"So you fully understand the consequences of this administrations
actions in the last week, just look at the statistics for Maine voters.
In the latest Public Policy Poll yesterday which show us falling
behind, they said that 54% of the voters say they supported Obama. Over
9% of the voters described themselves as 'non-white'. In that poll 28%
of the Obama supporters say they were voting against marriage equality.
More importantly, 56% of 'non-white' voters said they planned on voting
against marriage equality.
"You have to be totally operating on blind faith if you believe
that President Obama and his team cannot make a difference. Tragically
if we lose closely, that defeat almost can be laid at the steps of the
White House for their refusal to stand by our side in the battle for
freedom. The Holder remark basically gave those Obama supporters and
non-white voters permission to vote against our freedom. The Attorney
General let them know that Obama didn't care one way or another so why
should those voters change their votes? He gave their votes
respectability which was devastating for our side.
"The failure of our national organizations to obtain a clear
cut endorsement for the LGBT community is something that needs to be
discussed. This one isn't rocket science. What happened?"
I agree, Ted. Even a place like Wichita can pass legislation that protects the GLBT community. If I were gay and loved the farming life I would totally live in Vermont.
11/5/2009 7:01 PM
-
Thomas
I think I agree more with Raymond than you two agree with eachother Ryan and Christian
11/5/2009 7:00 PM
-
Thomas
Its funny seeing to liberals argue about something.
11/5/2009 6:59 PM
-
Ted
In response to Christian's last comment, a lot of times there are places to go that are also small towns that are more welcoming (such as places in Vermont). Also, sometimes it's just better not to be around family that would limit your ability to be yourself, whether you go to a more open-minded place or not. But wherever you are, try to make it a little better.
Doug, I was think of someone annoying that they would really want to get rid of, but he might work, I don't know that much about him.
It wouldn't surprise me you've walked away from dinner conversation for less than that seeing how argumentative you are, often for the sake of it like this evening. And your experience with religious fundamentalism?
The only thing I've said about gays in small towns is that they should stay if they love where they live and feel safe enough to come out and be themselves. If they don't feel safe, if they don't feel embraced by their community, and they feel that change is more likely to come from the outside than from within, then they don't need me to tell them they're better off somewhere else.
11/5/2009 6:44 PM
-
Ryan
It wouldn't be true, Christian. I've walked out of family dinners based upon what I've heard around the table aimed at not only gays, but people of color and members of certain minority groups.
Now I want you to say that gays in small towns should leave their families and come to big cities. I know you want to, because you've said it before.
And I'm aware that the Midwest contains plenty of bigotry and backward thinking. I just have an aching suspicion Ryan hasn't been exposed to a copious amount of it nor to the horrors of religious fundamentalism.
Obama is just one man. He cant save the world. He can't change it BY HIMSELF.
--
and this remark
"basically gave those Obama supporters and non-white voters permission to vote against our freedom. "
once again blaming Blacks and Hispanics for the defeat of a gay rights legislation. How many Black people live in Maine. Lets get real here. Like Obama has some sort of magical pull with EVERY Black person in the US. Ridick.
How do you know what I do with and where I spend my time, Ryan? I'm on the East side, downtown, the valley, and even in your hood more than I'm ever in boy's town.
Red Austin? You mean liberal blue bubble Austin in a big red state.
Yeah, i went to University in Central Illinois. Not exactly a bastion of liberalism
11/5/2009 6:01 PM
-
Ryan
I'd much rather be gay in red Austin, Texas than blue Folsom, California.
11/5/2009 6:00 PM
-
Ryan
And maybe you need to escape the gay bubble and spend a little time in Carson, Lakewood, Palmdale, Laguna Hills, or a number of places close to you. You don't have to go far to find homophobia, Christian, but I've found it hard to explain to gays in WeHo.
Ryan, aren't you in Venice? That's like five miles from me.
11/5/2009 5:56 PM
-
Ryan
Christian, I was born and raised and spent 24 years of my life in it. I'm not the one living in the gayest place in the US, you are...who needs humanity again?
Ryan if Truman had waited for Congress to end segragation in the Army it would still be segragated. It was the end of segragation that helped change the mindset of many Americans.
Veterans have parades and communities make them visible as a group just like us. Same with handicapped people. If you knew a handicapped person or a veteran personally of course you would be far and away more likely to speak out or act on their behalf. Humans aren't completely logical animals that take the distant and abstract just as heartfelt as something present and real. Presence makes a huge difference.
