Recently, it's been said that Barack Obama "will be #1 enemy of the GLBT community."
I want this discussed because I think it's horrible for anyone to vote for McCain or not vote could help McCain.
Full Version: Obama to destroy the GLBT community
QUOTE (Alfredo @ Jun 12 2008, 03:54 PM) 
Recently, it's been said that Barack Obama "will be #1 enemy of the GLBT community."
I want this discussed because I think it's horrible for anyone to vote for McCain or not vote could help McCain.
I want this discussed because I think it's horrible for anyone to vote for McCain or not vote could help McCain.
I've never been a big Obama fan. Have to say right now I didn't support Hillary either. They both have been pretty cozy with some people and groups I don't like and that might be politics but I think that a little more principle would have been in order. Having said that, it would be crazy not to vote for Obama in November. The only possible reason I can think of for voting for McCain is if you think things have to get worse before they will truly get better. There may be some method in that madness but it's way more of a risk than I want to take. Obama is the Democratic nominee and he's my guy.
Initially of course I supported Dennis Kucinich, the only candidate who feels there should be no difference between gay couples and straight couples in every single way from a legal standpoint.
As time goes on, I have to fall in line and assure that under no circumstances will McCain be allowed to destroy 40+ years worth of work done by the community.
Is Obama the absolute best person out there to represent our interests? Definitely not but the alternative is absolutely frightening. Coming up there will be at least three Supreme Court appointments, appointments I refuse to let go to conservatives who wish to damage the GLBT community, women's rights and a whole host of other issues.
As time goes on, I have to fall in line and assure that under no circumstances will McCain be allowed to destroy 40+ years worth of work done by the community.
Is Obama the absolute best person out there to represent our interests? Definitely not but the alternative is absolutely frightening. Coming up there will be at least three Supreme Court appointments, appointments I refuse to let go to conservatives who wish to damage the GLBT community, women's rights and a whole host of other issues.
QUOTE (Alfredo @ Jun 12 2008, 05:58 PM)
Initially of course I supported Dennis Kucinich, the only candidate who feels there should be no difference between gay couples and straight couples in every single way from a legal standpoint.
As time goes on, I have to fall in line and assure that under no circumstances will McCain be allowed to destroy 40+ years worth of work done by the community.
Is Obama the absolute best person out there to represent our interests? Definitely not but the alternative is absolutely frightening. Coming up there will be at least three Supreme Court appointments, appointments I refuse to let go to conservatives who wish to damage the GLBT community, women's rights and a whole host of other issues.
As time goes on, I have to fall in line and assure that under no circumstances will McCain be allowed to destroy 40+ years worth of work done by the community.
Is Obama the absolute best person out there to represent our interests? Definitely not but the alternative is absolutely frightening. Coming up there will be at least three Supreme Court appointments, appointments I refuse to let go to conservatives who wish to damage the GLBT community, women's rights and a whole host of other issues.
Given the total wimped out spinelessness of 90% of the Congressional Dems, a McCain presidency would probably allow the corporatist, militarist, socially neanderthal agenda to advance to the point of no return without major upheaval. Any gay even thinking about voting for him needs to be ready to sign the following pledge LCRs especially take note (from the Daily Kos)
QUOTE
The McCain Loyalty Oath for Gays
I, _____________, pledge to transfer my support from Hillary Clinton to John McCain. I agree to do all I can do to get McCain the vote. In order to achieve this noble goal I promise to support McCain's
* commitment to the Army's Don't Ask Don't Tell policy because to "even reopen the issue" would be a "terrific mistake."
* promise to protect "the sanctity of marriage as between a man and woman."
* commitment to banning federal recognition of gay marriage and domestic partnerships.
* opposition to gay adoption which he doesn't think is "appropriate."
* opposition to expanding the federal hate crimes law to include sexual orientation.
As a gay person, I promise to apply McCain's principles to my own life and vow to...
* stop engaging in gay sex.
* never try to marry or adopt.
* enroll in a program to treat my homosexuality and "straighten" myself out, such as a "M.A.N.S. Journey" (Masculinity, Authenticity, Need Fulfillment, Surrender Journey).
* install nanny cams in my house to prevent any gay relapses.
* take responsibility for natural disasters**, including Katrina.
Once McCain is elected, I will continue to support him and his programs and I will not complain about my loss of civil rights. And I will continue to refrain from gay sex.
