Comments

  1. lazerlightbeams says

    Why do so many gays who have the privilige of getting married give a big middle finger to other gays who don’t have that freedom? It’s the most self serving thing I’ve ever seen, and it seems to be increasingly happening with our leaders. This is a crying shame!

  2. 2EastCoastDudes says

    Barny Frank, Elton John, The Cheney daughter= disturbing commonality amongst our people. As soon as they lead a comfortable life, they overlook every other LGBT struggling -getting fired, not being able to get married- below them.

    The problem is just that. We don’t HAVE any loyal leaders.

  3. Caliban says

    Maybe I have a different perspective because I live in a “red state,” but yeah, I think the Marriage Equality plank is going to hurt us- bad. There ARE Dems who aren’t there yet and we could lose them in this election, when we need EVERY vote we can get.

    Between having the DNC adopt Marriage Equality, a largely symbolic move anyway, and Barack Obama being reelected instead of Romney winning, I’ll take Obama’s reelection. Maybe I’m wrong. I hope I am. But it seems like an overreach at this time.

  4. PTBoat says

    He’s not arguing against others to have marriage. He’s arguing that the government doesn’t get involved in defining marriage, but that equal protection is guaranteed by the constitution. That’s why it was a court decision.

  5. mld says

    i cannot stand people talking over each other. for christs sake, make the show 1-2 minutes longer and let people conclude their sentences, long winded or not.

  6. MarkUs says

    There’s a new video released by the Obama campaign tonight with our current President sitting at a laptop showing the idiots how to donate money to him. It’s pretty damn funny. “Click here and click here and look what happens. See this is “Address” that’s where you enter your address……”

    LOL. A man in control! A confident man!

  7. ChristopherM says

    I’m with Charley. Republicans have pushed things for years the public opposes, but they got respect as leaders with convictions. If you want people to follow, you need to lead. And Caliban, I live in a red state too, and I can say the president will never get them. If marriage is that important to them, they are a lost cause. Better to fire up the base and get them out than to worry about offending people who won’t vote for you anyway.

  8. Isaac says

    Frank’s frustration was that he thinks Chris Matthews and many in the press are making more of this possible Democratic platform change than what it is. His argument seems to be is that a majority of Democrats ALREADY support SSM and the abolishment of DOMA. The problem is that his understanding of how the process of getting federal marriage equality works is far more subtle (and wonkish) than many people’s understanding. His argument is that it will take the Supreme Court ALONE, and not some law passed by Congress, to have national marriage equality, as with interracial marriage. He’s not saying that marriage equality should happen on a state by state basis, but that by the Supreme Court striking down DOMA, it will effectively abolish any state law forbidding same sex marriage, thus allowing same sex marriage in all states.

  9. Bill says

    What’s really going on here is that Chris Matthews, who seemed like a total ass, was trying to make an issue of something by basically ignoring what Frank was saying.

    Frank claimed that the Democrats had voted overwhelmingly to repeal DOMA and repealing DOMA is the main thing the federal government needs to do. He also pointed out the criteria for marriage has traditionally been left to the states – for example, the minimum age for marriage with or without parental consent, and how closely people can be related and still get married (there are differences between states, mostly in the “off by one” category). He also noted that the courts play a critical role (the previous bans on interracial marriages are an example). If you take the Loving versus Virginia Supreme Court ruling and more or less mechanically substitute gender for race, what you get is equally sensible.

    Now, you may not agree with what Frank said, but the disagreements seem more over tactics than goals. He seems to feel (publicly) that a specific “plank” in the platform regarding same-sex marriage is not necessary given how overwhelmingly Democrats have voted. He may also believe (privately) that downplaying that for a few months is a smart move given the importance of court decisions and that the president gets to nominate Supreme Court justices – what will really set things back is a Romney presidency as Supreme Court appointees have the position for as long as they want.

  10. olterigo says

    Legally, Frank is right – various civil laws did not directly discuss granting of marriage, it was the Court’s doing. And the other two admitted Frank was right. I don’t understand why people here are angry at Frank.

  11. Paul R says

    Know what’s going to matter in the election? The economy. It’s all that ever matters. As others have noted, most Democrats have made their position on marriage abundantly clear. They wouldn’t have made this decision without plenty of polling data showing that it would be at worst a neutral decision.

