not the fact the vast majority of Dem leadership believes, like Kerry & Edwards, that marriage is only between a man and woman. Contrary to what the Platform say in a vauge, weasely sort of way. Is misstating the Platform a more serious offence that opposing gay marriage equality?

Finally, what was your reaction to Kerry when he stated that he would have voted for the MO amendment that banned gay marriage and made no provision for civil unions, etc.? Was it another case of he was for it before he was against it? If so, how do we really know where he stands? If not, where is the outrage?

Because it’s an inaccurate representation of the Dem platform which says the matter should be left to the states. Currently, because Massachusetts allows SSM, and the Dem platform endorses what each state decides, therefore the Dem platform endorses SSM in Massachusetts. Therefore Dean cannot make the blanket statement he did about the Dem platform and marriage.

“an open revolt by senior Dem legislators.”

Like Sam Nunn, a conservative Dem. As I stated, Clinton was done in on the issue “by conservatives in Congress.” You’ll notice I did not single out Repubs.

#17: “Clinton proposed DOMA.”

No, he signed it. Congress proposed and passed it because Hawaii was close to legalizing SSM.

As for Kerry, he opposes the FMA and supported the Massachusetts amendment ONLY if it provided for civil unions with all the rights of marriage. But let’s look ahead to 2008. What does McCain think about SSM? Well, he’s come out strongly in support of the Arizona initiative that would not only ban SSM but also civil uniuons, domestic partnerships or any legal recognition of gay relationships whatsoever. He has also stated that he will support the FMA if DOMA is ever struck down. As for other potential GOP nominees, it’s all downhill from McCain.