I urge everyone in Massachusetts who believes that gays and lesbian people should have the same civil rights as straight people to vote for Martha Coakley on Tuesday!

By posting my support for Martha Coakley on my Facebook Page I set off a storm of discussion. Some of it is really good, so I thought I would post it here in it’s entirety! I have given to listing anyone but myself by initial to protect their privacy.

Scott Fisher I urge everyone in Massachusetts who believes that gays and lesbians should have the same civil rights as straight people to vote for Martha Coakley on Tuesday!

A: As much as i do believe that should be the case i refuse to even think of voting for that witch sorry i dont need a duval patrick in the senate

Scott Fisher: I don’t like any of them really!

M: I don’t think it will make a difference if you vote 1 way or the other…

N: Something I came upon….if you’re interested….

http://www.queerty.com/in-defense-of-scott-brown-why-the-gays-should-embrace-or-at-least-not-smear-this-anti-gay-politico-20100114/

Trust me I am for equality and don’t think anyone should tell you what is love and what constitutes a marriage but I hope you truly inform yourself about Coakley and what it will really mean for Mass if she is elected before you vote for her just to spite Brown…..

M: We will all be grads making min. wage with coakley and obamacare health care reform!

G: N., can’t get your link to open. Sounds like it would be good reading.
Marc, you are right about Obummer Health Care Reform. If it was really good for the country they would let everybody read it before they tried to pass it at 11:30 PM.

K: And if it were really good for America I imagine they wouldn’t have to bribe Senators to get their vote.

A: From that article( above link):
Unfortunately there are far too many folks in this country who deserve the label anti-gay, and some of those folks are politicians. Indeed some people in this country make a living demonizing gay people and our families. However, attaching the label “anti-gay” to every single politician or person who is not 100 percent aligned with the political agenda of the gay left is not only unfair but wildly counter-productive. In the case of Scott Brown, the gay left is guilty of being little more than the partisan boy who cried wolf.

There is so much more at stake here – please, restore the balance of power – and vote for Scott Brown.

N: Well said Ann…..it is time for a real change!

J: @A and N, sorry pro-DOMA equals anti gay, it’s really hard to dress that up any other way.

Scott Fisher: Wow! I love all this discussion! Facebook is is awesome! As to the blog stated above, comparing Brown to others who are against gay equality and therefore somehow making him OK, that is really silly to me. He is not running against them, but Martha Coakley, who has a definite record of support for gay issues. Here are some facts about Scott Brown:
He does not support Gay Marriage. In 2004, Scott Brown voted for the Travis amendment that would ban gay marriage in Massachusetts. In 2007, Brown voted in favor to place a proposed constitutional amendment on the statewide ballot after gay marriage was already legal since 2004. If that went through, it is possible that thousands of gay and lesbian couples could suddenly become unmarried or be in limbo like so many in California are now when a similar ballot question was allowed in that state. Brown has clearly stated that he does not support gay marriage but civil unions. He has stated that the issue is now settled in Massachusetts, but not from any of his help, and he has given zero support for marriage equality on the national level, nor would one expect him to. I can’t even begin to tell you the horrible feeling some of us had in 2007 when our marriage was threatened to be dissolved and Scott Brown, an elected official, thought that was acceptable! That fact alone is enough to let any self respecting gay person not vote for the man!
Given his stance we cannot expect him to support the repeal of The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), meaning that my marriage is only recognized in some states! I can go to Rhode Island and not be married! How is that acceptable again, Scott?
Here are some facts about Martha Coakley regarding marriage equality: As Attorney General she publicly opposed the 2007 proposed marriage amendment that would ban gay marriage in Massachusetts after it was already legal.
In 2009, Martha Coakley made history when she filed a lawsuit against the U.S. government challenging the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). The lawsuit states that DOMA undermined states’ efforts to recognize marriages between same-sex couples, and “codified an animus towards gay and lesbian people.”
Even Martha Coakley’s Web site carefully specifies the gay and lesbian issues that still need work (a full repeal of DOMA and ’don’t ask, don’t tell,’ the military’s ban on gays and lesbians serving openly, as well as protection against hate crimes and ending housing discrimination), acknowledging that the struggle for equal rights and equality is far from over. Scott Brown’s website has zero support of lesbian and gay issues…not even support of civil unions which he claims to favor.
If you have read this far… you are amazing! My whole point of the original status post was that if you were to vote for the candidate that bests supports gay and lesbian equality.. there is only one choice and that is Martha Coakley. Many have written about other issues that I could debate you on, but my status update is merely to inform you on this one issue that affects my” life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” very deeply. To many of you there are a lot of other issues that are more important and I get that, I really do. Everyone prioritizes what is best for them. After years of struggle and discrimination, I hope you all understand that what I believe to be my civil rights would be a priority to me. Many of you do not know the history of gay rights, nor as a straight person would anyone expect you to, but if you want to learn more I am always open to discussion! No matter what your feelings are, get out and vote on Tuesday!