11/5/2009 12:47 PM
-
Ryan
Gabe, if it were that easy it would have been done already. The president has expressed his disagreement with "Don't Ask Don't Tell." Unfortunately, military policy is a complicated thing that you clearly don't know the first thing about.
11/5/2009 12:46 PM
-
Ryan
tony, Obama didn't help Corzine in New Jersey and they didn't need him to win in Washington. Blaming Obama, or using his inaction as a way to pressure people into not giving him money or supporting him is wrong and is a red herring.
idunno, is that a safe assumption? has obama come out and said it besides to a group of homos [preachin' to the choir]?
as far as "state issue," this is what gets me, and what i think may make it a federal issue...what about the federal rights and protections for married couples?
idono if anyone is exactly "blaming" the president here....
but do you HONESTLY think — honestly now — that a small northeast-market tv spot with the president saying what he feels and that he disagrees with referendum 1...that this wouldn't be an effective tool worth a couple points?
hey if you think it wouldn't have brought out more votes for "no on 1," that's cool.
i happen to think, along with a few others, that it would have toppled the scales the other way.
Ryan... I refuse to believe you are so ignunt. The president can call one of his hundreds of staffers in to his office and say "we've lost too many Arab linguists. write me a bill to end DADT." then he could march his lanky ass over to the congress and slap a copy on Nancy's fucking desk. Presidents write the bill all the time, especially when thier party has control of congress. He is wasting this opportunity. Just imagine how many bills Bill would have written by this point in his presidency if the Dems had control.
11/5/2009 10:15 AM
-
Ryan
For those of you who want Obama to "uphold his promises" on LGBT issues, I'd like to see a list of real things he can do, tomorrow, on the issues. Not statements, not promises, but actual pieces of legislation or executive orders he can write and enforce beginning tomorrow. Not state law things like marriage or civil unions or non-discrimination laws, but federal issues.
i'll repeat this again, it's not the president's job to campaign for referendums, local initiatives, and those types of things. it's completely different for the president to campaign for people running for governor, senator, and congressmen. stop for a minute, thank about it, and hopefully you might just get it.
the president clearly stated where he stood for prop.8 last year so there really isn't any significant reason to believe his position would change from state to state.
wit all due respect, some of you are acting very fucking stupid by misdirecting your anger for the loss in maine. the blame doesn't fall on the president and he is not persuasive enough to have changed the outcome.
THE PEOPLE OF MAINE ARE THE PROBLEM HERE, NOT THE PRESIDENT. the sooner you guys comprehend that the sooner you can move on for the next battle. and if your going to put all this blame and anger on obama for the loss then you have to give the man props for the win in washington.
People are nuts to think that private insurance will disappear. The new health bill won't affect private insurance anymore than how public schools affect private schools. It's just another option for those who can't afford insurance.
Curt, please provide back up of your claim that the health care bill "guarantees" that private insurance will disappear in 5 years. Please provide the part of the bill that says that.
The ridicule has nothing to do with you being "Christian", there are plenty of Christians on this site, but not NEARLY as close minded as you appear to be
Maybe I was mistaken about the current bill, but the first definetly talked about private insurance confirming to the government program after 5 years.
Sorry doug I've tried to talk about my beliefs, but as soon as I say I'm a Christian, I turn into some gay hating religius zealot, and I'm usually ridaquled into silence, so that is the way I will remain about my personal beliefs.
Evan: "I have read a summary of the health care bill and there is nothing that says after 5 years it becomes a government run system." aside from this being grossly off topic, it is disingenuous: the bill does not MANDATE elimination of private insurance, it simple gurantees it. And would you expect a "summary" of the bill to address something as inflammatory as socializing America's healthcare system? What this has to do with the posted thread, I don't know.
Adam, where do you get your information from? The fact that you are spewing inaccuracies attests to the fact that propaganda is portayed on news programs (Fox/Faux) WITHOUT being blocked. Obama is welcome to speak with whoever he chooses. Just like Fox can spew propaganda. That's not any violation of free speech. I have read a summary of the health care bill and there is nothing that says after 5 years it becomes a government run system. You wonder why people think you are ignorant - it's because you state things on here which are clearly incorrect. And you have no clue what you are talking about. Also, believing that history started 6000 years ago in the garden of eden also tends to make you look really silly (i could have used a much worse word).
