Six weeks.

[jlh]

About the political stuff. If someone said in 1964 that they felt that beating back Khrushchev was more important than the civil rights situation in the south and therefore they were voting for Goldwater, they would have been within their rights to do so. However, they shouldn't have been surprised that any Black friends they might have had would take it personally, wondering that a friend of theirs would actually put something ahead of their right to vote/go to school/even exist.

Change 1964 to 2004, Khrushchev to whatever large issue someone might agree with Bush on (terrorism, Iraq, etc.), civil rights for gay rights, and Blacks for gays, and hopefully you'll begin to understand what's been going on. It makes me very sad to see that it really is mostly those who have a personal understanding of predjudice and identity politics that are on the front lines of this. I know, because I have seen, that you don't have to be a person of color, or Jewish, or gay or lesbian yourself to have this visceral understanding of these issues, but it really seems to help, and that's too bad.

So be honest! Come right out and say, "I'm voting for Bush because I honestly feel that his stance on [insert your issue here] is more important to me and to the future of this country than his stance against gay rights."

And if you feel that way, less power to you.

Comments

[longtimegone]

I love you. <3

[jlh.livejournal.com]

Aww! Thanks!

[auliana.livejournal.com]

Amen.

I know, because I have seen, that you don't have to be a person of color, or Jewish, or gay or lesbian yourself to have this visceral understanding of these issues, but it really seems to help, and that's too bad.

No, you don't. All you need is the ability to put yourself in someone else's place, have a little fucking empathy, imagine if something about you was the thing that was being persecuted. Unfortunately, that is beyond the comprehensio

[jlh.livejournal.com]

ooh, did you get cut off?

I think it's sadly difficult even for well-intentioned people who don't have a personal understanding of discrimination to realize that it does happen. That's how you get people going on "special rights". They seem to assume that you don't need something in the law about equal housing to actually get equal housing, but you do, and etc, etc, etc. I've had lovely conversations with two LJ HP fandom people who shall remain nameless where I tried to put all of this in context and there was this wonderful moment where the lightbulb went on and they just GOT it. But you can't do that with everyone.

[llemma.livejournal.com]

It's hard to vote for Kerry, though, on those grounds. I think the outcome of a Kerry administration would be much more gay-positive than Bush's has been - but you couldn't tell it from his rhetoric.

[a-hollow-year.livejournal.com]

That's my problem, too. If I was going to go solely on the gay issue, I'd have to vote Badnarik, since I'm fairly sure Libertarians don't give a fuck who you marry and would probably take the government out of marriage altogether.

On the other hand, there's no chance of Badnarik winning, and Kerry has at the very least a chance and probably wouldn't be "as bad". So I'll vote for him, even though I live in Texas. -.-

[adjudicated.livejournal.com]

I agree.

[jlh.livejournal.com]

Thanks!

[zorb]

I know, because I have seen, that you don't have to be a person of color, or Jewish, or gay or lesbian yourself to have this visceral understanding of these issues, but it really seems to help, and that's too bad.

It is too bad, and I know I'm guilty of it, myself; sometimes, I have to put things in the context of my own minorities to really understand, and I wish I didn't need to. But at least I'm aware of it, you know?

*sigh* The whole situation sucks.

[jlh.livejournal.com]

Yeah, it pretty much does. I think that everyone puts it into the context of their own lives, as that's how thought works much of the time, actually.

[wordplay.livejournal.com]

I know, because I have seen, that you don't have to be a person of color, or Jewish, or gay or lesbian yourself to have this visceral understanding of these issues, but it really seems to help, and that's too bad.

Hmmm. I think it's bigger than that. I think that there's not a person alive who hasn't been marginalized or disenfranchised in some way or another, so the question quickly becomes why we don't all tap into that part of ourselves to understand why it's not OK to do that to others just because we like a tax package or a foreign policy. I have a little theory on this, but I'm afraid it's my bitter Texas pagan-atheist self talking, so I think I'll just keep it to myself. :D

[hetrez.livejournal.com]

I'm curious, though. I have a theory myself, but I would like to hear yours, if you don't mind.

