Too dark.

He has a babymama, after all.

Can't have a president who has one of those.

"Babymama" has made it to the list of unacceptable words here. It has racial overtones.

There would be no list of unacceptable words, excepting that people cannot behave.

Please discourage its use.

With all due respect, I think it's unfair to single out Carmen for her comments when it was first stated in this topic in another post:

I elected to reply to the next threads which used the term. I feel confident that Carmen will not take it as a personal reprimand.

I grew up in Texas... and I got news for you... there's no way Texas would have gone for her in the general. There's no way Texas will go for him in the general either. But if you think she would have done better there, boy you really have no clue about Texas.

My parents live in Texas... they can't stand Hillary... for whatever reason. However, they don't like McCain either. So that leaves them to either stay home or vote for Barack Obama. - This is pretty much true for all of their friends and most of the rest of my family in Texas.

Is it November yet? My gawd people, its OVER! OK? The election results are in, Clinton has dropped out (finally) and endorsed Obama. IT'S OVER!

Let it go. Move on. Be adults. Let the child pout, but do pout quietly son because its causing problems when you pout out loud, and move on.

This started with so much hope and once again turned into yet another stupid fight over the primary. Sheesh.

Further in that same piece:

"I also believe that the federal government should not stand in the way of states that want to decide on their own how best to pursue equality for gay and lesbian couples – whether that means a domestic partnership, a civil union, or a civil marriage."

I reject the inflammatory title of this thread "Obama to destroy the GLBT community."
But I cannot sit quietly and happily embrace what Obama has described to be his understanding of the meaning of "full equality for all GLBT Americans."

Obama, professor of constitutional law and progeny of a mixed-race union, is essentially saying that separate but equal is ok. Not only that, but he also supports allowing fundamental rights to vary with locality.

If a black man and white woman want to marry, it's ok for Virginia to refuse to marry them so long as they can get a domestic partnership or civil union there?

No, that's just wrong. The equal protection clause of the 14th amendment to the Constitution guarantees that
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

I'd say this to any Dem who isn't planning to vote for Obama: Good God, hasn't George Bush done enough damage? If McBush gets in the White House, we'll keep treading down the same path. We'll have more right-wing religious nuts influencing decisions. Eight years of disaster is enough, for Christ's sake.

What I see in the way Obama has positioned himself, is just another politician. One who, in his case, is a little more progressive that the rest. But a politician nonetheless. He will sacrifice the protection of the rights of US citizens when he feels it to be politically expedient.

As I have said before on this board, a true leader is one who can bring the people to accept a position that they do not agree with, or, better still, convince them to understand that the position they have opposed actually fits better with their fundamental values than they had previously believed.

Dennis Kucinich, Russ Feingold, Ted Kennedy, and Al Sharpton are just a few prominent Democrats who support full nationwide equality of LGBT marriage rights. Why can't Obama support marriage rights fully, as they have done? Does he fear his coalition of progressive-minded people is so fragile that his message for a better America would not be able to overcome the hatred of those who oppose full equality?

The term "gay marriage" sounds to my ears like "woman doctor" or "female judge."

Do our doctors prescribe medications differently based on their gender?
Do our magistrates render judgments of law differently based on their gender?
Should female cardiologists charge different fees than male cardiologists?
(And if the response to any of the above questions is Yes, is that the way it should be?)

I'm a realist. I'd rather have strong baby steps that are legally sound rather than a full on confrontation which could easily set us back 40+ years.

Dennis Kucinich ran for the Democratic Presidential Nomination in 2008, where did it get him?
Edward "Ted" Kennedy ran for the Democratic Presidential Nomination in 1980 against incumbent Jimmy Carter, where did it get him?
Al Sharpton ran for the Democratic Presidential Nomination in 2004, where did it get him?

None of the names you've mentioned have secured a Democratic Party Nomination let alone win a national election for President. I'm with you, I adore all of those people (Sharpton to a lesser extent for other reasons) but as a realist, I have to look at the big picture and I have to understand that slow and steady wins the race. A mass push for full equality overnight could easily lead to "Constitutional Amendments" to strip us of all the rights we've gains thus far and future gains we hope for in the future.

If Barack Obama believed 100% in gay marriage, I strongly doubt he would be the party nominee right now and before anyone still licking their wounds regarding Hillary Clinton's loss says anything, she is not 100% behind gay marriage EITHER.

I have no delusions, I know that Barack Obama is a politician, for this one issue, he's the best chance we have right now.