Please show me where I talked down to you and I will be happy to apologize, well tell me then why on earth would all the other liberal news organizations (CNN, abc, msnbc, CBS) stick up for fox, if they were lying on tv and not reporting facts?
If you are referring to the spat with Fox News, they wouldn't have any issues, if what they presented as "news" was FACTUAL. Ludacris is a rap artist, by the way
As to me "talking down" to you, aren't you doing the same to me?
Ok, blocking a news organization because you dont like what they say is a direct violation of free press, this healthcare bill gives money towards abortion, and also in the health care bill you can only keep your insurance the way it is for 5 years before it has to conform to the government run system. And to say it is only going to cost 85 billion a year is bogus. Right now we pay about 650 billion a year on Medicare and Medicare and to say providing coverage for 35 million more people is only going to cost us 85 billion is ludacris. It was like when george bush said Iraq was only going to cost a few billion, 2 trillion later. I mean we should be trying to fix the school system, social secuirty and the tax system in this country before we let the government take on another program. I hold dear to ideals from both parties, that being said I'm willing to talk about any issue with an open mind, however if you are going to speak down to me the conversation is over.
"Plus he is threating our right to free speach an the right to bear arms and to chose our own doctors as well as the right to life concerning abortion."
He hasn't "threatened" anything, Adam- I am trying to be respectful, but you ARE being ignorant
People are expecting too much too fast (from Obama) - as if all of the issues he's face with can be resolved overnight. It took Bush 8 years to put us in the mess we're in but yet we want Obama to fix everything in less than one? Why don't we give Obama a brake (at least for now) and when his first term is close to up, we can make our decision then.
Would any one from Washington say they refuse to keep their promises? That's a stupid question. 1 troops in Iraq, 2 no higher taxes for the poor, 3 not going to be politics as usual. Plus he is threating our right to free speach an the right to bear arms and to chose our own doctors as well as the right to life concerning abortion. I am libertarian and I was aganst bush and his breaking of our laws and the taking away of our rights, but I fear Obama is doing the same thing. I have no problem discussing my views or yours but please be respectful.
Have you bothered to write him, even once, to remind him of his campain promises to the LGBT community? Have you contacted your other elected officials to encourage them to support LGBT equality?
Adam, you are seriously delusional and rather ignorant if you think that Obama just left us "out to dry" once he got elected. Stop listening to all the ignorant people that you aren't out to, come out to them, and educate them by putting a face on who's rights they are suppressing because of the antediluvian religious dogma they've been spoon fed and continue (for some insane reason) to believe
People always say whatever they can to get what they want, why should Obama be any different, he got what he wanted now he is leaving us out to dry. But he still wants our vote so he does minimal to try to keep us inchanted. I think I remember him saying something about getting ride of DADT but now his white house is endorsing it. Politics as usually. Why is everyone so enchanted with this smooth talker.
11/5/2009 5:57 AM
-
Ted
"Everyone" is an exaggeration of course, but enough people to call the shots.
11/5/2009 5:56 AM
-
Ted
I changed to Democrat when everyone in the Louisiana Republican Party fell in love with Bush and Vitter, and they kicked out everyone on the central committee who had disagreed. So I took that as an invitation for me to leave.
How is he on gays being allowed to adopt children?
11/5/2009 5:48 AM
-
Ted
(for Governor)
11/5/2009 5:47 AM
-
Ted
Yes, and I look forward to voting for Tom Campbell, a gay marriage supporter, for the Republican nomination, which I would not be able to do if I were an independent or a Libertarian.
Rick, don't confuse patience with giving people a "free ticket"- I haven't given President Obama or any elected official that is supposed to represent me (or the other voters in my area). I write them letters constantly
11/5/2009 4:18 AM
-
Ted
"Is this what YOU want your President doing? Please people that is a republican wet dream."
And they can say the same thing about healthcare, bailouts, and John Corzine.
Neil says: "This world is about a lot more than gay rights. I won't drone on listing the things that are going on in the world that are as impotant or more important than gay rights that have a direct effect on gays and straights and will take support from the majority of people/representative/senators to get accomplished."
Therefore, we should not expect him to speak on our behalf....we're not important enough.