[galactagogue.livejournal.com]

you are wise. thanks for saying this.

[jlh.livejournal.com]

Thank you!

[widdlekiwi.livejournal.com]

Hello, I'm just a random person, but I felt the need to put my two cents in with a different perspective.

I'm bisexual and I'm dating a girl currently, but I still think that Bush is the best candidate right now, not just because I feel he can handle national security (especially through border control) better, but because the senators and congressman really can't possibly pass this amendment to the constitution. The president is a single Christian man, but because of the diversity of the others voting on this issue, I don't think it's something to worry about right now, especially since the amendment is truly unconstitutional.

Yes, it's true that rights for us will probably come more slowly with Bush, but whoever is elected is just one man. I think it takes more than that to change the ways of an entire country.

P.S. - If you are the Clio of Schnoogle, I absolutely love Eight Ways From Sunday! Wonderful plot and pairings that I really liked. I had never read any Seamus/Dean stuff before; very nice!

[jlh.livejournal.com]

Actually, one man can do a lot, and I encourage you to read any biography of LBJ to see what he did to get the Voting Rights Act of 1964 passed through a hostile Congress.

Am I saying that Kerry is that man? I doubt it. But Bush will work actively against it. Don't be distracted by the amendment—you're right, it will probably never pass all the state legislatures that it needs to, and it's likely unconstitutional. But what can Bush do in the mean time? Stack federal courts. Question adoption practices. And there are other rights besides marriage, like equal housing and equal employment.

The way Bush has handled (or not) national security actually makes me very worried. I don't feel safer, not one bit. I actually feel that half the shit we've pulled is just pushing the moderates in the direction of the extremists.

But again, you're doing what I wish other people would do. You are saying, "I am willing to take what I believe will be only a delay in gay rights in order to have what I believe will be more security." I don't agree, and I'll be working against you, but I appreciate your honesty.

PS--Thank you so much! I really appreciate that! I actually spent all day yesterday doing research for a sequal, so I hope you will like that as well!

[dethryl.livejournal.com]

It really doesn't matter to me what Bush says about gay rights, because there's no way a constitutional ammendment will ever pass, and there's no way that any sort of discriminatory law will ever stand up in front of the Supreme Court. Not even proposed civil unions will work because of the "separate but equal" fallacy.
I'm not voting for Bush. I'm in Massachusetts, and he's never going to win the state anyway. I'm voting Libertarian, because that's the only way I'll be able to sleep at night. I disagree with Bush's religious-type stances. But at least I can disagree with him, because he's taken a firm stand. Kerry's views change depending on whether he's fired any of his campaign advisors that day.
It's not any business of government to decide what "marriage" is. That is a matter for religion to determine. Marriage is a sacrament in the Catholic Church, though I can't speak definitively for other faiths. I believe government should be in the business of issuing civil unions for both gays and straights. The alternative is to declare marriage to be between any two people, and that would be okay by me too.
People have a tendancy to believe that this election is a choice between George W. Bush, with all his faults and flaws, and some glowing example of a human being who will save us all from ourselves. This election is a choice between George W. Bush, flawed as he is, and John F. Kerry, as fundamentally flawed as he is. I'd like to point out a few things for the record.
1. Kerry is opposed to gay marriage. He says he is in favour of civil unions, which is what Cheney and Bush are on the record with as well.
2. Kerry says that he would have built a true international coalition, yada yada yada. France, Russia, and Germany were all taking bribes from Saddam Hussein through the Oil-For-Food program. There was no way that anyone was going to convince them that Hussein needed to go.
3. Kerry says he will bring the UN into the Iraq situation. Sure. As if France, Germany, and all the Arabic countries will suddenly decide that they are willing to fork over billions of dollars and sacrifice the lives of their soldiers simply because John Kerry is now the President of the United States. I didn't know he was that likeable of a guy.
4. Your precious gay rights mean nothing if you're dead. Kerry would impress the murderers of young children with how sensitive he can be. The sick bastards who did the things done in Chechnya will do those same things here if we give them a chance, and there can be no other solution but to kill them. First.