Sincerely,
Signature __________
I, _____________, pledge to transfer my support from Hillary Clinton to John McCain. I agree to do all I can do to get McCain the vote. In order to achieve this noble goal I promise to support McCain's
* commitment to the Army's Don't Ask Don't Tell policy because to "even reopen the issue" would be a "terrific mistake."
* promise to protect "the sanctity of marriage as between a man and woman."
* commitment to banning federal recognition of gay marriage and domestic partnerships.
* opposition to gay adoption which he doesn't think is "appropriate."
* opposition to expanding the federal hate crimes law to include sexual orientation.
As a gay person, I promise to apply McCain's principles to my own life and vow to...
* stop engaging in gay sex.
* never try to marry or adopt.
* enroll in a program to treat my homosexuality and "straighten" myself out, such as a "M.A.N.S. Journey" (Masculinity, Authenticity, Need Fulfillment, Surrender Journey).
* install nanny cams in my house to prevent any gay relapses.
* take responsibility for natural disasters**, including Katrina.
Once McCain is elected, I will continue to support him and his programs and I will not complain about my loss of civil rights. And I will continue to refrain from gay sex.
Sincerely,
Signature __________
QUOTE (Alfredo @ Jun 12 2008, 05:54 PM)
Recently, it's been said that Barack Obama "will be #1 enemy of the GLBT community."
Where is this being said? Sounds like "freeper poisoning" to me...
I can't see Obama being any worse for the GLBT community than McCain, so with with all the areas I'm confident he will be better in I'll take my chances with that.
From my observations the biggest enemies of the gay community are more often than should be from amongst it's own ranks.
QUOTE (tom @ Jun 13 2008, 08:01 AM)
Where is this being said? Sounds like "freeper poisoning" to me...
I can't see Obama being any worse for the GLBT community than McCain, so with with all the areas I'm confident he will be better in I'll take my chances with that....
I can't see Obama being any worse for the GLBT community than McCain, so with with all the areas I'm confident he will be better in I'll take my chances with that....
I think that, even if based only on posts here at RRMB, the OP's point is correct. Obama taking the "civil unions" route is one of the complaints that has been registered, as has been his failure to speak as forcefully and regularly as some would like in favor of GLBT priorities. Of course, his mention in the nomination victory speech also PLEASED a lot of folks, too.
Point being, at least in terms of campaigning, Obama has not been the GLBT ideal, and that has led to some complaints. But as both you and TYO note, Obama is certainly an improvement over McCain.
I doubt there's a community tied to a specific cause represented anywhere within the party - from 9.1 truthers, through social program protectors, to Universal Health advocates, to GLBT watchdogs, who can claim Obama is the ideal for them. But no human being could be all things to all people, at least not without lying a LOT. But he has demonstrated sufficient interest in and concern for these causes and many others that each seems largely willing to agree that he is vastly superior to McCain.
QUOTE (tom @ Jun 13 2008, 08:01 AM)
Where is this being said? Sounds like "freeper poisoning" to me...
I can't see Obama being any worse for the GLBT community than McCain, so with with all the areas I'm confident he will be better in I'll take my chances with that.
From my observations the biggest enemies of the gay community are more often than should be from amongst it's own ranks.
I can't see Obama being any worse for the GLBT community than McCain, so with with all the areas I'm confident he will be better in I'll take my chances with that.
From my observations the biggest enemies of the gay community are more often than should be from amongst it's own ranks.
I should have clarified that. It was said on the board but I was being very careful not to mention specifics because the staff would have halted this topic immediately if they felt I was baiting a particular member.
QUOTE (bushwa @ Jun 13 2008, 08:51 AM)
I think that, even if based only on posts here at RRMB, the OP's point is correct. Obama taking the "civil unions" route is one of the complaints that has been registered, as has been his failure to speak as forcefully and regularly as some would like in favor of GLBT priorities. Of course, his mention in the nomination victory speech also PLEASED a lot of folks, too.
Point being, at least in terms of campaigning, Obama has not been the GLBT ideal, and that has led to some complaints. But as both you and TYO note, Obama is certainly an improvement over McCain.
I doubt there's a community tied to a specific cause represented anywhere within the party - from 9.1 truthers, through social program protectors, to Universal Health advocates, to GLBT watchdogs, who can claim Obama is the ideal for them. But no human being could be all things to all people, at least not without lying a LOT. But he has demonstrated sufficient interest in and concern for these causes and many others that each seems largely willing to agree that he is vastly superior to McCain.