Then Neil (even more foolishly) says: "Can you imagine what the right wing would do with snippets of him campaigning for gay rights when it comes time for the next election? Where was Obama when the economy was sagging and there were two wars being foughts? Campaigning for gay rights? Is this what YOU want your President doing? Please people that is a republican wet dream."
Neil didn't you just bring up his HRC speech yourself?? And Campaign?? Campaign?? Who said anything abou thim campaigning for us?? We would have simply settled for his administration coming out against a proposition that TOOK THE RIGHTS OF A MINORITY - OUR RIGHTS, NEIL! OOOOOUR RIGHTS!! Jesus fucking Christ. How the fuck don't you get it?! Do you honestly think our equal rights as a minority are just some piddly, unimportant national issue?? I hope like hell your bubble pops. I hope you get to experience, first fucking hand, what it means to be a second class citizen. I've experienced it myself in a fucking hospital and I've witnessed HORRORS of glbt discrimination happen to my closest friends - including a lesbian friend of mine lose custody of her two children to her own mother, who sued and won PURELY on the fact that she was a lesbian living with another woman. I hope your bubble bursts Neil.
11/5/2009 2:04 AM
-
Neil
Umm....two points. First the President DID have enough time and think it important enough a priority to campaign for the Democratic candidates in NJ and VA (my home state and went for Obama last year) hoping to tap into that youthful exuberance for change and progress. So he felt THIS was important but not even a videotape supporting gay rights in WA and ME. Not only could the "Equality March" have been time better spent elsewhere but so could Obama's speech to HRC been time better used for a couple of pro-gay rights ads for TV. So yes, if he can find time and feels it is "worthy" to support democratic candidates for Governor in 2 states (which won't change federal level legislation much) then he could have found time to support these measures. It was a simple choice and trying to argue away that it was anything more than politically suicide to have done so is silly. That is point two. Are you folks so blind and in need of a hero that you can't see that politicians are politicians first and foremost no matter what party they hail from? And if we give Obama the benefit of the doubt that he does support us (in theory and in his conscience ) would you really have him spend his political capital on two state votes when he is not even one year into his presidency? This world is about a lot more than gay rights. I won't drone on listing the things that are going on in the world that are as impotant or more important than gay rights that have a direct effect on gays and straights and will take support from the majority of people/representative/senators to get accomplished. And from his view as the first black President he wants to do a lot. Most likely he wants to do well for the country, for his legacy, and for blacks who will come after him.
Can you imagine what the right wing would do with snippets of him campaigning for gay rights when it comes time for the next election? Where was Obama when the economy was sagging and there were two wars being foughts? Campaigning for gay rights? Is this what YOU want your President doing? Please people that is a republican wet dream.
Make no mistake he COULD have supported our cause more at the expense of his own political future (and if the polls out of VA and NJ are right nobody cares about what he says on these more local issues....he doesn't have THAT much persuasive power). He did NOT support our causes because he has (in my, his, and many other's minds) bigger fish to fry than being the President who shot his wad for gay rights and failed.
Grow up. Obama is not a savior....just a politician. And right now he's looking like a good one.
Rick: bravo. Thanks. So good to see others who get it. You took the words right out of my fingers. For years I have been amazed at Ryan's minimalizing glbt equality struggles. His white guilt prevents him from realizing he is worse off, in a lot of ways, than black people.
11/4/2009 11:15 PM
-
Thomas
Its cool to see how many of us are actually politically active in here
People don't vote a certain way because Obama tells them to or not to. That's silly. If that were the case, there would be no gun-weilding "keep yer filthy government hands off my medicare" town hall meetings.
When these gay marriage votes happen, and we gays lose, it's really important for us to remember that we should learn from our mistakes. We learned with prop 8 where the homophobes come from, why they vote the way they do, and how they rally the troups. We also learned that Obama played very little in California's outcome.
Ok, So now, lets move on to other resources and try to get this together! We gays are the bad news bears! Let's go win the championship!
11/4/2009 10:56 PM
-
Ryan
I've got some school board races and tax levy issues in California for Hillary to come campaign on next time if she's available, Gabe.
well if you had a reason to say "i told you so" then i would agree. at this point, i don't agree with that way of thinking. presidents don't go around the country pushing referendums and local initiatives. just because we all think it's important to do so doesn't mean it's right or appropriate. that's not the way our government is set up and it would be very selfish of all of us to think "our" referendums are more important than say others that don't affect us.