[jlh.livejournal.com]

I actually believe that Bush has done far more to create terrorists than to battle them. Invade Iraq? And that connection to Al Qaeda was what, exactly? Meanwhile we are doing precisely what the extremists said we always wanted to do--invade their countries and take their oil and leave them with nothing. Way to go. Bush frightens me, and I want him out. I do feel that the only way to solve this issue is with other countries. Guess what? France and Germany were right--Iraq was neither connected with Al Qaeda nor did they have WMDs. A lot of countries were taking bribes, but that doesn't make us right for invading a sovereign country just because we didn't like their leader. Hell, on that basis Germany could invade us right now.

Is there any evidence, by the way, that the Chechens are international terrorists? They've learned some skills from Al Qaeda but it's really Putin and his gang who want everyone to think that this is about anti-Western sentiment rather than our friend Violent Separatism. (Remember that Spanish government who attempted the reverse regarding the Madrid bombing in March?)

Hussein needed to go, but for what reason other than that he was horrible dictator? And on that scale, when are we invading North Korea? The North Koreans are starving, their leader is batshit crazy, he's more than likely got nuclear weapons aimed at Seoul if not Tokyo, we have thousands of troups on his border, why don't we just get rid of him? He has about as much of a direct connection to Al Qaeda as Saddam Hussein did, and we actually have better evidence of his WMD's.

Meanwhile, Bush is spending us into massive deficits, giving the rich tax cuts, and there are men dying, and for what? For what?

Do I think Kerry is the solid gold answer? Of course not. Do I think that Bush is dangerous? Absolutely.

random person, here...

[stirfry.livejournal.com]

I think you're making things overly... black and white (no pun intended). If it were as simple as that, and we would be constantly suffering from terrorist attacks but have legal gay marriage if Kerry were elected, and be safe from terrorists yet not allow same-sex couples to marry if Bush were elected, then my vote probably would be for Bush, because I see being blown up as the worse of the two scenarios. As it is, there are many other issues that should be part of this decision, and I think Kerry can keep the U.S. safe from terrorists just as well as Bush can - so, if I were old enough to have a vote, it would go to Kerry.

Re: random person, here...

[jlh.livejournal.com]

Actually, what I'm saying is that for some people, for whom gay rights is the paramount issue, it really IS black and white. Sometimes political issues really are just that simple. I think people have to decide based on those issues that are the most important to them, and for some gay people, gay rights is the most important issue, and they feel that a vote for Bush is a vote against rights for them.

(I personally feel that Bush has done fuckall to keep us safer, but that's an entirely other matter.)

[bookshop.livejournal.com]

I agree with this so much my head hurts from nodding. And I wish I had the guts to send this to my mom.

[jlh.livejournal.com]

Ack, don't hurt your neck!

Thanks!

[wednesdayschild.livejournal.com]

What is more frightening, to me, is when a gay person, or a poor person, or a black person, votes for the person or party with beliefs and policies most antithetical to their very persons. For example, how can a gay person vote for the party headed by the person who instituted the Section 28 clause, which included the the ruling that 'a local authority shall not promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship'? Or a poor person the party that introduced the poll tax, and plans to lower taxes? Or a black person a party where member after member makes 'unfortunate' remarks (that are always meant as jokes, apparently) against their race?