Point being, at least in terms of campaigning, Obama has not been the GLBT ideal, and that has led to some complaints. But as both you and TYO note, Obama is certainly an improvement over McCain.
I doubt there's a community tied to a specific cause represented anywhere within the party - from 9.1 truthers, through social program protectors, to Universal Health advocates, to GLBT watchdogs, who can claim Obama is the ideal for them. But no human being could be all things to all people, at least not without lying a LOT. But he has demonstrated sufficient interest in and concern for these causes and many others that each seems largely willing to agree that he is vastly superior to McCain.
I agree that his stand on certain issues has been vague but as a long standing member of the Democratic Party, I'm used to being given vague responses when it comes to the GLBT community. IMO there is only one candidate this year who would have seriously tried to make a difference in Washington and that was Dennis Kucinich...anyone after him is just another politician (possible exception could be John Edwards) and I fully understand that. I also believe 110% that ANY Democrat is a better option than what John McCain stands for. A few years ago, John McCain was actually for certain gay rights, but with many of his ideals, he flushed that down the drain when he became the new McCain or should I say the same old Republican McBush that is seeking to win over the hearts of the Republicans he's crossed in the past 25 years.
One thing I'm confident in, Barack Obama will not hurt the gay community in any way whereas John McCain will destroy 40+ years worth of work.
QUOTE (Alfredo @ Jun 13 2008, 09:00 AM)
...
One thing I'm confident in, Barack Obama will not hurt the gay community in any way whereas John McCain will destroy 40+ years worth of work.
One thing I'm confident in, Barack Obama will not hurt the gay community in any way whereas John McCain will destroy 40+ years worth of work.
In between "won't hurt the gay community" and "destroy 40+ years of work" is a lot of middle ground. I happen to think that normal civil rights for gays will be progressed under Obama, pretty close to the "theoretical limit" of the pace at which legislators, with constituents, with prejudices, are willing to progress them. The real issue is that grass roots prejudice affects elected official's positions, which affects which bills are raised and passed into law. If someone's position is too aggressive with respect to what is compatible with election and passage of new legislation, then the effect on law and education from the bully pulpit is minimal. Someone like Kucinich, whose positions I favored before Obama, has value in educating grassroots, but it's a sacrifice, since in educating during elections, he was filtered out. Someone like Obama, will be more interested in getting in power, then changing. Some are corrupted by that (Bush), some are ineffective (Carter?), some are murdered (JFK). Let's hope that Obama isn't in any of those classes. I have a feeling that Obama's focus on gay civil rights, will be similar to health care. He has said in interviews that he prefers single-payer universal healthcare, but that it's politically infeasible at this time. So first emphasis may be to reduce insurer's profit margins, and look into nationalization of health insurance industry as power permits. Kucinich is the one who "won't hurt the gay community" because he isn't elected to national office, and in fact, might be fighting for his life in his Congressional seat. I suspect that, by being elected, Obama will be able to be more effective over his administration in advancing GLBT civil rights than Dennis in the same time frame.
QUOTE (GCurry @ Jun 13 2008, 09:33 AM)
In between "won't hurt the gay community" and "destroy 40+ years of work" is a lot of middle ground. I happen to think that normal civil rights for gays will be progressed under Obama, pretty close to the "theoretical limit" of the pace at which legislators, with constituents, with prejudices, are willing to progress them. The real issue is that grass roots prejudice affects elected official's positions, which affects which bills are raised and passed into law. If someone's position is too aggressive with respect to what is compatible with election and passage of new legislation, then the effect on law and education from the bully pulpit is minimal. Someone like Kucinich, whose positions I favored before Obama, has value in educating grassroots, but it's a sacrifice, since in educating during elections, he was filtered out. Someone like Obama, will be more interested in getting in power, then changing. Some are corrupted by that (Bush), some are ineffective (Carter?), some are murdered (JFK). Let's hope that Obama isn't in any of those classes. I have a feeling that Obama's focus on gay civil rights, will be similar to health care. He has said in interviews that he prefers single-payer universal healthcare, but that it's politically infeasible at this time. So first emphasis may be to reduce insurer's profit margins, and look into nationalization of health insurance industry as power permits. Kucinich is the one who "won't hurt the gay community" because he isn't elected to national office, and in fact, might be fighting for his life in his Congressional seat. I suspect that, by being elected, Obama will be able to be more effective over his administration in advancing GLBT civil rights than Dennis in the same time frame.