J: Way to go Scott!

K: @A – I disagree. this isn’t the political agenda of the gay left, it is the political agenda of all gay men and lesbians. To me, Coakley has challenged DOMA, and Brown supports it. End of discussion. To vote for Brown is simply to vote against GLBT interests.

A: If all you have to worry about is your sexuality, then I guess that’s the way you’ve got to vote. I’m more concerned with keeping America the country I grew up in – and remember, Scott, while my ‘marriage’ is recognized in all 50 states (and yours should be, too), G and I are ‘civil unioned’. No religious overtones in our ceremony, except the mutual love of Nature. Nature is my church – now bring that up in a Christian meeting and see what kind of reaction you get. There are all kinds of discrimination. Being free enough to fight for rights should come before anything else.

K: It’s not about sexuality it’s about equal rights. Isn’t that freedom? I’m so fucking tired of people talking about freedom when they blatantly exclude gay men and women. “America is all about freedom” and “freedom isn’t free” That is, unless your gay or lesbian, then freedom to marry isn’t really a freedom. Some straight people still cannot see this in 2010.

J: @A I’m not so much worried about my sexuality as my civil liberties and my ability to live my life as your equal under the law. I’m not sure how voting for Scott Brown will help maintain the country you grew up in. The country I grew up in, and the one I live in now is one where the Republican party routinely scapegoats gays and lesbians to enlist the support of cranks and bigots. As Scott said, there are other issues out there, but I can’t think of a single one that justifies the Republican, and Brown’s track record discrimination.

Scott Fisher: A.,  you are still married, you have a civil marriage and that is the wording. You did not get a “civil union license”. Your marriage is also recognized in all 50 states and Scott Brown does not support that for gay and lesbian people. Your marriage is also recognized by the federal government, while mine is not. You are entitled to far more rights and privileges than I have even though we have the same license. It is not about sexuality, but equality and that is more important to me than say, healthcare. In fact without marriage equality i get slammed on healthcare too. If I move to a state that does not support gay marriage, Mike and I may not be able to get healthcare together, while you are protected wherever you go. Not to mention you are entitled to G’s social security, while I would not be entitled to Mike’s. There are over 1000 rights having nothing to do with sexuality that marriage grants you and I am not entitled to. I also hope to God we don’t go back to an America in which I grew up in. An America where I would be labeled as mentally ill (1973, APA), black people couldn’t marry white people (1967, Loving vs Virgina) and women died at the hand of back alley abortionists (1973, Roe vs Wade). We have far more freedom than we have ever had in history, and I definitely do not want to go back to my childhood America.

M: go Scott, go!

G: Great post Scott. Because of Coakley’s dismal record as a AG and her actions in the past couple of weeks she’s almost pushing SB into the office herself. I’ve seen polls today that put SB over Coakley by 11%. Word is getting out about her connections, voting record and elitist remarks she herself has said in recent interviews. One blunder after another. Talk about watching a train wreck ?
I saw a political poll on Channel Five last night about the issues that were important to potential Massachusetts voters. Unfortunately gay rights wasn’t even listed. Health Care and the economy were the top two and between them that took care of 65% or so of the voters.
Many voters who think we need health care reform don’t think railroading it through at 11:00 PM is what our forefathers would have approved of. Asking law makers to vote on an 1200 page law without allowing them to read it is beyond unethical. This added to the sweetheart deals though out the health care bill has made many Americans aware that our government has to stop spending money we can no longer borrow from China.
Martha Coakley has committed political suicide by endorsing her party’s overspending and Obama’s poor performance so far. She’s going to learn the hard way that even in this liberal state voters are sick of the same old business as usual.
I’m sorry your rights are discounted by politicians on both sides of the aisle. I can see you have a long road ahead of you. I myself was surprised to read in the link above that Obama and Scott Brown were in agreement on gay marriage.