    My parents are solid Republicans who have voted in every election for the past 50 years and have always voted GOP (don’t blame me!), and they’re sitting this one out because they won’t vote for a Mormon who’s an idiot. Much of the Republican base (especially evangelicals), aside from well-heeled donors seeking more tax breaks from a puppet president, feels the same.

  12. datlaw says

    Barney Frank is completely correct in his legal analysis. There is no precedent for a federal definition of marriage. It just won’t happen. But to say that it is a non-issue is too much. It could hurt the Dems as part of the platform. It also could divide the Dems. Isaac is right. To understand this issue requires a certain legal sophistication, which many people do not have.

  13. andrew says

    @Christopherm: I disagree. There are people in the middle and emotional single issues cause them to tip one way or another. We will know on Nov 7th.

  14. Gary says

    You couldn’t ask for a worse “poster boy” for gay rights than Barney Frank. He’s already hated for his involvement in the Banking fiasco. He stutters and stammers and “has to be right.” Well, weather the Democrats have “balls” or not Chris Matthews is correct. Most are not accepting in many parts of the country and it will hurt the vote for the Democrats. Barney Frankly, I’d love to see gay marriage implode. Be good tomorrow. And good luck with your ridiculous chicken attack.

  15. Gary says

    You couldn’t ask for a worse “poster boy” for gay rights than Barney Frank. He’s already hated for his involvement in the Banking fiasco. He stutters and stammers and “has to be right.” Well, weather the Democrats have “balls” or not Chris Matthews is correct. Most are not accepting in many parts of the country and it will hurt the vote for the Democrats. Barney Frankly, I’d love to see gay marriage implode. Be good tomorrow. And good luck with your ridiculous chicken attack.

  16. Gary says

    You couldn’t ask for a worse “poster boy” for gay rights than Barney Frank. He’s already hated for his involvement in the Banking fiasco. He stutters and stammers and “has to be right.” Well, weather the Democrats have “balls” or not Chris Matthews is correct. Most are not accepting in many parts of the country and it will hurt the vote for the Democrats. Barney Frankly, I’d love to see gay marriage implode. Be good tomorrow. And good luck with your ridiculous chicken attack.

  17. Josh says

    You couldn’t ask for a worse “poster boy” for gay rights than Barney Frank. He’s already hated for his involvement in the Banking fiasco. He stutters and stammers and “has to be right.” Well, weather the Democrats have “balls” or not Chris Matthews is correct. Most are not accepting in many parts of the country and it will hurt the vote for the Democrats. Barney Frankly, I’d love to see gay marriage implode. Be good tomorrow. And good luck with your ridiculous chicken attack.

  18. Josh says

    You couldn’t ask for a worse “poster boy” for gay rights than Barney Frank. He’s already hated for his involvement in the Banking fiasco. He stutters and stammers and “has to be right.” Well, weather the Democrats have “balls” or not Chris Matthews is correct. Most are not accepting in many parts of the country and it will hurt the vote for the Democrats. Barney Frankly, I’d love to see gay marriage implode. Be good tomorrow. And good luck with your ridiculous chicken attack.

  19. says

    Most voters don’t pay attention to what is in the party platform, and most voters who would consider voting for Obama aren’t going to not vote for him because of what is in the platform. (His announcement of personal support for equality received a lot of press but little outcry from anyone who wasn’t already in the Repub camp.) And any who did would be offset by people grateful that the Dem’s have balls and are actually standing up for what they believe in. And that is the significant thing: in 2012 the mainstream Democratic position is marriage equality. That doesn’t mean every single Democrat will be on board, but most are or will be soon, while their Republican colleagues slip further out of the mainstream.

    For marriage to happen federally, DOMA needs to fall, and that will happen in the courts. That and few more plausible states (we’ll reach a dead end there soon) and we can hope that the tipping point happens sooner rather than later.

  20. says

    Oopsie, Gary/Josh, better keep your names straight or people *might* suspect you’re a troll. But, kudos, you’ve just confirmed that the Mitt trolls are as incompetent as Mitt himself. Ha! And thanks for the laugh, now go mop up your multiple personalities.

  21. says

    So to those of you saying democrats shouldnt proclaim marriage equality as a platform because “a majority is against gay marriage”

    Well then, with that logic… Why should President Obama say he’s for gay marriage? Or ANY politician? Or why should any elected official even TOUCH gay marriage??? I mean “a majority is against it” so why even bother. Let’s not have anyone in office even touch gay marriage until the country comes around. Would that please the minority of you who’d rather marriage equality not be brought up?

