Daily political commentary and satire. We encourage your comments and participation!

Thursday, November 04, 2004

Gay Marriage and Elections and Name-Calling and the Future

On some level, this election hinged on Bush's people calling Kerry a fag-lover, and afterwards, Kerry losing a popularity contest on the playground.

First, let me get it out of the way: that's pathetic. What a bunch of homophobic, xenophobic, hateful, scared people we have in this country. And a bunch of them showed up specifically for this election, just cuz of the word "gay." (And "abortion," but that's another article.)

Now that I've said that, I think it was "our" own fault. While Gay Marriage shouldn't be an issue in 2004 in any first-world country, it is. And we know it. And while activists were pushing for gay marriage, Karl Rove was sitting with his gay porn mags, whacking off smugly, knowing that fundies would come to the polls in droves to "love thy neighbor" but "hate the sin" by voting against Kerry and therefore, homos.

I said this back when Gavin Newsom started giving out marriage licenses in San Francisco the year before the election, and I've said it since. We should be concentrating on Civil Unions, the legal rights associated with marriage, and seperating them from the religious elements of the contract that are embedded in our laws. I belive with all my heart that the fundies and homophobes wouldn't have been anywhere near as hateful and scared to come to the polls had the focus been on Civil Unions rather than the word "marriage."

There could be no "Defense of Civil Unions Act."

Sure, ideally everyone should be able to get married. But the more important things in the short run are the legal foundations and winning elections. (Although this lost election may not be all bad... tune in later for why).

In that vein, we are working on a new site, (or com or net) which will be a place for STRAIGHT AND GAY couples to work together to get civil unions enacted.

We are encouraging STRAIGHT couples to demand the right to get civil unions seperate from the religious institutions of marriage that are embedded in law, and do what they want with their churches, synagogues, mosqes or what have you. But the premise is that Civil Unions should be there for everyone, are not just a "gay thing," and with straight couples demanding them for themselves, the process should go faster.

Tune in here or at for more as it happens.


  • At November 6, 2004 at 12:23 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    I think this is a great idea! I am a heterosexual female, and have been with the same man for 20 years. We do not want to get married, and are not religious. I'm not even sure I would personally feel the need for a Civil Union, but I agree that it should be available to everyone, and not just gays. This would also help to bring the implementation of Civil Unions into the mainstreem. Why shouldn't all Americans have CHOICE?

  • At November 8, 2004 at 10:08 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    "We encourage your comments and participation!"

    Wow, Really?

    Funny how you deleted my post mentioning that you guys have spammed me.

  • At November 8, 2004 at 10:49 AM, Blogger DemocracyMeansYou said…

    Well, if you weren't so cowardly as to just post anonymously, or you were smart enough to follow the unsubscription directions in the email you're referring to, we could be sure you're removed from the list. Someone must have added your name to our mailing list cuz they think you're a dick and it would be funny to piss you off. Apparently it worked.

  • At November 8, 2004 at 1:42 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    First, I'm posting anonymously because I don't have an account with blogspot and don't want one. Your implications of cowardice are just immature. How old are you? 15?

    Second, I did follow the directions to unsubscribe. The point is that I never should have got any emails from you to begin with since I did not sign up for them.

    Third, if your email sign-up system doesn't require a response to a confirmation email to get added to the list, it should. Otherwise, you are irresponsible and just asking for people to add others against their will.

    Fourth, getting your spam didn't piss me off because I disagree with your politics. It pissed me off because it is spam and I fucking hate spam.

    You really just need to learn to be more mature and responsible and admit that you have purchased or been given email addresses and started using them to spam people.

  • At November 9, 2004 at 1:26 PM, Blogger DemocracyMeansYou said…

    And, once again, I must point out that I didn't call you a "chicken," which would be "immature," as you insinuate, but a "coward," which you apparently are because you can't even be bothered to send us an email about this which would allow us to remove you from the list you supposedly want to be removed from but would rather try to impugne our site publicly and anonymously.

    (And of course, last time I heard the word "immature" was in about 7th grade, so I suppose I'm a lot further away from 15 years old than you are... Don't stick your tongue out at me, it isn't becoming.)

    So I think the "coward" moniker fits nicely for you.

    Further, as I said, someone thought it was funny to put your name in because apparently you're amusing when you're angry.

    We considered confirmations but we don't want to inconvenience our readers who just want to sign up easily. But I'll think about it again after your suggestions.

    We don't buy, steal, or borrow e-mail addresses. Deal with it: your friends have a better sense of humor than you do.

    I look forward to your non-cowardly e-mail to me through the contact page rather than your continuing childish and whiny postings on my blog. Because I won't respond to them anymore.

  • At November 9, 2004 at 3:26 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    I already emailed you through your contact page. Never got a reply except a message asking me to register with (funny how you are ok with sending spam but not getting it). You can keep calling me a coward all you want. But, the fact of the matter is that I contacted you DIRECTLY to complain and received no response. And, who is the coward here?

    Basically you left me no other choice than to post to your whiney ass blog.

  • At February 18, 2007 at 9:55 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Bush and the Republicans were not protecting us on 9-11, and we aren't a lot safer now. We may be more afraid due to george bush, but are we safer? Being fearful does not necessarily make one safer. Fear can cause people to hide and cower. What do you think? Why has bush turned our country from a country of hope and prosperity to a country of belligerence and fear.
    If ever there was ever a time in our nation's history that called for a change, this is it!
    The more people that the government puts in jails, the safer we are told to think we are. The real terrorists are wherever they are, but they aren't living in a country with bars on the windows. We are.


Post a Comment

<< Home