11/4/2009 10:46 PM
-
Ryan
If it's inappropriate for one federal official with a tremendous following to comment on a state ballot initiative, I would think it would be inappropriate for them all to do so.
Thanks Todd. At my old office I could surf the web all day, in betwen work. Fuckin Dubya had to go and fuck up our econy and screw my job. Just got an iPhone (love it!) and I can at least check in every once in awhile... And yeah I am over Her election loss...I just can't help sayin I told you so. She is now part of Obama's administration. Do you and Ryan really think it would have been appropriate for her to step away and do her own thing? I really thought Ryan knew more about Washington than that.
11/4/2009 10:36 PM
-
Thomas
Even more polarizing than obama I should say.
11/4/2009 10:35 PM
-
Thomas
Hillary doesnt have the pull obama has, first shes not president, second shes an extremely polarizing figure.
with all due respect, you need to get over your butt hurt with hill's loss. i could sit here and say "if only gore won back in 2000..." and won't amount to a hill of bean in the end. i understand that you think hillary would have done more for us by now if she was president but she's not and she won't be for at least another 7 years.
i wasn't talking about the article, gabe, i was talking about the comments from people here. there's a subtle implication that he's to blame for the loss. it's misplaced, disingenuous, and does nothing but hamper our cause. presidents don't travel the country campaigning and promoting referendums. if they did, then they wouldn't have time to actually govern the country.
THANK YOU RYAN!! where was hillary and a host of other prominent democrats for maine?
11/4/2009 10:21 PM
-
Ryan
Hillary didn't do anything either. Why not write an article about her?
so how is the president to blame for the failings of maine voters? should we blame him for the failure of prop. 8 in california? should we give him props for the win in washington?
Now Gabe, Hill would be in just as much of a quandary as Obama- if anything, the situation could easily be worse. If you think some of those idiot conservative birther teabaggers have issues with a black man being president, imagine how they would feel about a WOMAN running things
Here here Mixner. There's no doubt in my mind that Hillary's administration would have throne a little support our way. Oh but thanks for the HRC flowers Obama. They were lovely.
"And I certainly don't have to have been alive in 1980 to know that things were less gay-friendly than they are now."
Just my impression, Ted, but (thanks to the actions of neo-cons and the uber-religious) I don't think it's all that different
11/4/2009 1:26 PM
-
Ted
I'm not talking about his character, I'm talking about one instance. It simply doesn't make sense for someone planning to run for President in 1980 to take a stand in favor of gay people that isn't motivated by some genuine belief in the issue, particularly for the person to be a Republican. Senator from California? Maybe, but I don't even know about that. California was fairly Republican back then.
I don't have to have been alive in 1980 to look at election results. And I certainly don't have to have been alive in 1980 to know that things were less gay-friendly than they are now.
Well, Ted, I suppose we will have to agree to disagree about Reagan, as you said, you weren't alive then, so your perceptions of him and his character are going to be different than mine.
@Toddother thread) again, being the simple minority that we entail, we will never have as deep the pockets to spend on fighting these referendums and when we do manage to outspend them the approach has been far too soft in retaliation of the lies and deception. I could never blame the President's inaction on our failure in Maine. It wouldn't have made a hill of beans difference, but would have probably made the anti-obama ilk come out in greater force. The most important win yesterday was the fact that Palin's ditching the moderate republican candidate to support the conservative party candidate in the New York-23 race, with the vocal support of the Beck Teabagger's, Hannity's Fox News proponents and the Limbaugh nut cases were soundly defeated. I could care less about the conservative right wing wins in Virginia & New Jersey. The real power is in Washington & yet another House representative is headed there on the Democratic side. That's HUGE. The Republican Party talking heads will spin their governorship victories as a premonition of the 2010 midterm elections, which couldn't be any further from the truth, but lets hope they keep believing it.
11/4/2009 12:12 PM
-
Ted
Doug...with Nixon it was "what did he know and when did he know it," and with Reagan it was "what did he know and when did he forget it."
But I'm not sure he always knew what he forgot and what he never knew in the first place.
Well, Ted, Reagan DID get the support of the LCR both terms, for what it's worth
11/4/2009 11:26 AM
-
Ted
Obama is probably making some of the same mistakes. I don't think he sat there and said, "Let's pull the wool over people's eyes." BUT (as I talked about the 2008 DNC vs. the 1980 RNC), there was some motivation there to sound more gay friendly than he was, unlike there was for Reagan.