  22. Ryan says

    @ MusicFlava
    Amen! If it’s too risky for the democratic platform, then the argument could be made that it’s too riskey for any potential politician to be for gay marriage, so don’t act frustrated when they are against it. After all, some of you are arguing it’s not time yet to pass it because it’s not time for some people.

  23. says

    And a majority of the country may be against the right of some minorities to VOTE. I didn’t know our politics and politicians should ALL be based on majority and only what the majority demands, and not taking a firm stance on some issues here & there

  24. CrownLa La says

    “Josh” “Gary” (and all your other screenames)

    You just got busted. You’ve been peaking your UGLY hetero head on every story trying to belittle the pro gay angle while antagonizing our side. May that Chik Fil A cost a heart attack for every single member in your family, including your children boo boo

  25. JP says

    Of course marriage equality should be on the platform. It is 2013. The lives of gay people in this country have been stripped of us in this nation that drains LGBT of our taxes yet takes THOUSANDS of rights away from us. It is infuriating that a group of people can lawfully be so discriminated, but the democratic party is in the right direction to acknowledge of who we are as a people and THAT IS important!

  26. says

    A leader should lead on values and principles that are RIGHT. Gay marriage is the RIGHT thing to do. Whether most in the south or midwest recognize why, is not the responsibility of our electe officials. It is their responsibility to promote a society where our freedoms are EQUAL.

  27. Lielan says

    There will always be a considerable portion of the population against us, but they shouldnt be the ones that carve our destiny in stone. We don’t put the rights of minority groups in the hands of bigots. We aspire to protect all and not overlook a portion of our population when the arguments against their livelihood are baseless.

  28. Steve-ATL says

    Good for the democratic party. It wasn’t convenient nor easy for millions of LGBT to support the democratic party. To petition, to dig in our pockets, but we stuck our neck out and have been instrumental in helping many a democratic campaigns. It’s appropriate and even necessary that at this point, they’d return the favor

  29. Pollie says

    See for farrr too long, we were ghosts for both parties. Republicans new they weren’t getting us, so they ignore us. Democrats KNOW they got our votes locked down, and for the longest while, they didn’t do anything for us. FINALLY, there was a motivating shift in the gay community where we told democrats “no, we won’t contribute to your party or pay or even vote unless you listen to our concerns”
    I appreciate that tenacity and I certainly hope we dont cowardly go back to being an ignored group. We deserve to have our issues, concerns and desires to be discussed at the dinner table too

  30. AthleticSupporter says

    You know, for everytime I have to turn on the news and hear about the latino vote, the black vote or the women vote… Guess what, this party owes it’s GAY voters the dignity and respect we deserve. Gay marriage is part of that equation. We don’t qualify not promoting a cause for any other demographic based on what the majority thinks, but when it comes to gays, we can legally be fired in many states and thats still legal, proving the problem isnt that too much risk is being taken for us, but that not enough is.

  31. AthleticSupporter says

    Gary/Josh also signs with a handle known as Andrew where ALLhe contributes to the thread is “homophobes have every right to be homophobic” completely missing the point of our argument and trying to silence us. The trolls are just sooo transparent that’s not even fun anymore.

  32. Randy says

    3:10 “no federal law”.

    The US Constitution is federal law.
    US Supreme Court decisions are federal law.

    What he means is no federal legislation.

  33. john patrick says

    Gary/Josh…we got your message the first time. Saying the same thing over and over doesn’t give it more weight.

    I agree with Barney Frank. Marriage has been typically regulated by the states, not by the federal government. But the federal government tried to change all that when they passed DOMA and are doing what they do not do for any other legally recognized marriage – refusing to recognize the marriages that are legal in certain states and denying federal benefits to those marriages that are legal. That is why the courts are declaring DOMA invalid. The federal government is discriminating against certain marriages just because the partners are the same gender.

    It is up to the Supreme Court to legalize same sex marriage if the states keep dragging their feet, just as the Supreme Court legalized interracial marriages in all states. The court declared that marriage is a basic human right.