-.-

Do people actually believe that Bush fare better than Kerry in the 'war on terror', and sorting out the huge problems faced in Iraq? Perhaps if Kerry was clearly incompetent and planned to, I don't know, abolish all defense budgets and allow Osama bin Laden to move over to the US, then it might make sense to vote for Bush, his abhorrent policies and version of Christianity notwithstanding; however, I cannot credit that anyone might even entertain thoughts of that sort (don't depress me and tell me that they do, please).

[titanic-days.livejournal.com]

"What is more frightening, to me, is when a gay person, or a poor person, or a black person, votes for the person or party with beliefs and policies most antithetical to their very persons."

Fickleness amongst the voters is indeed scary. I will tell you I really got scared recently when Michael Howard started making noises about movement on a Civil Partnership Bill under a future Tory government, to me at this point voting for the Tories, abhorrent as I find them, because they are trying to engage me on issues that I care about; gay rights and Iraq, mainly, seems like a better choice than voting for Labour or the Lib Dems. I won't ever do it, don't worry, but you see maybe how easy it is?

Clio, thank you for this, *offers firstborn*

[folk.livejournal.com]

But you liberals just don't understaaaaaaaaaaaaaand! You're all so meeeeeeeeean!

*vomits*

[dejaspirit.livejournal.com]

*vomits with you*

[garyamort.livejournal.com]

I know, because I have seen, that you don't have to be a person of color, or Jewish, or gay or lesbian yourself to have this visceral understanding of these issues, but it really seems to help, and that's too bad.

Not really. My experience is that people of color, Jews, gays and lesbians regularly dismiss any discrimination that happens outside their circles.

I find it sadder that people who face discriminaiton today are all too willing to dismiss it when it occurs to others than that people with no experience dismiss it.

So be honest! Come right out and say, "I'm voting for Bush because I honestly feel that his stance on [insert your issue here] is more important to me and to the future of this country than his stance against gay rights."

I agree with this statement, for someone who beleives that the choice is between every single person in America dying, and a small minority having less rights, the choice is a no brainer.

Heck, the choice seems to be a no-brainer for most people in this country period, we buy stuff from Walmart, the stuff is produced in overseas sweatshops, and when the choice is between the civil rights of others or out pocketbook, our pocketbook wins hands down, almost everytime.

*shrug* such is life

[jlh.livejournal.com]

Not really. My experience is that people of color, Jews, gays and lesbians regularly dismiss any discrimination that happens outside their circles.

Actually, that was precisely what I meant! Sorry that was unclear. I meant that most of the people I see out there swinging are black like Dionne (and me) or Jewish like Cassie and Heidi, and it seems to me looking around that while the non-whites and the Jews understand the issue immediately and feel it like a sucker punch, that our non-minority friends need to think a moment, have more explained to them, and frequently can't understand what the hell we're getting so excited about.

I fully realize there are people making other choices; I just want them to both be honest about it, and to understand if other people are offended.

[boniblithe.livejournal.com]

Word to that, Clio. I've defriended in the past people who have talked about things I have a visceral disagreement with, and I intend to do so in the future. And I fully expect others to do the same with me.

[jlh.livejournal.com]

Pretty much. You'd think defriending was the equivalent of expunging. I didn't think we cared about that BNF stuff anymore, anyway.

Also, thanks!

[ivyblossom.livejournal.com]

I also appreciate when people are upfront about this. That way I know who to avoid. ;)

[dejaspirit.livejournal.com]

Ah yes, the "but some of my best friends are Gay people!" Bush supporters. They annoy me most of all, scarecrow...

[evalinece.livejournal.com]

"I'm voting for Bush because I honestly feel that his stance on [homeland security] is more important to me and to the future of this country than his stance against gay rights."