Bill Clinton supported gay rights in 1992, and went on to win both the party nomination and the general election. Even though conventional wisdom of the time might have argued that it was politically unwise to support gay rights and was unnecessary, given how bad the economy was doing.

The problem with this way of thinking is that you can't get what you don't ask for.
Unless you're the boss, your boss will never give you more than you ask for.

Progressive-minded people need to push the nominee to embrace a broader vision for the country.

I guess I wasn't paying attention in 1992. What was Bill Clinton's position in 1992? That was a little early for him to advocate for gay marriage, or was it?

Turned out to be Don't Ask Don't Tell and the Defense of Marriage Act.

I do work, I do push, I've been involved in organizations that have had a lot of success in swaying political figures as well as the public but I do not turn my back against the one candidate with the best overall chances for the things I believe in and am a part of.

When I say slow and steady in general terms, what I mean is that I certainly would take that over not voting or voting for the candidate who will do everything he can to reverse progress made thus far.

It's ok to want everything now and it's ok to question a candidate and to help inform them but if you have to meet in the middle a little, it's much better than not voting or voting for McCain.

Oh yeah, and he pushed hard for marriage rights...I'm so glad that this whole topic is a non-issue because Bill Clinton took care of us 14 years ago.

I'm not referring specifically to the marriage issue. Rather to broader gay rights issues (remember that Pat Buchanan, for example, was running in the Republican party on a strongly homophobic platform).

So he wasn't all gung-ho for marriage but "slow and steady" is unacceptable? I'm sorry but that appears to be a double standard, it's alright for a Clinton but it's not alright for an Obama.

Both of which developed after Clinton was inaugurated.
As for DOMA, Clinton swung far to the right from his original campaign positions after the '94 midterm Democratic defeats.

No, it's not alright for a Clinton.
I was responding to your argument that a Democrat accepting gay rights issues cannot win the party nomination or the general election.
Clinton proved that it can be done.

What Clinton subsequently did is not defensible.

As has Obama accepted gay rights issues, just not the ultra-hot topic of marriage which could cost US an election. I don't understand where you're going with this.

Well my definition of marriage is not really something I just made up because I thought it out to be that way. I pretty much go along with the definition of marriage as it appears in the Family Code of California, Section 300 (now presumably updated to reflect gender neutrality)


Further,



Clearly at least as far as the State of California sees it, marriage is indeed a civil construct with an optional religious overlay. I guess my question would be, why we have to strip marriage of its primary meaning and give it over to exclusive use by religious people. That's not the way it works now.

If there is any over abundance of concern about semantics and changing the meaning of words it seems like it is on the side of certain religious people and groups who assert that the term, "marriage" should now be theirs and theirs alone while everyone else gets to be "civil unioned" Those of us who simply argue that marriage needs to be made an option for same-sex couples aren't advocating changing its meaning in the least.

Thanks for the state of CA's definition. That is the definition that underpins the recent CA decision, I assume. So the decision seems pretty consistent.

But my point was that people mean what people mean, and it isn't always the legal definition. IMO people who have an issue are thinking about it more from a religious perspective, if they are thinking about it at all. It might be just some generalized homophobia. But whatever they mean, they still vote.

Anyway, I wasn't saying that some people shouldn't fight for the word, just that *I* have no interest in that battle. And truly, I think that the appropriation of the word is a very different issue from the definition and deployment of full scale domestic partnerships which are non-discriminatory - which I do believe in.

One way to look at it is as follows. Let T1 be the task of adjusting the meaning of "marriage" in enough people's minds, so that "marriage" covers gay unions identically to others in all 50 states. Let T2 be the task of implementing a form of "business partnership" between (exactly?) 2 people which was uniform across all 50 states.

This T2 "domestic partnership" is designed for two people who throw their lot in with each other for the long term, who normally live in the same household, and whose commitment is durable enough to raise children. In my view it should have nothing to do with love, sex, the divine, or any of that stuff that the state has no business sticking its nose into. It does have to do with how to share property, legal rights, shared financial responsibility, what happens on dissolution, etc.

The T1 "agenda" is to allow gay couples to live together with the same state benefits as any other couple. The T2 "agenda" is to get the states out of the "religion" business (love, sex, etc). The endpoint we'd like to see is probably T1+T2. Is it easier to get there by T1 first, then T2, or is it easier to get there via T2, then T1?

