And how do you suggest we make them “deal with it”???

You call comprimising “bullshit” as if liberals have been comprimising all along. But the fact is, for the past few years liberals haven’t been able to agree on anything. That’s the bullshit here.

I’m not saying that liberals should be comprimising with Republicans, but rather with each other and undecided voters.

Look at what’s been happening in this country for the past three years. Environmental regulations have been gutted, Constitutional protections have been stripped, and yesterday the president signed the first federal restrictions on abortions since Roe. vs. Wade. And all this happened because liberals of all stripes are to too goddamned arrogant or stupid to get along with each other.

The majority of Americans support liberal policies, but they keep electing Republicans. You can blame big business or the media, but the biggest reason is because Republicans don’t shoot themselves in the foot. They agree to disagree because they know that’s the best way to get what they want and the unprecedented success of the Bush Administration’s radical right-wing policies is the proof.

I’m merely stating that, under the law, a gay couple in a civil union would have more visitation and property rights than a heterosexual couple living together who chooses not get married, even under most states’ common law statues.

I’d like to go further and ask: We do all realize that currently, Gay Americans outside of Vermont have nothing right now, right? NO-THING. Not even the right to be there when your partner is sick.

If they have nothing, and Civil Unions are essentially the same thing as a marriage, and the fact is that you can get a civil union and call it whatever you like to your friend, and the only thing preventing alot of people from accepting civil unions is that you are getting hung up on the word marriage, then I don’t see what the harm is in making this compromise in order to enact incredibly revolutionary and completely unprecedented social changes. It’s not wrong to try to make it just a little easier on the squares who aren’t quite ready to call a Gay relationship a marriage.

Sure, it would be great if we could just override the people who feel differently, but we can’t. And don’t forget, there is currently nothing for gay Americans right now, nothing. Going from nothing to almost everything isn’t a compromise, it’s a pretty big success.

The fact is that 20 years ago having this conversation might get you drummed out of politics entirely. Now we have several politicians who are talking openly about their support of Gay Americans. And furthermore, most of America supports a legal arrangement that is in everything but name, a marriage.

So please try to give these guys the benefit of the Doubt before resorting to calling them sellouts. They’re trying, and we’re all trying. But it’s not going to happen overnight, unless we’re willing to go to civil war. Which I’m pretty sure I’m not. At least not now.

I think the Democrats that actually take him seriously think that his policies are too reactionary to ever get him elected, much less get passed through a Republican Congress.

i am growing increasingly sick of this compromise attitude as well. i don’t think that’s how the enemy works (except in the case of them compromising over arnold- but that was all a puppet-show anyway).

Don’t be nieve enough to think that big business, the religious right, poor white people, and libertarians have the exact same agenda. They don’t and their views often overlap because of it. But the reason they get their way more than ours is because they realize they can get more of what they want by working together than bickering among each other. That’s the kind of comprimise I’m talking about. You may see it as selling out, but unless you’re willing to comprimise some of the time, you’re going to lose all the time.

i really don’t think that any significant changes in history have happened through compromise.

What about the Constitution?

but that is once again compromise in the form of a slap in the face to the gay community the same way that the “don’t ask don’t tell” rule was.

Are Civil Unions a bigger slap in the face than the Defense of Marriage Act?

“white” water fountains were basically the same as “black” water fountains in the 50s. but the very fact that there is a seperation is what makes it so goddamned offensive.

i think they should be forced to deal with it. instead of this compromising bullshit.

It’s also going to be nearly impossible to ever study this. How do you control all those factors? Even if you could you would have to study tens of thousands of pregnant women and their hormone levels during their pregnancy and then study their children for decades after their birth to see how they developed. All without letting the participants knowing what you are studying thereby tainting the results. The only other method would be to create gay babies by experiment. That’s hardly ethical.

Of course then you run into the problem of how to fund such a study. Most science funding in one way or the other comes from the government. Not many politicians are going to come out in favor of funding a study that tries to prove that being homosexual is biological. Especially when said study is very expensive and very difficult to pull off.

Instead we’re left to just draw some logical conclusions. From all we know about brain development and the differences in brain function between men, women, straight, gay, and trans-gender people it is a safe assumption to assume their or biological effects to why these differences come about. Of course their is simpler logic. Why in their right mind would anyone choose to be gay?

while i understand greg’s points- small compromising steps toward a greater goal of defeating the enemy. i am growing increasingly sick of this compromise attitude as well. i don’t think that’s how the enemy works (except in the case of them compromising over arnold- but that was all a puppet-show anyway). i really don’t think that any significant changes in history have happened through compromise. maybe ross would know more about the history than me. but i’m pretty sick of compromising myself. i’ve said it before- i think there has to be some more revolutionary changes made in this country, today. the sides are already polarizing- the ignorant, moderates need to be shaken out of their comfort level.

there are so many democrats out there that believe that candidates like kucinich are the best choice, but they are too afraid to take a chance on him. i think that if everyone who was afraid to take that risk, would get behind him- he would be the front-runner. but maybe i’m wrong… maybe the democrats are even too scared of how progressive and liberal a candidate like kusinich is.

i admit i don’t know enough about politics, but i know what i feel on a gut level- and i don’t feel like compromise is the answer. it pisses me off to constantly see all the moderate democrats tearing down and making fun of someone like kucinich.

and as for the gay rights issue… in your post, you talk about how “don’t ask dont’ tell” is bullshit, but then you back the compromising ideas of civil unions? aren’t civil unions the “don’t ask don’t tell ” answer to the issue? that’s bullshit. i understand your point of it being easier to pass a civil unions bill than gay marriage. but that is once again compromise in the form of a slap in the face to the gay community the same way that the “don’t ask don’t tell” rule was.

when you compromise- everyone feels like they sort-of win, but no one really does. and it doesn’t solve the problem, it just perpetuates is so that someone else will have to deal with it in the future. just like bush talking about backing hydrogen fuel as opposed to developing the hybrid technology that we already have- that’s his compromise to somewhat appease the environmentalists, while not actually having to do anything himself.