11/4/2009 11:23 AM
-
Ted
I knew that was coming...it's just amazing you waited that long. Reagan let his advisers tell him what to do too much, I think Reagan as president tells us less about who he is than before. There is no way Baker or Meese or any of those people wouldn't have told him to steer clear of the issue.
JD, no offense, but you haven't exactly been supportive of Obama since before the nomination- so of course you are going to percieve things the way you wish to percieve them, even when things that benefit the LGBT community are accomplished.
out of the 4 major issues on the site regarding glbt issues, accomplishing two and having the other two "stalled", clearly not dead, in less than a year into his administration isn't considered "nothing" or "next to nothing."
but if you consider that next to nothing well, i can't help you in that department.
we all liken our fight for civil rights to the black movement of the 50's and 60's.. however there is a major difference. Black people were willing to get out and fight for their rights. we as a people need to do exactly what they did, cause such an upheaval in society that the government has no choice but to deal with it at a national level. this means more than just marching and holding signs.. it means riots and civil disobedience.. it means being arrested for your beliefs. it means causing absolute havoc in every part of society until we get our rights. that is the only way this will happen.
no, if you read carefully (please make an exception) i said 'next to nothing' not nothing itself. reading and comprehension isn't something to be taken for granted around here, i guess.
his strategy, clearly, is to do next to nothing, not nothing itself. which is working out brilliantly, btw. now if only he'd harness that inertia when it came to enforcing DADT....
Don't confuse "doing nothing" with doing things strategically
And he hasn't exactly "done nothing"
11/4/2009 10:06 AM
-
Ryan
John, "Don't Ask Don't Tell" is codified in federal law and can't be "repealed" by executive order. Thus, in order to overturn it Congress has to pass a bill and Obama has to sign it. Obama can't do it unilaterally.
11/4/2009 9:46 AM
-
Ted
You're defending Obama for not doing anything on gay issues in this very thread, why isn't that "stupid"?
11/4/2009 9:45 AM
-
Ted
Doug, you keep confusing me with other people. I don't consistently defend either liberals or conservatives.
Well, Theodore, for once you were right about something
11/4/2009 7:08 AM
-
Ted
My name isn't Theodore, Douglas.
11/4/2009 7:05 AM
-
Ted
But that's the context I brought it up in. The conversation wasn't about "was Reagan a saint, why or why not?" It was, "Carter spoke in favor of gay rights, why can't Obama." I added that Reagan did too. And you told me I was wrong.
Doesn't mean he didn't actually support it, he WAS preparing to run for president
His track record with LGBT issues is rather bleak
11/4/2009 6:49 AM
-
Ted
As Lou Cannon (Reagan biographer) puts it, Reagan was “well aware that there were those who wanted him to duck the issue” but nevertheless “chose to state his convictions.” Reagan's opposition was on record as extensive excerpts from his informal statement that were reprinted in the San Francisco Chronicle of September 24, 1978. Reagan's November 1st editorial stated, in part, “Whatever else it is, homosexuality is not a contagious disease like the measles. Prevailing scientific opinion is that an individual's sexuality is determined at a very early age and that a child's teachers do not really influence this.”
11/4/2009 6:46 AM
-
Ted
Reagan opposed it, Doug. He wrote an editorial about it in the San Francisco Chronicle.
Obama was out there trying to get a Democrat governor in New Jersey... he could have endorsed LGBT policies in Maine and Washington while hw as out there!
Well, he initiated health care reform legislation, didn't he? Pelosi and Reid didn't come up with that all on their own, they followed his lead. He does have a say in what issues congress legislates on and when.
11/3/2009 2:44 PM
0|-3
Ryan
Obama can't repeal "Don't Ask Don't Tell." Congress can, and then send the bill to Obama who will sign it. This isn't Obama's baby.
If there were 1/100 of the action aimed at Pelosi, Reid, or state legislators who can pass anti-discrimination or relationship recognition bills as there currently is at Obama, we might get something done around here.
Then why hasn't he said as much? Why does he remain so mysterious in his reasons while seeing how perplexed and frustrated the GLBT community has been in his lack of action on an issue with a large majority support? I don't think it's fair to say it's congress that's sitting on their thumbs. Obama has been equivocating on the issue for quite some time, and congress follows his lead just as easily as they initiate issues on their own.
