More Politics

The Human Rights Campaign sponsored another presidential forum. It seems like there are a lot of these forums. The HRC is a very mainstream gay rights organization. They fight battles that are "winnable." This means that for a long time, they were anti-trans (note: trans means "transsexual," "transgendered," etc), because trans issues weren't "winnable" and so they didn't want to try to win rights for all queers. Maybe they would drop lesbians if mysogony became more popular? I'm cynical about the organization although they seem to have kind of come to their senses on including trans people and I give them small donations now.

Anyway, all the Democrats went to see them and answered questions. Only two democrats, Carol Mosley Braun and Dennis Kucinich support legalizing gay marriage in the US and, therefore, presumably, only those two support recognizing gay marriages performed abroad. This means my marriage. Dean, weasley stated that gay marriage is a matter for states to decide and not the federal government. Funny, the Supeme Court did not agree with that in Loving vs. Virginia. Dean, presumably wants to return to a system where marriages would be valid in one state and not others, something that the Supreme Court clearly ruled as unconstitutional when the struck down bans on interracial marriage. But it's not surprising that Dean wants to return to such a system, since he backs civil unions, a seperate-but-(un)equal notion.

Lieberman, closet Republican, would not even go that far, saying that marriage was sacred and gays deserve some rights of marriage, but not all of them, he would pick and choose in office. A right here. A right there. Oh, not that tax one. That's sacred!

Al Sharpton criticized all the weasly, homophobic candidates saying that talking about "gay marriage" this way is like talking about "white marriage" or "black marriage" and implies that queers aren't just folks like everyone else who just want to get married and live their lives. Go Al!

the HRC, again focussing on what's "winnable," gave high marks to all the presidential contenders, even though some of them clearly do not deserve marks as high as others. Kucinich also said that he would appoint a gay, lesbian or trans supreme court justice, provided that he or she would uphold Roe vs Wade. See why I like this guy?

I know all you pro-Dean folks have noble intentions. Maybe you agree with everything he says. Or maybe you don't. Maybe you agree with more progressive views like the Green Party holds or the Kucinich platform. But you're worried about what's "winnable," and want to back somebody with whom you disagree on many issues, but you want to get Bush out. Well, the most "winnable" democrat is Lieberman. He loves blowing things up. He doesn't like gay people. He likes invasive security measures. Heck, he wants to blow more things up. Are we bombing enough? Boy-oh-boy, is Lieberman "winnable."

So what? You're trying to temper "winnablity" against palatablity, is that it? Well a vote for Dean is a vote for Dean's platform is a vote for second class status for queers. If you don't agree, with this, why are you encouraging it? Why not vote for the man or woman who most matches your views? Braun and Kucinich aren't "winnable," but it doesn't matter, cuz they're not going to win. They may even run out of money and drop out before super tuesday. Clearly, Dean is going to be the nominee for 2004. Backing Kucinich now (sadly), will not change who will end up getting the nomination. But it will change the terms of the debate.

the more support the pro-gay marriage, anti-drug war, pro-peace guy gets, the more those issues get discussed and the more the progressive view point is heard and acknowledged. I can hear people thinking, "Middle America is not Progressive." Well, maybe it is and maybe it isn't. If it's not, maybe it's because progressive voices are being censored. You can't agree with what you've never heard. The progressive message will resonate because it makes sense. It's logical. It doesn't use convoluted rhetoric to argue the illogical. Some people might be fooled when Bush says that privatising Medicare will be good for seniors. Most won't. and if Democrats roll over for corporate donations and agree with him, well, why bother voting at all? The plutocrats clearly own everyone, so why cares who wins. This attitude is deadly to Democrats. Only pro-plutocrat people will bother to vote, and they will vote republican.

Getting the progressive message out will save the Democrats. It will bring back Greens. It will bring back apathetic folks. It will start discussions and debates among non-plutocrats who will realize that corporate-drive neo-liberal policies are not good for the country because they not good for people. These activated people will go to the polls in the general election and vote for a Democrat, because they will have heard the progressive message and it will resonate with them. If you want Progressive ideas to come up during the campaign, you have to back a Progressive for the primaries. Whoever gets the nomination will be forced to adopt a progressive stance, which will be good for everyone.

Of course, like Bush, they could pretend to be a Progressive or a Compassionate Conservative and quickly morph back into a bloated plutocrat the second they're sworn in, but a girl can dream, can't she?

Anyway, I'm not voting for anyone who thinks that I deserve fewer rights than they do. Never again.

Kucinich 4 Prez