That's that. I don't even know you (uh..hi) but I was linked over here, and thought I would comment. I'm a liberal republican - meaning I disagree with Bush on all thing social and think he's a complete asshole - but i'll still vote for him, for many reasons. First off - Kerry has never made his stance on gay rights perfectly clear. He'll stop the 'marriage protection' crap, probably. But will he try to advocate gay marriage and offend half of the population? I seriously doubt it. Bush cannot take away the rights of gay people. This issue is not about taking something away, it's about not giving something, which is the right to marriage. And other gay people I know, who are also republican s (some of them) agree that more important issues that endanger our LIVES should be dealt with first. Not that gay rights aren't important - they are. But I don't believe they are the most important thing our country has to worry about at this moment.

Sorry if I offended...I hope you can understand my viewpoint.

[titanic-days.livejournal.com]

As a liberal gay Brit, I hope you'll be okay with me sticking my nose into your country's affairs here. You can take it as read I'm backing Kerry.

From what I can see, Kerry appears to be taking much the same stance over The War Against Terror as Bush. I have heard nothing to make me assume the contrary. In the event of a Democrat victory, I am certainly under no illusions that the US will unilaterally withdraw from Iraq, etc, etc, etc.

So given that there is apparently no clear difference between Republicans and Democrats on the terrorist/Iraq issue, in my eyes, that issue then cannot be legitimately counted as relevant. Kerry will toe the same basic line over the war that Bush did, this is not in doubt. I do not dispute with you that the war is the most important thing we have to worry about, but aside from maybe restricting the outrageous excesses of the Department of Homeland Security, what will actually change under Kerry? Probably nothing?

Therefore, I believe that gay rights are very much a (if not the) centrepiece issue of this campaign, and wonder if you could tell me how you would respond/what your opinion is on this fact, which I truthfully see as quite undeniable.

[dejaspirit.livejournal.com]

I <3. You.

[titanic-days.livejournal.com]

I can't find an email address for you, so hope you have comment notification turned on and that Clio doesn't mind me doing this here;

>:D<>:D<>:D<>:D<

So much love for you at this point.

[storm-maven.livejournal.com]

Found my way here via CC and wayfairer and I agree with you 100%.

[jlh.livejournal.com]

Thank you!

[peridots13.livejournal.com]

I've got to agree on that. I've had a aquaitance who was on her way to becoming a friend when I found out her very conservative stance on gay rights. After that, I just couldn't think of her the same way.

[jlh.livejournal.com]

Don't you hate that? It's so disappointing.

[greyandgrey.livejournal.com]

I really think I love you right now!! I'm so tired of this "defence of the traditional family" argument that's been floating around by closed minded phobes who hide behind their religeon to pass a law... no wait: CONSTITUTIONAL AMMENDMENT!!! in a country where there is separation of church and state. We have no excuse for denying the right to marry to two people who are in love!!! No matter their repective genders! It's so nice to see someone who really sees this for what it is, and isn't scared to speak out by Bush's lies that the war in Iraq is the most important thing ever and only he can fix it (never mind that he got us there in the first place)

[blackballoon.livejournal.com]

Oh my Lord. I love your icon.

-Norwegian Bush-loather

that makes me cringe

[(Anonymous)]

I have under numerous times, read articles in the New York Times, or the Post, and read quotes of politicians trying (and failing) to explain their disrespect and disgust of gay marriage. It baffled me (and still), because they were so unable to state what it is that is so wrong, with out going into religion. A couple of weeks ago, I again saw an article about gay marriage, and this time there were web sites listed for their cause. I went to a website (some deafly uncreative name like Republicans for the Discredit of Gay Marriage) and found a list of email adressess. I wrote a few of them simply asking one question: "How does Gay Marriage affect me, personally? What change will my life make once Gaby Marriage is or isn't legal? " And sent it. Well a couple days ago I got back a short, sweet reply: "it's like allowing Pornography to be viewed by children" and "it's just not right". Resisting the urge to write back a long winded, rant I just deleted it. The end. Sometimes, these peoples stupidity just make me want to take a bazooka to the White House.

Re: that makes me cringe

[jlh.livejournal.com]

Well, hopefully this November we will get some relief!

[(Anonymous)]

Posting this as an anonomouse...