11/3/2009 2:35 PM
0|-1
Ryan
Jimmy Carter spoke against Prop 6 as an afterthought and might not have even known what he was talking about. (PS: Jerry Brown for Governor.)
Obama could push to end DADT, but the decision to end it by statute is in the Pelosi/Reid court. I don't think suspending its implementation is a good strategy. Suppose he suspends enforcement and people start coming out in the military. All is well and good...until we get an anti-gay president who rescinds the order and starts kicking people out who came out. I don't think I'd come out as gay if I were in the military or join as a lesbian or gay person until I get some kind of statutory provision in place...an executive order isn't enough here.
Well Ryan in theory Obama could do what I believe Clinton did a few times. . .refuse to sign anything/veto everything until he got what he wanted. . .of course that comes at the expense of political capital like crazy. . .
Well, Jimmy Carter spoke out against Prop 6 back in the 70's. There is a precedent for presidents sticking up for what's right in states that continue to do the wrong thing. Obama could easily push to repeal DADT. He has public and congressional support. He hasn't, and doesn't have any compelling reason to offer for not doing so. He could sign an executive order to suspend its implementation. That's within his authority, he has not done so.
11/3/2009 2:28 PM
0|-1
Ryan
These ballot initiatives in the story deal with marriage, Raymond, which is why I referred to it.
"Obama has already taken a number of steps towards providing equality, from signing the hate crimes bill to pledging that HUD will not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation."
he doesn't need to speak, he just needs to keep signing bills and executive orders.
I don't need him to speak out in support of Same-sex marriage. I'd like him to speak out in support of LGBT Equality.
there's a difference, in case you hadn't heard
in other news, the civil rights movement was about more than just public transport.
11/3/2009 2:13 PM
0|-1
Ryan
"federal" should be "legislative" in the last sentence.
11/3/2009 2:12 PM
1|-1
Ryan
I don't think there's much precedent for presidents going out of their way to support state ballot propositions that they don't have a direct role to play in. If you want Obama to start speaking out on state issues, there's a long, long list of things that I'd like to see him speak out on before we get to same-sex marriage.
He hasn't been anything near complacent in the actions he can take as the federal executive. Tasking Obama with saving the gays disregards the balance between the federal, executive, and judicial branches and the concept of federalism.
Actually it's pretty fucking un-controversial to support the repeal of DADT; at this point there's a quite decent amount of public support for that, last I read 8 out of 10.
And I wasn't aware it was a universal position either Ryan, that's why I said GLBT equality was surrounded by "controversy." I also said I give him props for signing the hate crimes legislation. Do you read what I write?
The question was regarding why he is so complacent in his supposed support for GLBT equality, and I believe he doesn't want to be perceived as a radical. So he's not going to be our savior, that will stand up for us at all costs--that's fine, he doesn't have to be.
oh , totally. don't get me wrong, i'm on Team Obama. I'm simply, once again, puzzled by complacency. in a time where there are still attempts to pass government-sanctioned anti-gay discrimination into law, i'm just wishing that the President, who opposes such laws, isn't speaking out against them.
But again, this will happen, state by state. Which is another thing that puzzles me. State by State? Ugh. Push for federal.
11/3/2009 1:56 PM
0|-1
Ryan
I wasn't aware that supporting civil unions was such a universal position, Christian. It's still rather controversial to support LGBT causes like relationship recognition, a hate crimes bill, and ending "Don't Ask Don't Tell," so to suggest that somehow Obama is taking the safer road is wrong. Obama has already taken a number of steps towards providing equality, from signing the hate crimes bill to pledging that HUD will not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. There's not much more that Obama can do as president of the United States without Congress sending him a bill.
If he didn't want anyone besides LGBTs to see or hear his speech, he wouldn't have given it in a room full of cameras, Christian.
Oh, and no offense to those of you that were/are staunch Hillary supporters (some of which actually threatened to vote for McCain/Palin because Hill lost the primaries), but if you honestly think that Hillary wouldn't be in a similar situation trying to get things passed, you are delluding yourselves
We DO have small victories in having the Hate Crimes Bill and the Ryan White Act being signed and made the law of the land. Perhaps what Obama is trying to do is have things passed through the "circus" that is the Congress and Senate, that way, things are "immune" from being overridden by a change in the balance of power
All I suggest is a bit of strategic patience, he IS doing things for us. The most constructive thing all of us that voted for him can do is to write to HIM and tell him (politely) our concerns about the "slow progress" and we need to continue to write our other elected officials to try and convince them to continue to support equality for the LGBT community.