That's quite possible and in fact it's people like Dennis Kucinich who bring these issues out in the public and make other politicians take notice of what's happening in their communities, much like Ralph Nader has done in the past and John Edwards did this year (advanced his concern over the poverty stricken and a need for universal health care).
One thing is certain, a McSame presidency would actually HARM any chances of progression in the next 4+ years (I predict more like 30 years due to SC appointments).
QUOTE (Alfredo @ Jun 13 2008, 09:50 AM)
That's quite possible and in fact it's people like Dennis Kucinich who bring these issues out in the public and make other politicians take notice of what's happening in their communities, much like Ralph Nader has done in the past and John Edwards did this year (advanced his concern over the poverty stricken and a need for universal health care).
One thing is certain, a McSame presidency would actually HARM any chances of progression in the next 4+ years (I predict more like 30 years due to SC appointments).
One thing is certain, a McSame presidency would actually HARM any chances of progression in the next 4+ years (I predict more like 30 years due to SC appointments).
I completely agree about McCain, as Bush term 3. Bush ushered in the Age of Bigotry, where not only was bigotry used to divide and conquer to win elections, but also provided a culture which tolerated, encouraged, and even celebrated bigotry (us vs them, damn Muslims, damn French, blah blah blah). By inviting the bigots out of their holes, he has undone decades of progress. McCain would (and is via MSM) continuing that.
I think a nice solution to the Gay marriage issue is to eliminate the word "marriage" from legal contracts between consenting adults who decide to remain together.
If civil union is good for gays, its good for straights too.
If marriage is a religious union, than any religion can marry two people, but its not a legal term.
If it is a legal term, than any two consenting adults should be able to marry. Religion plays no part in decided who is entitled to a legal agreement. Separation of church and state yah know.
So civil union is fine, as long as marriage gets eliminated from all government considerations.
And, of course, any progressive church can marry any gay couple they deem fit to.
If civil union is good for gays, its good for straights too.
If marriage is a religious union, than any religion can marry two people, but its not a legal term.
If it is a legal term, than any two consenting adults should be able to marry. Religion plays no part in decided who is entitled to a legal agreement. Separation of church and state yah know.
So civil union is fine, as long as marriage gets eliminated from all government considerations.
And, of course, any progressive church can marry any gay couple they deem fit to.
Wait a minute, GCurry, what happened to, "Yes we can!" and "The Dream Shall not be Deferred?"
I think what's going to happen is that Obama is going to have to deal with a couple of issues. One of which being that he has maybe tried too hard to be all things to all people and it could be quite a balancing act not to disappoint the expectations or alienate some of the disparate interest groups he's coaxed into his tent.
The other issue is that despite some of his campaign rhetoric, there is little to suggest that in practical terms he is anything other than cautious and gradualist who will find it both temperamentally agreeable and probably politically expedient to pitch his plans and programs accordingly. There is a something to be said for playing it safe, but sometimes what's required is a little trailblazing and risk taking. I think that the country and the new Congress will ahead of Obama in this respect.
I think what's going to happen is that Obama is going to have to deal with a couple of issues. One of which being that he has maybe tried too hard to be all things to all people and it could be quite a balancing act not to disappoint the expectations or alienate some of the disparate interest groups he's coaxed into his tent.
The other issue is that despite some of his campaign rhetoric, there is little to suggest that in practical terms he is anything other than cautious and gradualist who will find it both temperamentally agreeable and probably politically expedient to pitch his plans and programs accordingly. There is a something to be said for playing it safe, but sometimes what's required is a little trailblazing and risk taking. I think that the country and the new Congress will ahead of Obama in this respect.
QUOTE (toreyj01 @ Jun 13 2008, 09:58 AM)
I think a nice solution to the Gay marriage issue is to eliminate the word "marriage" from legal contracts between consenting adults who decide to remain together.
If civil union is good for gays, its good for straights too.
If marriage is a religious union, than any religion can marry two people, but its not a legal term.
If it is a legal term, than any two consenting adults should be able to marry. Religion plays no part in decided who is entitled to a legal agreement. Separation of church and state yah know.