I would have voted for Goldwater.

I'm not voting for Bush for many, many reasons, but I would have voted for Goldwater. The Republican Party was different then. Not perfect, but not the mess it is now.

I am a libertarian who has voted Republican, despite my stance on gay rights and abortion in the past because I think less goverment means freedom for everyone in the long run. That would be the logical conclusion, but, of course, the Republicans have been overun by religious fanatics and fascists.

Honestly? I think having a slackjawed fascist like W does the cause more good than harm. Think about it... Kerry and his ilk are going to play to the center and do NOTHING. With W, you have an enemy. You have something to rally the troops around, get people angry. W has done more for the Democratic Party than anyone in recent memory.

Don't know why I am posting this, but sometimes there *is* a wider issue. If there was a candidate who stood a chance of being elected, and was for getting government out of people's lives in general, but not for gay marriage in particular(so long as s/he wasn't for amending the constitution) or abortion specifically, I would vote for him/her. And I have done so in the past.

Not to worry, however, I am done with the Republican Party. The vote in the senate to amend the Constitution was the proverbial final straw. It wasn't so much the gay issue as the wider issue -- amending the Constitution to deny people freedom.

But there you go, I am one of those cruel, heartless, evil capitalist bitches who belives economic freedom is just as important as any other. More important when it is under threat from the Left. Hence, voting for Goldwater had I the chance (forget Khrushchev). Currently, the Right poses the greater threat and I am voting for Kerry. However, I think condemning people for weighing the issues they care about differently than you would is, well, a good way to make them not on your side anymore. Just a thought.

[jlh.livejournal.com]

Well, other than the anonymity, you are pretty much doing what I was asking people to do, by stating your beliefs and standing behind them. That was really what I was saying. You want to vote for Goldwater or whomever, I reckon that's your lookout. I'm glad you take your political responsibility seriously and I respect that a great deal.

Could you point out where you feel that I have condemned people? Because I don't feel that I did, and if others feel the same I want to see it and correct that. Thanks!

[without-me.livejournal.com]

So be honest! Come right out and say, "I'm voting for Bush because I honestly feel that his stance on [insert your issue here] is more important to me and to the future of this country than his stance against gay rights."

Not to mention, his stance against pretty much all civil rights, except those of the Religious Right.

The idea that anyone with the slightest bit of moral self-respect could even consider voting for Bush just... boggles my mind.

Thank you for writing this.

[jlh.livejournal.com]

Thanks!

[mahoni.livejournal.com]

You know, I find it easier to discuss this election with my Bush-supporting Catholic in-laws, because with them I know where I stand. They say things to me like "but think of trying to explain homosexuals to your son!" as a reason to vote for Bush, and I can simply reply, been there, explained that, voting for Kerry. They DO see the importance of this election as a civil rights event; they're just in disagreement as far as whose civil rights are in danger.

It's the people who claim to support gay rights but DON'T believe that the civil rights issue is as important as their bank account, Iraq, etc. that I have trouble with. I can still argue on what I feel is firm ground as far as the other issues, but I keep mentally tripping myself up. I'll be half way through a bit of exposition on Bush's contribution to the national deficit or something, and I lose my train of thought because I'm thinking, wait a minute, do they really think gay rights is a minor issue? Really really? And I always want to bring the conversation back around to that issue, even though it seems like...oh, I don't know, a Romulan trying to talk to a Vulcan. It seems like there should be some common ground, but there is not.

I just have such a hard time computing the logic. If you believe that a repressed group deserves equal rights, and if you understand that the foundation of this country is equal rights, shouldn't a civil rights issue be a huge, and I mean HUGE, factor in deciding your vote?

[jlh.livejournal.com]

One would think. But lots of people think that equal rights means special rights, which is so very frustrating. It's like that thing about supporting something even though you are uncomfortable with it, as opposed to being a limosine liberal, you know?