Scott Fisher: Actually Scott Brown does not really come out and support civil unions as President Obama does. Scott accepts it as default and has never promised to fight for them and in fact supported the original Travers bill that excluded civil unions. His website makes no mention of support for civil unions and clearly states he wants states to make up their own mind. His support is very flimsy at best. My only goal is to point out the truth about Scott Brown on LGBT issues. He is a poor choice for civil rights, while Martha Coakley has been amazing in that area, as was Ted Kennedy. He probably will win, which is not good for gay people in any way shape or form…and that is all I want people to know. I am a registered independent, but for any gay person, or those that really understand gay civil rights to vote republican at this time is suicide. The current republican party has shown that we are second class citizens. As J. wrote in another post, it would be like “Chickens voting for Col Sanders!”

G: I’ll have to take your word on it Scott. I was just going on what was written about Obama and Scott Brown in the above link. Sounded like BOTH of them wanted states to make up their own mind. I also thought the gay community felt betrayed because Obama failed to keep some of his campaign promises to them ? Is that true ?
If Scott Brown does win I can think of one reason why it WILL be good for the gay community. Politicians will finally see they have to start paying more attention to the people who they work for and less attention on lobbyist . Martha Coakley and Ted Kennedy might have been good to the gay community but America is in no position to afford their spending habits.
After seeing what Democrats in both House tried to pull with this health care bill it’s clear for all to see they also view us as second class citizens. I can see where you are coming from and respect your opinion but Martha Coakley has made her bed already on this election. Her past actions and recent comments clearly show that she’s in serious need of the reality check she’s about to get on Tuesday.

Scott Fisher: I give President Obama a C+ on gay issues, but he has actively come out in support for us on some of them. Scott Brown has a zero support record. Here are some links on the President’s stance:
http://lesbianlife.about.com/od/lesbianactivism/p/BarackObama.htm

http://articles.sfgate.com/2008-07-02/news/17171328_1_same-sex-marriage-civil-unions-ban-on-gay-marriage

You don’t have to take my word for anything and I hope that you wouldn’t. Do a web search on the president’s record of support on many gay issues. Do a search on Scott Brown and you will not find any!

Has President Obama done everything he promised? absolutely not! Has Scott Brown made any promises to the gay community? Absolutely not! President Obama has stated he would let the states decide on gay marriage, but supports national civil unions. Scott Brown would let the states decide on both. They are really not the same thing. President Obama at least has a some what positive position while again Scott Brown has none. Again it is of no use to compare the two as they are not running against each other. President Obama was clearly a better choice over McCain for gay people,  just as Martha Coakley is.

I keep trying to focus this on the gay rights issue as again I believe that is more important for my future. If you aren’t affected by it, then it isn’t going to be a priority. This is a perfect example of why civil rights should NEVER be decided on a state by state basis or by popular vote! We are equal or we are not.

I really would prefer to debate democratic spending at another time as I think a thorough in depth look at the Republican party would show that they currently do not have a much better track record. They had almost 8 years of unchecked power and increased, not decreased our national debt. Government expanded, not decreased during the Bush years as did spending. The Iraq war began under Bush( currently 1.05 trillion), so did TARP (700 billion). The facts just don’t support that the Republican Party does any better managing spending than the Democratic Party. The health care system is broken, the current plan stinks, but republicans don’t even want to fix it. Many Republicans have stated that they would oppose any change to the heathcare system.
http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/08/24/the-republican-partys-no-line-on-health-care/

I believe in evidence and support for any argument. There is definite evidence of support around gay rights issues. I don’t see much evidence that spending will slow down should A or B get elected. I hope that if Scott Brown wins everyone will hold him and the Republican party accountable to decrease spending and lower health care costs, because we can’t count on them for equal rights at this time. Again progress has been made regarding equal rights and is much more measurable than whether which candidate is going to “change the way Washington does business”.  There is no way that anyone who does the research can say that Scott Brown is supportive of equal rights for gays and lesbians. I hope that those who vote for him will fight against discrimination in other ways, because they have no support from him.

T: Bravo Scott. You rock.

