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

[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

[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.

[adjudicated.livejournal.com]

I agree.

[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. -.-

[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.

[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

[jlh.livejournal.com]

I agree that on this issue, it's less a vote FOR Kerry than one AGAINST Bush. I think Bush is more likely to do things to hurt the movement, while Kerry might not help it much, but I doubt he'd hurt it. I don't think many are voting for Kerry on this issue alone. But I think there are those that are not voting for Bush on this issue alone, like the Log Cabin Republicans, who aren't endorsing him.

[galactagogue.livejournal.com]

you are wise. thanks for saying this.

[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!

[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.

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.

[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.

[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).

[folk.livejournal.com]

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

*vomits*

[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*

[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]

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!

[ivyblossom.livejournal.com]

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

[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.

[wednesdayschild.livejournal.com]

Re: gay rights: I do not trust Howard on this issue one jot - he consistently voted FOR the retention of Section 28 when it was up to be repealed, has not spoken out against the (Tory) council of Kent's addition of a section 28-esque clause even though his constituency is in Kent, and he voted for the ages of consent for homosexual and heterosexual sex to remain unequal.

In fact, I just find Howard to be an absolutely repugnant human being. I'm quite a fan of the commons' debates, and PMQT, and he appalls me consitently. People claim that Kerry flip-flops - they should come and see Howard and the Conservative party. They are so desperate for votes that they are sacrificing all their principles to make policies and promises solely based on the current desires of the majority. Y'know: what'll get us a few more votes? A few nods to the gays and anti-war lobby!

Eh, I don't know. But I don't trust Howard as far as I can kick him, and that's not far at all.

[jlh.livejournal.com]

Meant to include this, sorry:

The amendment won't pass for many reasons, but that's a distraction. There are other rights, like the equal housing and employment, that aren't in law either.

Also, what you're saying is what I wish those who were voting for Bush would say: "I believe that what Bush will do on national security is more important that what he will do on gay rights." That was actually the point of this entire post.

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.)