    As far as the plank in the Democratic platform is concerned – when is the last time anyone really knew what the planks in either party’s platform were, unless they had been working to get them enacted or were political geeks? I doubt very much that anyone who was seriously considering voting for Obama or other Democratic candidates will be turned off by a marriage equality plank if they oppose marriage equality. But those who are looking for the party to stand for something might be more inclined to come out and vote.

    After all, Obama came out for marriage equality weeks ago, and support for marriage equality in the country has risen. Also, he still leads in the polls in a number of swing states. Furthermore, lots of LGBT people, and others supporting marriage equality, voted for McCain and Bush though they ran against marriage equality.

    The two factors that might throw the election are the unlimited ads that Citizens United allows billionaires to run lying about candidates and issues, and the attempts at voter suppression in states controlled by the Republican party.

  34. SoLeftImRight says

    Does anyone give a rat’s ass what is in either party’s platform? The only people who care about such things are party junkies who have already made up their minds as to how they’re voting. They’re not binding, they’re not even really important.

    No one refers to party platforms on the campaign trail. It’s a nice symbolic gesture, but it’s fairly meaningless in the larger scheme of things.

  35. ratbastard says

    Frank was the chief of staff for one of Boston’s most corrupt mayoral administrations. Just one of the scandals involved the vice-mayor [like Frank at the time,a closeted gay man] gave a young bartender/hustler a well paying no-show patronage city job which went on for years. I mention this because this is a gay blog, but this was a minor scandal compared to the other forms of corruption that went on.

    Frank’s congressional district should be used for ‘Gerrymandering for Dummies’.

    People, ALL people, gay, str8, whatever, need to stop hero worshipping and putting other humans on pedestals. The emperor has no clothes.

  36. ratbastard says

    @Gene Touchet,

    In Matthew’s defense, he needs to be lively and animated as the host. Much of the subject matter is in fact dry and boring. Watch a lot of PBS? There’s a reason why those Saturday Night Live skits with Alec Baldwin were so funny.

    Frank no doubt understands how Congress works inside and out, he should leave running a ‘news’ talk show to Matthews, but of course Frank is a pompous over-bearing know-it-all and can’t help himself.

  37. says

    @ josh: everything else you said aside, are you really going to use the man’s stuttering as some kind of argument against him? take 5 minutes to learn a) what stuttering(/related fluency disorders) is, and b) the politicians, entertainers, and other great minds who stutter. dysfluency has absolutely zero correlation with someone’s intellect, competence, political affiliation, or anything else you may have been trying to suggest. try starting here:
    http://www.stutteringhelp.org/five-myths-about-stuttering
    http://www.stutteringhelp.org/did-you-know
    http://www.stutteringhelp.org/famous-people-who-stutter

  38. Dan says

    It is very upsetting to see comments by people upset with Barney. Clearly they do NOT understand what he was saying. I’m not a lawyer, but I do have a fundamental understanding of the Constitution and the history of Civil Rights legislation. Here goes: In the 1960’s the Federal Government – namely the legislative branch – that’s Congress – voted for legislation banning discrimination in places of public accommodation based on the power of Congress to regulate interstate activity. At the time many states in the South had laws outlawing interacial marriage about which the Federal legislature (Congress again) had no jurisdiction, as this was something the States regulate. In the 1967 Supreme Court case Loving v Virginia, the Federal Supreme Court ruled that Virginia’s anti-miscegenation statute violated both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Despite that it took until 2000 until all the States had removed those statutes from their books. The Federal Congress does not have the power to regulate marriage (the basis of the lawsuits against DOMA) but the Court has the power to tell the States when their laws violate sections of the Constitution – Loving v Virginia being the precedent. It’s a little tricky to understand the law and the Constitution, but not so tricky that you should blunder into an attack on Barney Frank. He’s not saying other States shouldn’t join Massachusetts, he’s explaining what the gay rights movement and every legal expert understand – namely the legal mechanisms from which marriage equality will legally become a reality in all 50 States – by an eventual Supreme Court decision. Shame on Chris Matthews for not shutting up long enough for Barney to explain it.

  39. andrew says

    @He Jockstrap: No Gary/Josh posts things in my name. You are right when you say that as an American I believe that homophobes have the right to be homophobic. And nobody is trying to silence you. You seem to be a bit paranoid. I happen to believe that the most important thing progressives of ever stripe have to do is re-elect Pres Obama in november. Anything that interferes with that goal should be avoided.

Leave A Reply