Okay, fine, yeah, on some level you're probably right at least in a practical sense. I mean states aren't in the religion business now other than that they allow clergypeople to solemnize your marriage if you want them to. But people do get hung up on their religion and they're like Humpty Dumpty in that marriage means exactly what they want it to mean, no more, no less, and screw the legal definition.

To me all this is like building some sort of random motorized vehicle (you can't call it a car) from the ground up in your garage, so you can get in it and drive it down a few feet of driveway in order the get to the perfectly good car that was already sitting there waiting for you and which by rights you should have been able just to walk over to and get in.

I don't get your argument. So what's your solution? What do you want to see happen?

Yes, it does kind of seem like that. The one difference I see more clearly now is the T2 agenda - getting the state out of the business of religion. If the state thinks it can rule on issues of love, sex, divinity, etc, then I don't think the job is done. The state shouldn't be able to say that only hetero love is good enough, or only certain kinds of sex are permitted (adult), IMO. So even if gay marriage were instantly legal, the next step is to get the state to acknowledge that they never had jurisdiction over what they just permitted.

What I want is exactly what has happened in Canada, in MA, and CA. I want for my partner and I to be able to walk into the courthouse, fill out the paperwork, pay the fee, and get married. I want it nationwide.

I don’t want some torturously created patchwork of “civil unions” that to one degree or another approximate marriage. I don’t want marriage re-defined for both gays and straights as something that can only be performed by a priest or a minister. Marriage isn’t that way now and there is no reason to make it that way.

The SCOC's reasoning was exactly my own. We have functioning institution currently in place. While some people view it in religious terms, the state of CA and I'm willing to bet all other states see it as a civil matter for all citizens with the religious part being an option for citizens who desire to take advantage of it. Ergo, clergypeople being among those licensed by the state to solemnize it.

The decision of whether to give religious sanction to any given marriage remains with the various churches, which is where it has always been. It is not or should not be relevant to the conversation. A marriage is a marriage, whether it has religious sanction or not.

I don’t underestimate the willingness of religious conservatives and “traditionalists” to fight this tooth and nail and to try to present it as an attack on religion But I don’t over estimate their power either. Their influence is beginning to wane, not uniformly or across the board, but voters, especially younger voters, are beginning to get tired of their crap. This is as a good a time as there has ever been to take them on.

The RW has started fighting our watered down localized “civil unions” as hard as they fight marriage itself. For them it's the same battle. Recognition or legitimacy granted to same sex relationships is anathema no matter what it’s called or how limited it is. They are not willing to compromise on this point. We shouldn’t be either.

We gain nothing from them by making concessions. The Polosis and Reids have amply demonstrated how effective a willingness to compromise and to give the opposition the benefit of the doubt has been in dealing with these people. We need to drive home the point with argument and reason over and over again to all Americans that regarding marriage we deserve to be treated no differently than our straight fellow citizens are treated.
.

I don't know what it's so special about Barack Hussein and some of you defending him like if he was your closest ally on gay rights . Not me, Rachel Maddow, MSNBC political analyst, Rhodes Scholar and outspoken lesbian, said yesterday on the Race for The White house that Barky's and McCain's platforms on gay issues where identical. So, that fueled me even more to continue my fight against Obama and lead the fight on behave of the community I represent.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/25199795#25199795
Race For The White House 6/16/2008
3:56-4:16 minute marks
Rachael Maddow:
That is a far cry from her saying their policies are "identical" unless you have another instance in which she is said to have claimed this then please share it with the rest of the class.

Elaborate the difference IF you can, between B. Hussein Obama and J. Sidney McCain on gay issues. Be specific and go to the point, not a post loaded of bs.

McCain:

I supported the Defense of Marriage Act adopted by Congress and signed into law by President Clinton in 1996.


http://online.logcabin.org/news_views/read...s_07132004.html

Obama:

For the record, I opposed DOMA [ the Defense of Marriage Act ] in 1996. It should be repealed and I will vote for its repeal on the Senate floor.


http://www.windycitymediagroup.com/gay/les...LE.php?AID=4018

Now will you STFU?

I believe he did. I understood the difference. If you don't, maybe you should study the topic more before commenting on it.

Where was Barack Hussein Obama in 1996? Maybe doing crack and having gay sex with Larry Sinclair, because he wasn't in the US Senate until January 2005.

He opposed it. Period. Doesn't matter that he wasn't in the U.S. Senate yet...

Ok mods, if this shit isn't proving that he is only here to sow discord, I'm at a loss and will cease and desist...

