I disagree that what cost the dems was the association with the gay rights platform. What cost them was the refusal of the party as a whole to meet the republican platform head on. Instead of challenging Bush to deny the fact that his pro "amendment" stance was fueled by homophobia, the dems took a wishy washy stand of not really taking a position at all. The result was that not only did those who DO have a core fear/dislike/disapproval of gays rally behind Bush, those who felt opposite felt disenfranchised. There is absolutely no reason for a legal distinction between marriage between consenting adults based on sex OTHER than a judgment about the kind of sex people are having. Yes many people in this country, a majority I would say (to my shame) object to homosexuality. But not so many are going to publicly admit that they are bigots. Had the democrats simply called Bush's stance what it was, plain old fashioned, right wing, red neck, religious right, anti gay, bigotry and dared people to publicly support that stance, they might still not have won that particular election, but they could have damned well started laying a groundwork for showing what they DO stand for rather than just campaigning for "ABB". Civil Rights can be a very very powerful political tool. It's too bad the Democratic Party doesn't have the balls to take a real stand and use it.
Edited by Una Salus Lillius, 21 February 2006 - 06:26 PM.