CommunityPam's House Blend

Images of the Dems and Repugs, courtesy of Democracy Corps

I was surfing at DKos and this story on a post-election analysis of the major parties by Democracy Corps caught my eye. It’s worth a read. [I uploaded it, and it’s here.] Note that this is the product of centrist, establishment Dems: (John Kerry master campaign destroyer) Bob Shrum, Stanley Greenberg and James Carville. The standout stat:

Democracy Corps found the following to be the leading negative Dem attributes:

(1) Support for Gay Marriage – 32%

(2) No Strong Direction – 30%

(3) Support for Legalized Abortion – 28%

(4) Big Spending and Gov’t Programs – 25%

(5) High Taxes – 24%

(6) Don’t Back a Strong Military – 21%

(7) Too Dependent on Minorities – 20%

(8) Weak on Terror – 16%

The Dems cannot go Repug on this one, or put their heads in the sand about civil rights issues, including gay rights. Gay citizens, I might add, have given over and over in both time and money to the party. With few exceptions, most establishment Dems have run screaming from the gay issue.

All I see in that 32% number is a lack of education targeted at the public about what civil rights for gay citizens really are.

While folks here and elsewhere in the blogosphere pontificate and speculate about how to “win”, LGBT people all over this country, in states are amending constitutions, are the real losers. These are real people, with families, subject to the punishment of permanent second-class status with these state marriage amendments.

Is the position of the Democratic party “Sorry, we wanted to leave it up to the states so we could get elected?” Continuing the punt of “marriage is between a man and a woman — so there’s no need for a constitutional amendment” — unless the courts see otherwise just doesn’t fly. Folks in that 32% correctly see through that as a lack of a position — just as gays do.

The last time that the LGBT community rallied around a Dem in the White House, we got DADT and DOMA. That’s hardly a ringing endorsement of support.

Is it A-OK with the Democratic party for the US to have “gay ghetto” states where gay citizens can achieve partial civil rights? What about those that cannot afford to move? Where does that leave those citizens?

Previous post

Ms. Julien on Hillary and a wakeup call for progressives

Next post

Happy Birthday to Katie

Pam Spaulding

Pam Spaulding