G: Guess I did a horrible job explaining myself. I hope you don’t think I was trying to imply SB was supportive to the gay community ? I was just referring to the article that claimed there wasn’t much of a difference between the two.
We can discuss spending at another time but please remember Democrats overwhelmingly voted to support Bush’s bad spending habits and going into Iraq. Plenty of blame to go around in those long eight years. FTR, I never voted for the clown.LOL
Also it is untrue that Republicans opposed any changes in healthcare. Many were VERY willing to vote in changes. That has never been in question. The problem most of them had was they were never given a chance to review the bill they were suppose to be voting on. Is that being unreasonable? After what happened with the failed Stimulus Bill I’d want to read a few of those over 2000 pages myself. If it’s such a great bill why are they so afraid of letting people know what’s in it ? I think everybody knows the answers to this.
I’m going to bed……have a great weekend !!!

J: Scott, you are a god, I am in awe of your ability to state the truth.

Scott Fisher: From my understanding neither democrat nor republican ever read all the bills,  and many have come out publicly and stated that. There are republicans that have come out and said they would oppose any legislation proposed by the Democrats (remember DeMint’s Waterloo statement?)
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/25163.html

Everyone is not in agreement that the Stimulus bill has been a failure and it is way too early to tell. I have many friends who have benefited by the extension of unemployment benefits alone! Obama said the recovery act “wasn’t designed to restore the economy to full health on its own, but to provide the boost necessary to stop the free fall.” The Bureau of Labor and Statistics on January 8th stated that as of “December, both the number of unemployed persons, at 15.3 million, and the unemployment rate, at 10.0 percent, were unchanged.” So perhaps the recovery act has slowed the downfall, the stock market is definitely on the upswing!
When the Republicans were in full power they did not reach across the aisle from what I can find out at all! In my opinion if the democrats pushed a healthcare bill through without any input,we would have a good healthcare bill with a solid public option. I wish they could run unchecked and see what mess they make of it for at least as long as the republicans did! I want radical change. I wish we could get rid of the two party system and just vote in people based on their merits and not their affiliation! Both sides “are to blame” as you have said, and again I don’t think we can believe what any of them can really do or want to do on financial matters. I don’t believe that President Obama wants this country to fail and he was handed a mess to deal with. Again equal rights is easy to follow AND easy to fix! I think we should fix things that we know we can!

Scott Fisher: P.S. You can read the stimulus bill if you want online since last year!
http://readthestimulus.org/index.php?

And if you want all the latest on where the money is going check out the official website:
http://www.recovery.gov/Pages/home.aspx

Scott Fisher: Thanks T. and J.! I really try to seek out the truth and will be the first to modify my statement if I am found out to be incorrect. The rhetoric that is thrown out today is crazy on both sides! People just repeat what they hear and even with this information age, it is so difficult to try to find accurate information.

And no hard feelings Cousin G. and A.! I love the debate!

G: No hard feelings Scott. because like yourself I’m an Independent and unhappy with politicians on both sides of the aisle. Like I said before there’s plenty of blame to go around over the mess we’re in.
The problem most voters have with the healthcare bill is how differently it has been handled compared to bills in the past. The stimulas bill WAS reviewed before it was voted on but the healthcare bill never was made available to be reviewed. The sweetheart deals within it are enough to turn anyone’s stomach . Pelosi and Reid tried to ram this bill through without letting their fellow lawmakers see what they were voting on. That in itself is inexcusable behavior on many levels. Coakley’s support of this kind of behavior is one of the main reasons she is in danger of not winning this Tuesday. Potential voters are fed up with how things have turn out since Obama got elected. Hence his extremely low approval ratings.
The Stimulus Bill has already proved itself to be a dismal failure on many fronts. The shovel ready construction projects we were all promised have been few and far between and only have affected a handful of workers nationwide. Because I work in the industry and know so many people who do I can see this first hand. If you remember correctly Obama promised the American public much quicker and better results than have been produced so far. That was his excuse to push the bill through so quickly.
The unemployment statistics you quoted don’t include people who no longer qualify for benefits and have fallen through the cracks. They also don’t count people like myself who are “Under Employed” and no longer working full time. Many of the Stimulus Bill jobs that WERE created are part time but are tried to be passed off as full time jobs. Five of these jobs are close to where I used to live in Maine. Instead of hiring one fulltime person at a local Post Office they hired five……each for a different day. These jobs were created using Stimulus money but they hired this way to make it look like the bill created more jobs than it actually did. Starting to see a pattern here ?
As far as Obama being left with a mess by the Bush administration I think that is a little unfair. Like I said before most of Bush’s failed policy’s were overwhelmingly supported by the Democrats. We can’t blame Bush alone for the economy or Iraq without giving credit to the crooks in both houses on both sides of the aisle. Obama wasn’t handed a mess……he and his fellow Democrats helped create it.