So civil union is fine, as long as marriage gets eliminated from all government considerations.
And, of course, any progressive church can marry any gay couple they deem fit to.
If civil union is good for gays, its good for straights too.
If marriage is a religious union, than any religion can marry two people, but its not a legal term.
If it is a legal term, than any two consenting adults should be able to marry. Religion plays no part in decided who is entitled to a legal agreement. Separation of church and state yah know.
So civil union is fine, as long as marriage gets eliminated from all government considerations.
And, of course, any progressive church can marry any gay couple they deem fit to.
I'm so with you on that...I know, strange huh?
For years I have heard how marriage is a sacred religious thing yet oddly enough my parents are considered married. My father, a life long Democrat and former elected official as well as public servant did not want to be married in a church and because he is from a Catholic family (albeit liberal Catholic) and my mother is from a Lutheran family, it would have been awkward for his family to have it in a Lutheran church and impossible to have in any Catholic church because my mother had no interest in changing religions (mostly because she isn't overly religious nor is my father). My parents were married in a ceremony in their home and officiating the service was a prominent judge, their marriage was in no way religious.
Now, using my parents as an example, the argument for years by the right that marriage should only be between a man and a woman because of religious reasons would have a serious affect on my parent marriage because by their definition, my parents wouldn't be technically married and for a long time I had hatred for this because IMO the religious right wing was basically saying that my parents marriage was illegal and wrong. Essentially the right was saying my parents marriage had no validity compared to those who are holier than thou.
I've listened to many sides of this for a very long time and I think that marriage should be abolished and civil unions should replace marriage by law since marriage is considered religious. I also believe everyone should be given the same protections and benefits under civil unions.
As much as I'd hate to accept it, the "separate but equal" civil unions is a step up from it being constitutionally illegal.
Once gay civil unions are allowed, we can work from there to prove that they are inequal and get that changed.
Once gay civil unions are allowed, we can work from there to prove that they are inequal and get that changed.
QUOTE (Alfredo @ Jun 13 2008, 10:13 AM)
I've listened to many sides of this for a very long time and I think that marriage should be abolished and civil unions should replace marriage by law since marriage is considered religious. I also believe everyone should be given the same protections and benefits under civil unions.
this seemingly good idea comes up over and over, problem is the religious folks who make a stink about gays in the first place will never allow you to take away one of their dogmatic traditions such as marriage...
human race has to evolve about 100 more years and this will no longer be an issue
QUOTE (Tyo @ Jun 13 2008, 10:08 AM)
Wait a minute, GCurry, what happened to, "Yes we can!" and "The Dream Shall not be Deferred?"
I think what's going to happen is that Obama is going to have to deal with a couple of issues. One of which being that he has maybe tried too hard to be all things to all people and it could be quite a balancing act not to disappoint the expectations or alienate some of the disparate interest groups he's coaxed into his tent.
The other issue is that despite some of his campaign rhetoric, there is little to suggest that in practical terms he is anything other than cautious and gradualist who will find it both temperamentally agreeable and probably politically expedient to pitch his plans and programs accordingly. There is a something to be said for playing it safe, but sometimes what's required is a little trailblazing and risk taking. I think that the country and the new Congress will ahead of Obama in this respect.
I think what's going to happen is that Obama is going to have to deal with a couple of issues. One of which being that he has maybe tried too hard to be all things to all people and it could be quite a balancing act not to disappoint the expectations or alienate some of the disparate interest groups he's coaxed into his tent.
The other issue is that despite some of his campaign rhetoric, there is little to suggest that in practical terms he is anything other than cautious and gradualist who will find it both temperamentally agreeable and probably politically expedient to pitch his plans and programs accordingly. There is a something to be said for playing it safe, but sometimes what's required is a little trailblazing and risk taking. I think that the country and the new Congress will ahead of Obama in this respect.
We'll have to wait and see I guess. "Yes we can" doesn't necessarily mean instantly. Sometimes it means pushing and pushing, like the Little Engine that Could". I will be shocked if Obama can deliver on all expectations he's set. But I also see that he just barely won the nomination. And I do believe that there are some foundational things that must be attended to before ANYONE can make real progress. Grass roots mobilization, transparency are high on the list. Right behind that is reining the media in and ending the culture of divide and conquer. So so far, I'm encouraged, because he is building a foundation, both within the party machinery and in the electorate. And even with all that, I'm not sure a well-intentioned person can move things very fast, especially since there are so many hate mongers who are empowered by bigotry.
