Didn't They Already Do This in 1996?

Oh, that's right.  They wanted something more bigoted-er than DOMA.

Comments

[anapestic]

Yes, but the Democrats are just as homophobic as the Republicans, right? I hope that maybe by the fifth or sixth time the GOP has rolled out homophobia to help them win an election that they can't win on the merits, some of your readers will realize there's a difference between the two parties over how willing they are to trample on your rights.

[Malcontent]

I think what is more salient is that both political parties talk a good game to their bases and rarely deliver. The Democrats cozy up to GLBT groups for their cash, but we have precious little to show for it (outside of the aforementioned DOMA, as well as DADT, state marriage bans across the country, etc. etc. etc.)

On the other side of the aisle, this is pure They know there is not a chance in hell that it will pass with the required 67 votes. It couldn't even get a simple majority last time.

Not that I am in favor of genuflection, but it is an empty gesture of which both parties are guilty.

[Dan]

Always looking for evidence that the other party is 'just as bad' as the other party.

Try thinking positive, Mal ;)

[Jamie]

Actually, in VT we have 3 major parties, and it was the Progressive Party that actually accomplished most of the GLBT progress, and a mostly Democratic Supreme Court that made civil unions possible. Unfortunately, I can't agree a lot of the other policies of the Progressive Party, so they don't often get my vote. But I would never associate myself with the Republican Party while their very Platform marginalizes me.

[Malcontent]

Anapestic did exactly the same thing first, and you take a crack at me?

[Jamie]

Hey, whoa, that wasn't meant as anything personal, just a statement of fact. I like a lot of your positions, Mal, I just don't like the Republican Party because of the platform. I thought I was pretty clear on that the other day. I hope you don't take that personally.

I never said "I don't like Republicans." I just can't support the party. Kinda like just because I can't support the Catholic Church doesn't mean I don't like all Catholics, either.

My real point in the first comment was that the actual GLBT progress was made by a party I can't support wholeheartedly--the Progressives here.

Besides, I thought you were a libertarian, not a republican?

[Malcontent]

That was for Dan. I truly thought my comment posted before yours.

[anapestic]

I did what? You presented the evidence that the Republicans are trying to amend the constitution to make your own marriage illegal. I didn't have to look to find evidence that the Republicans are far worse than the Democrats on gay rights. The Republicans may be playing to their base, but the fact that they don't have 67 votes doesn't mean that they wouldn't pass that amendment if they could. If there were 70 Republicans in the Senate, the amendment would pass. If there were 70 Democrats in the Senate, it wouldn't even get debated.

[Aatom]

i'm against both parties, and the word "bigoted-er".

but i love all of you! ;)

[Downtown Lad]

It's not a Republican vs. Democrat thing. It's a bigot vs. non-bigot thing.

Some politicians on both sides of the aisle have the guts to oppose crap like the FMA. Senator Kerry and McCain being a few examples.

But neither is perfect. McCain endorses a bigoted version of the FMA in his own state. Kerry only supports civil unions and not full marriage.

But all in all - it's quite obvious to anyone with a brain that Republicans are more likely to be anti-gay and oppose our rights than Democrats.

[Tread]

Gee, those Democrats really are total shits, especially when they helped get those 13 states to pass amendments banning gay marriage in 2004... wait, those weren't Democrats who did that? Oops.

[Craig Ranapia]

Tread:

Oh, wait - yes they were and that's the kind of mindless partisanship that is going to see the battle lost beofre it's even begun.