Scott Fisher: From my perspective and research, there is no single reason why many Americans do not like the current healthcare bill. Most of us on the left ( hate that term, I prefer progressive!) hate the fact that Obama’s original bill has been watered down and does not contain a strong public option. We want medicare for everyone to compete with the out of control profit making insurance companies. We believe that healthcare should be a right for everyone, even for those who can’t afford it. There have been tons of amendments to the bill, many to appease republicans. I have never heard, nor have seen any reporting that the various forms of the healthcare bill were “never made available to be reviewed” by those that were voting on it. Could you provide a link? The bill has only passed in the House of Representatives, so we really can only fault Nancy Pelosi for that. From what I have seen so far there hasn’t been a policy of only democratic senators being able to see the Senate bill. That whole notion seems like some kind of “talking point” to me since I have heard both democrat and republican congressmen comment on what they don’t like on both bills before they voted.
I really don’t think that we are all in agreement about what we don’t like about the bill and it is too complex to generalize. I personally would rather have it go through even the way it is, rather than drag it out any longer.

There is so much fear in change, as well as so much misinformation. The misinformation game today is out of control with people just making stuff up. All those elderly people who were told there would be death panels… that was just mean and blatantly false. Or all the elderly teabaggers saying they didn’t want government run healthcare… when they were all on medicare! The problem as I see it, is that it is very hard today to get actual news and factual information. MSNBC and FOX may call themselves news stations, but they are really just stations full of pundits. The Olbermans, Becks, and Hannitys are not journalists, but many people believe that they are since they are on a news station. It is all about entertainment today which is very sad and I think sometimes dangerous.

I don’t think your information is correct in saying that Obama has “extremely low approval ratings”. Maybe with Republicans at 14%, but with Democrats he is at 84% and Independents at 47%, according to the latest Gallup Poll (January 6, 2010). The poll states, “President Obama begins his second year as president with 50% of Americans approving of his performance” Yes, that is low for a president starting a second term, but he has only dropped 18 points since the first days in office, not bad considering the current economic climate. He has quite a way to go to reach George Bush’s final rating of 22%.

I really think it is far too early to tell whether the Stimulus Bill has been a “dismal failure” considering only a little over half of the money thas even been allocated yet! It will be years before we really can analyze its affect and it is far too complex to make many judgements about it at this time. The problem is that we all want instant gratification, but it took years to get here, and will probably take at least as long to get out of here! I am sorry that you and your friends have been hit so hard, many sectors have been hit harder than others, with those in new construction probably hit the worst. As I said in my previous post some of my friends have benefited from the stimulus,  just as some of yours have not. How are friends are doing is really not a good indicator of the current state though, as it is purely anecdotal.
Like it or not, the current jobless rate is just one of the tools economists use in evaluating the economy. I totally agree with you that it does not cover everyone and many people fall through the cracks when being  judged by a number. Many of us are really hurting and it sucks to be reduced to a statistic. We can’t discount it though, and whether people are working part-time or full time… it is still significant. It isn’t some conspiracy that it is giving false information. The employment rate has always put full and part-time work together. (Bureau of Labor and Statistics http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm#employed).

I have not seen any information that stimulus bill was supposed to provide full time jobs for everyone that needs one. It is a stimulus, and was never supposed to be an answer to our problems, and again, it is far too early to even begin to evaluate!

The fact is according to a variety of economic indicators( not just the employment rate, but the stock market, consumer price index, etc) the economy is better than before the stimulus, and it is better than 3 months ago.  Maybe it’s the stimulus, maybe not…too early to call.  Has it stopped the free fall as it was designed to do? So far, so good, but too early to tell. We had to try something!

I don’t recall Obama “promising quicker and better results than we have so far”. Quote please? Here is President Obama’s full statement at the stimulus signing and there is no mention of that. It does mention it is to be over two years and so I state again, impossible to call!
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0209/18959_Page4.html

I totally disagree that President wasn’t handed a mess! Yes, democrats and republicans created it, but  please tell me what presidents in the last 40 years have had to come into office with a similar economic climate? I also think if you check the voting records, most of Bush’s policies were not necessarily “overwhelming supported by Democrats.”

Wow! We need our own TV Show! I have to get back to work, but I really have enjoyed the discussion! I think we can agree to disagree! I hope we can seek the truth and I think we both can agree it is very complicated!