QUOTE (Randys @ Jun 13 2008, 10:18 AM)
this seemingly good idea comes up over and over, problem is the religious folks who make a stink about gays in the first place will never allow you to take away one of their dogmatic traditions such as marriage...
human race has to evolve about 100 more years and this will no longer be an issue
human race has to evolve about 100 more years and this will no longer be an issue
Screw the religious folks. We've been turning our tails and running from the Christian Right for too long.
I think it's finally coming out that in terms of numbers they are not and never have been powerful as they have been protrayed. Where they have excelled is in organization and in making noise and I think that now even most of them are beginning to see that their influence is waning. I think it's time to call the bullys' bluff.
Norway just got on board with MARRIAGE equlity. God has yet to smite Canada. What's wrong with us here?
QUOTE (tom @ Jun 13 2008, 08:01 AM)
Where is this being said? Sounds like "freeper poisoning" to me...
Well, if you know where this topic arose from then you know where I stand on this. There are many voices claiming to speak on behalf of the GLBT community (or LGBT depending on who's doing the writing) who are critical of Obama and have taken a couple of his comments to build a whole fairy tale of evil around. I don't wish to dump a compendium of ignorance onto the board, but I did find one such article to link which i believe is a textbook example of this. You'll notice in the article how they go from giving Obama credit for what he has said and done to a maelstrom of demons from the past to convict him with, throwing in Jim Crow and Plessy v. Furgeson and more. Amazing how some people are smart enough to talk themselves out of their best interests.
Barack Obama is no great political hopeful for gays
QUOTE (Randys @ Jun 13 2008, 01:18 PM)
this seemingly good idea comes up over and over, problem is the religious folks who make a stink about gays in the first place will never allow you to take away one of their dogmatic traditions such as marriage...
human race has to evolve about 100 more years and this will no longer be an issue
human race has to evolve about 100 more years and this will no longer be an issue
That's the point, though. Marriage is not going to be abolished at all. It is just not going to be written on a legal contract.
I don't have a legal document from my first communion or confirmation, why should I have one for a marriage? Any legal briefs at a Bris (spelling?)?
If they want Marriage to be sacred, then make it sacred. If they say it is not sacred, then anyone is entitled. Take your pick, but you cannot have it both ways.
QUOTE (toreyj01 @ Jun 13 2008, 10:41 AM)
That's the point, though. Marriage is not going to be abolished at all. It is just not going to be written on a legal contract.
I don't have a legal document from my first communion or confirmation, why should I have one for a marriage? Any legal briefs at a Bris (spelling?)?
If they want Marriage to be sacred, then make it sacred. If they say it is not sacred, then anyone is entitled. Take your pick, but you cannot have it both ways.
I don't have a legal document from my first communion or confirmation, why should I have one for a marriage? Any legal briefs at a Bris (spelling?)?
If they want Marriage to be sacred, then make it sacred. If they say it is not sacred, then anyone is entitled. Take your pick, but you cannot have it both ways.
That's pretty much where I stand. Also raised Catholic. I'd like to see the word "marriage" obliterated for 100 years. The state defines domestic partnerships having to do with property and care of children. The various sects define their own terms (ala Mormon "sealing") for whatever flavor of metaphysical bonding they do or do not believe in) without any meddling by government in the business of religions and especially, vice versa.
QUOTE (danisnape @ Jun 13 2008, 01:17 PM)
As much as I'd hate to accept it, the "separate but equal" civil unions is a step up from it being constitutionally illegal.
Once gay civil unions are allowed, we can work from there to prove that they are inequal and get that changed.
Once gay civil unions are allowed, we can work from there to prove that they are inequal and get that changed.
To me, this is like "Dont ask, Don't tell" or "All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others".
If it's nonsense, its nonsense.
In this country at least, marriage is a legal construct first and a religious one second, if at all. The religious part is totally optional. The state deoesn't care whether you have your marriage sactified or not. On the other hand, try telling a couple that they are not really married but only "civil unioned" because they chose to tie the knot before a judge rather than having a priest or minister officiate and see what happens.
