Lonegan: Gays Share Conservative Values

[Conan]

Democrats, on the other hand, are comparatively of a much more more progressive inclination, even if they are taking an incrementalist, rather than radical, approach to the issue

For what it's worth, if civil rights were given to African Americans incrementally throughout the last few decades rather than through swift and decisive legislative/judicial action, Mississippi would still have segregated water fountains and anti-miscegenation laws would still exist.

If gays blindly continue to support Democrats, little will change.

Personally, I think the best thing gays can do is to go out of their way to support Republicans who are even mildly supportive of gay rights (and no, Steve Lonegan is not even mildly supportive of gay rights), and withhold support from Democrats who are not.  The biggest problem I have with Hillary Clinton is that I'm sure she's personally for gay marriage, but is publically against it because it's easier to get elected by hedging on the issue.

And I should go head over heels to vote for her?  F*** that.

Actually, civil rights for blacks were incrementally given over decades, so that doesn't make sense. Also, while Corzine is on record as a civil unions supporter, and we all know he actually supports gay marriage, he will sign gay marriage into law and it will probably happen next year too.

While I have very high regard for Corzine otherwise, the most disappointing thing he has ever done was go back on his previously stated support for gay marriage.

Because he was scared of having it used as an issue by Doug Forrester.  I mean, seriously.

Democrats had absolutely no clue that there would be any kind of backlash from the BlueJersey types when they punted on gay marriage last year.  They had absolutely no guts to pass gay marriage when they had plenty of cover from the NJ Supreme Court to do so.  All because they cared more about their jobs than pushing equality.  (Someone needs to sit these selfish gays down and explain to them that re-election Jeff Van Drew and Ellen Karcher is more important than their court-mandated equal rights, damn it!)

I would be very surprised if the legislature has the courage to take it up again on their own.  They have plenty of reason to—their separate but equal solution isn't even close to being equal, even by the legislators' initial intent—but I suspect they won't.  You'd need real, fundamental change in the Senate/Assembly leadership first.

Cause honestly, they could barely give two sh**s about gay rights.

Sen. Lesniak who used to not support gay marriage just switched to support gay marriage. He wrote about it on his NJ.com blog. You are right though. They didn't pass gay marriage because of the elections. It's better that it not be a hot topic and wait until after so that people can realize, hey, what do we have to lose over this? The next legislature will have more people in support of gay marriage too. I'd also like to show you a different take on civil unions. I think it actually helps in the argument of gay marriage. It gives politicians with recorded stances on the issue cover in that it has been a failure, having been so many complaints from people and business opposition over the text of the law (UPS). I think some members of leadership have said they will bring it up.

http://blog.nj.com/njv_raymond_lesniak/2007/08/why_not_gay_marriage.html

[Democratic Hawk]

The problem with supporting the lesser of two evils is that you're still supporting evil.

Nothing ever changes that way.

Nothing is going to ever change overnight as far as gay marriage is concerned. Change can only come as attitudes change. That could take a generation or two

Nevertheless, my point is that Democrats are, generally, more progressive/liberal on the issue than Republicans, even if political expediency dictates that many Democrats, who seek elective office, must tread cautiously on it. Rome wasn't built in a day

Dave

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

The problem with supporting the lesser of two evils is that you're still supporting evil.

Nothing ever changes that way.

Nothing is going to ever change overnight as far as gay marriage is concerned. Change can only come as attitudes change. That could take a generation or two

Nevertheless, my point is that Democrats are, generally, more progressive/liberal on the issue than Republicans, even if political expediency dictates that many Democrats, who seek elective office, must tread cautiously on it. Rome wasn't built in a day

Dave

I agree with Dave completely here. This is about political reality, the majority of people I feel don't actively oppose same-sex marriage - I think it makes them uncomfortable. These are the people who need to be convinced, and a candidate who is pragmatic and while they may privately support full legal recognition, knows that they will have a very hard time getting elected having that position.

Which would you rather? A republican who would NEVER sign a gay-marriage bill or A democrat who might.

It's a bit like that line in Primary Colors "yeah, I want to fight the good fight then see a Republican elected"

[The Duke]

If you're going to choose political expediency, fine.  That's a fair thing to do.  It is not Democrats responsibility to throw away elections over a losing fight.  But you don't get to them turn around and claim to be fighting for gay rights!

You can do what is expedient and ignore gay rights, or you can embrace gay rights and be the noble loser.  You don't get the credit for supporting gay rights if you're going to choose the path of expediency and oppose gay rights in fact.  You have to pick between winning and standing up for your principles.  You can't credibly have both.

[HardRCafé]

Someone here underestimates the value of disingenuous lip service!

[The Duke]

Someone here underestimates the value of disingenuous lip service!

Clearly.

And some others here have fallen victim to disingenuous lip service.

[HardRCafé]

Victim and willing accomplice are two entirely different things.

[DanielX]

What the homosexual voters really needs to do is be swing voters. That way, both parties will have to cater to their every whim...