Yeah, tell me about it Doug. Do me a favour, if my heart ever dies and I become a self-hating apologist, shoot me in the face. If I ever get to the point where my disdain for all that is wrong becomes stronger than my love for all that is Good, well....fuck... I'd rather be dead.
"There are people who will make a point to not see "that Sean Penn gay movie", or to seek out films, clips or speeches that highlight LGBT Equality or LGBT people in a positive light."
Some of those same people are also the same ones that like to rip on gay pride events
doug you're 100% right but it's not really valid in this case...it's not those who refuse to listen to anything obama says who will make a difference in this election. it's the straight guys and soccer moms who have gay coworkers/hairstylists that they know and love, who plan to sit at home during the election because they don't really have an opinion one way or the other about gay marriage....the same people who voted for obama, and can make the most difference in maine.
Ray, he sees the controversy surrounding GLBT equality and views us as a liability. Basically, he wants to get re-elected, and doesn't have the guts to do too, too much for us, though I do give him props for signing the hate crimes legislation bill.
He would probably prefer it if no one besides GLBT supporters saw his HRC speech, sadly. He could be brazen and ballsy with his support for GLBT people, but obviously he'd rather go the safer route.
Oh, Doug, absolutely. There are people who will hate and tune out anything he says. But there are also people who might not, perhaps, be aware of his positions on such matters.
I had a Q&A with Sigourney Weaver at my school last year when "Prayers for Bobby" came out, and she talked about how it was, in effect, a guerilla tactic to have the film aired on Lifetime. There are people who will make a point to not see "that Sean Penn gay movie", or to seek out films, clips or speeches that highlight LGBT Equality or LGBT people in a positive light......and some of these people might just sit down on a sunday night to watch "the Lifetime movie of the week", and rather than it be another Valerie Bertinelli triumphing over a yeast infection to become the world's most beatific mother, they find themselves watching a film that could truly change their perceptions of LGBT Equality issues.
His HRC speech was encouraging, as far as speeches go...but it's really the wrong speech to the wrong people. It's akin to the parallel speeches given by Dustin Lance Black and Sean Penn at last year's Oscars.
Black spoke to LGBT people.
Penn spoke to opponents of LGBT Equality.
Obama has spoken to us. It's time he shared it with the rest of America.
even if he devoted just a single hour to each point you raised, that still leaves lots of time for long lunches and 4day weekend at camp david.
11/3/2009 1:26 PM
0|-1
Ryan
Why can't he speak out more on the need for cap and trade? Why can't he speak out more on the need for Israel to treat Palestinians with basic human decency? Why can't he speak out more on the need for a FBS college football playoff? Why can't he speak out more on the dangers of meth? Why can't he speak out more on racism in society? Why can't he speak out more on climate change? Why can't he speak out more on discrimination against Jews? Why can't he speak out more on the link between smoking and lung cancer? Why can't he speak out more on the need to protect a woman's right to choose? Why can't he speak out more on the skyrocketing cost of public higher education?
why can't Obama make a public address on TV saying all the things he said at the HRC dinner?
Why can't he speak to the rest of America about the need for LGBT Equality?
other thread) again, being the simple minority that we entail, we will never have as deep the pockets to spend on fighting these referendums and when we do manage to outspend them the approach has been far too soft in retaliation of the lies and deception. I could never blame the President's inaction on our failure in Maine. It wouldn't have made a hill of beans difference, but would have probably made the anti-obama ilk come out in greater force. The most important win yesterday was the fact that Palin's ditching the moderate republican candidate to support the conservative party candidate in the New York-23 race, with the vocal support of the Beck Teabagger's, Hannity's Fox News proponents and the Limbaugh nut cases were soundly defeated. I could care less about the conservative right wing wins in Virginia & New Jersey. The real power is in Washington & yet another House representative is headed there on the Democratic side. That's HUGE. The Republican Party talking heads will spin their governorship victories as a premonition of the 2010 midterm elections, which couldn't be any further from the truth, but lets hope they keep believing it.