QUOTE (Tyo @ Jun 13 2008, 11:02 AM)
In this country at least, marriage is a legal construct first and a religious one second, if at all. The religious part is totally optional. The state deoesn't care whether you have your marriage sactified or not. On the other hand, try telling a couple that they are not really married but only "civil unioned" because they chose to tie the knot before a judge rather than having a priest or minister officiate and see what happens.
That was my point a while back in the story of my parents. HOW DARE the right say my parents marriage is invalid.
QUOTE (Alfredo @ Jun 13 2008, 11:04 AM)
That was my point a while back in the story of my parents. HOW DARE the right say my parents marriage is invalid.
Exactly, Alfredo. It's frustrating that this has to be repeated over and over again. People need to get with the fact that legally and practically marriage has nothing to do with churches and religion.
QUOTE (Alfredo @ Jun 13 2008, 12:00 PM)
I should have clarified that. It was said on the board but I was being very careful not to mention specifics because the staff would have halted this topic immediately if they felt I was baiting a particular member.
I am that particular member. I said it.
QUOTE (Jessebttmboy @ Jun 13 2008, 11:46 AM)
I am that particular member. I said it.
It's about time you came here to say something. Now please, so everyone can see, tell us what your problems are.
He will be a setback for the gay community, he wants " Separate but Equal rights for all citizen" Since you are so brilliant and have studied Obama campaign playbook so well, please explain. But not only that, OBAMA SHOWED 18 MILLION VOTERS HIS UNTRUSTWORTHY AND WHAT IS LIKE TO BE VOTED IN A BACKROOM DEAL.......MY AND YOUR GLBT RIGHTS WILL BE ALSO NEGOTIATED IN A BACKROOM BY A BUNCH OF HETEROSEXUAL MEN.
18 MILLION VOTERS SAW HOW HE AND THE BIG DUDES WITH THEIR BEER BELLIES AND FAT ASSES FROM THE DNC STOLE THE VOTES THAT WERE NOT ALLOCATED TO HIM AND YET HE ALLOWED IT TO HAPPEN...HE WILL REMOVED EVERY RIGHT GIVEN OR EARNED TO YOU QUICKER THAN A RAY OF LIGHT.
Hillary makes me proud, all her supporters standing up against Obama and for democracy makes me proud, Not sucking up to the DNC and standing up for what's right makes me proud.. Obama? He makes me sick! His kool-aid is strong....but the truth is stronger.
18 MILLION VOTERS SAW HOW HE AND THE BIG DUDES WITH THEIR BEER BELLIES AND FAT ASSES FROM THE DNC STOLE THE VOTES THAT WERE NOT ALLOCATED TO HIM AND YET HE ALLOWED IT TO HAPPEN...HE WILL REMOVED EVERY RIGHT GIVEN OR EARNED TO YOU QUICKER THAN A RAY OF LIGHT.
Hillary makes me proud, all her supporters standing up against Obama and for democracy makes me proud, Not sucking up to the DNC and standing up for what's right makes me proud.. Obama? He makes me sick! His kool-aid is strong....but the truth is stronger.
QUOTE (Jessebttmboy @ Jun 13 2008, 11:55 AM)
He will be a setback for the gay community, he wants " Separate but Equal rights for all citizen" Since you are so brilliant and have studied Obama campaign playbook so well, please explain. But not only that, OBAMA SHOWED 18 MILLION VOTERS HIS UNTRUSTWORTHY AND WHAT IS LIKE TO BE VOTED IN A BACKROOM DEAL.......MY AND YOUR GLBT RIGHTS WILL BE ALSO NEGOTIATED IN A BACKROOM BY A BUNCH OF HETEROSEXUAL MEN.
18 MILLION VOTERS SAW HOW HE AND THE BIG DUDES WITH THEIR BEER BELLIES AND FAT ASSES FROM THE DNC STOLE THE VOTES THAT WERE NOT ALLOCATED TO HIM AND YET HE ALLOWED IT TO HAPPEN...HE WILL REMOVED EVERY RIGHT GIVEN OR EARNED TO YOU QUICKER THAN A RAY OF LIGHT.
Hillary makes me proud, all her supporters standing up against Obama and for democracy makes me proud, Not sucking up to the DNC and standing up for what's right makes me proud.. Obama? He makes me sick! His kool-aid is strong....but the truth is stronger.