Why can't you handle a debate and instead want to silence me? Look, I am committee to defeat BHO in Nov, it's an underground movement. We are in, and we are in to win.

Hillary in 2012 Cuz Obama is not right for America

Both of you knock it off. I don't see much debating coming from either side. This thread was doing quite well in the beginning. Its a topic that needs to be discussed. Let's discuss it and not needle, prod or provoke each other.

Don't make me use my mom voice!

will all due respect Jesse tends to drag threads into the ditch i think some posters may agree I could be wrong just saying

Barack Obama was elected to the Illinois State Senate in 1996 from the state's 13th District in the south-side Chicago neighborhood of Hyde Park.

I agree.

You call "Don't Ask - Don't Tell" supporting gay rights? I thought that was a slap in the face to the whole community.

Damned right it is!! It's MORE like, "Sit down and shut the fuck up".

But yet they support Hillary.

Focus on the issue not the person, or I will be calling CowboySteve and he sure will stop it. If you don't like me, fine, I already know it. If you come to this session, post about the issue, not me. It's not about ME.

Regardless of what someone else does, the best response is to reply in a mature fashion. When you allow yourself to go down to their level, then you are both at fault for bad behavior and you will both get reprimanded.

Slapping you all together is just easier for moms.

Just kidding but seriously, if there is a problem, report it to the mod team, don't take it upon yourself to deal with it because most of the time, you get spanked too.

Please allow the mod team to do their job. This is not your job (just in case you were confused).

Absolutly

I believe I have gone into great detail on more than one occasion while you've done nothing but spread vile and vicious lies without documentation or factual basis. You are entitled to your opinion but you are not entitled to flat out lie in an effort to defeat a candidate or sow discord.

We need to get back to the things you say, I want...No, I DEMAND and answer to whether we watched the same show last night. I want to know if you heard where Rachel Maddow said their policies are "identical." I also demand that you back up what you say with proof, I'm tired of your flat out lies and it's time for you start backing up the things you say starting right now!

Next, I want you answer this question: Who will Rachel Maddow vote for in November?


Where was your hero Hillary Clinton while her husband was signing the bill into law? HUH? Was she trying to stop it?
Where was your hero Hillary Clinton while her husband was working his magic with "Don't ask, Don't tell?" Was she trying to stop it?

Knock it off!

This should be a NON-ISSUE with the gay community, voting for McCain is a huge mistake for anyone who is gay and I really hate having to keep working this one single issue because you're attempting to poison the community. Further proof of who you are and the kind of person you are.

I agree. I think people confuse supporting gay rights in the sense of being positive toward us and wishing us well and voting our interests when the opportunity presents itself with supporting gay rights in the sense of taking principled but possibly unpopular stands, pushing for action and not backing down.

From what I've heard, Clinton was kind of in the middle somewhere, and caved when the going got tough. I don't think Obama would have done things any differently had he been in Clinton's position. As far as Obama is concerned there is far less of a political price to pay now for opposing things like DADT when you consider that even people like Sam Nunn have said that they would not be opposed to revisiting the policy. Obama is not exactly sticking his neck out with his positions on gay rights.

And to Jess, I understand where you're coming from although I don't totally share your views. I didn't have the devotion the Hillary that you did. And do. But I've never been a fan of Obama either. This is a tough board on which to be even lukewarm when it comes to Barack. I know. I've been accused of all sorts of nasty and nefarious things simply because I am less than a true believer and have said so. You, however, go way beyond me with the anti-Obama stuff and around here your posts are an open invitation for the residents to show up at your figurative door carrying torches and brandishing various agricultural implements. Especially now that he's the Democratic candidate. Just saying.

Oh Jess, you did NOT say Obama was doing crack and having sex with Larry Sinclair did you? You have sunk to a new low son. Have you been listening to Rush?

Here, cuddle in my armpit while I knock some sense into you.

Again, enough with this, start giving some facts to back up your opinions. The Sinclair thing was more than covered by Randi on her show. If you don't believe her, then show us why.

Yes - I don't count those who are positive toward the community as supporting gay rights, per se. I found the Don't Ask policy ridiculous and an insult to my intelligence.

Barack is going to do damn little to upset the apple cart right now. He is going to take the middle position. He can't afford to be too controversial I suppose.

Take heart friend. I didn't support either one of them - I voted for Edwards, Obama was my 2nd choice. Having said that, the bottom line for me is I am a democrat and will fall in line. I can't afford not to. The alternative is too frightening.