18 MILLION VOTERS SAW HOW HE AND THE BIG DUDES WITH THEIR BEER BELLIES AND FAT ASSES FROM THE DNC STOLE THE VOTES THAT WERE NOT ALLOCATED TO HIM AND YET HE ALLOWED IT TO HAPPEN...HE WILL REMOVED EVERY RIGHT GIVEN OR EARNED TO YOU QUICKER THAN A RAY OF LIGHT.
Hillary makes me proud, all her supporters standing up against Obama and for democracy makes me proud, Not sucking up to the DNC and standing up for what's right makes me proud.. Obama? He makes me sick! His kool-aid is strong....but the truth is stronger.
Big dudes with their beer-bellies and fat asses? Holy s#!t, you really are a heterophobe.
QUOTE (Fellixe @ Jun 13 2008, 02:58 PM)
Big dudes with their beer-bellies and fat asses? Holy s#!t, you really are a heterophobe.
No I am not. You are oversensitive.
We all know where this started, and it's the most idiotic thing I've ever heard.
All I have to say is this:
Barack Obama's website has a page for the LGBT community:
http://pride.barackobama.com/page/content/lgbthome
Where is John McCain's?????
If you think voting for John McCain or not voting at all is going to do anything but hurt the gay community... you're a complete idiot.
Get your head out of your ass!
Barack Obama has included the gay community in his campaign more than any other presidential nominee in history.
All I have to say is this:
Barack Obama's website has a page for the LGBT community:
http://pride.barackobama.com/page/content/lgbthome
Where is John McCain's?????
If you think voting for John McCain or not voting at all is going to do anything but hurt the gay community... you're a complete idiot.
Get your head out of your ass!
Barack Obama has included the gay community in his campaign more than any other presidential nominee in history.
QUOTE (Jessebttmboy @ Jun 13 2008, 11:55 AM)
He will be a setback for the gay community, he wants " Separate but Equal rights for all citizen" Since you are so brilliant and have studied Obama campaign playbook so well, please explain.
bttmboy, I agree with you about the "separate but equal" stuff. And he wants to leave it up to the individual states to grant us whatever separate but "equal" rights they feel like tossing our way. Or not granting us any at all as they choose. Basically, he's telling my partner and i that we aren't good enough for marriage. You have to be straight for that. I have a suggestion as to what he can do with that attitude.
Moreover, even if you are lucky enough to live in an enlightened state your rights disappear as soon as you cross the border into one that's less so (except in the case of NY). How is that fair or right? Or Equal? Having said all that, I don't think Hillary would have been significantly better for us than Obama will be. But better either one of them than that drooling senile old blood-chugger the Rethugs are trying to foist on to us
QUOTE (Tyo @ Jun 13 2008, 03:10 PM)
bttmboy, I agree with you about the "separate but equal" stuff. And he wants to leave it up to the individual states to grant us whatever separate but "equal" rights they feel like tossing our way. Or not granting us any at all as they choose. Basically, he's telling my partner and i that we aren't good enough for marriage. You have to be straight for that. I have a suggestion as to what he can do with that attitude.
Moreover, even if you are lucky enough to live in an enlightened state your rights disappear as soon as you cross the border into one that's less so (except in the case of NY). How is that fair or right? Or Equal? Having said all that, I don't think Hillary would have been significantly better for us than Obama will be. But better either one of them than that drooling senile old blood-chugger the Rethugs are trying to foist on to us
Moreover, even if you are lucky enough to live in an enlightened state your rights disappear as soon as you cross the border into one that's less so (except in the case of NY). How is that fair or right? Or Equal? Having said all that, I don't think Hillary would have been significantly better for us than Obama will be. But better either one of them than that drooling senile old blood-chugger the Rethugs are trying to foist on to us
Thank you, Tyo. Maybe other board members will like it better if they read it from you. Cuz many here just cut your throat, say: "fuk u", and throw you in the lake, etc etc just cuz you said you don't feel comfortable voting for either candidate.
You're kind!!
QUOTE (Jessebttmboy @ Jun 13 2008, 11:55 AM)
He will be a setback for the gay community, he wants " Separate but Equal rights for all citizen" Since you are so brilliant and have studied Obama campaign playbook so well, please explain.
The fact of the matter is, Dennis Kucinich was the ONLY candidate that supported completely equal rights for us.
Hillary Clinton didn't. Barack Obama doesn't. John McCain certainly doesn't... he probably wants to reverse some of the advances we've made.
So I don't understand the issue here.
QUOTE (Jessebttmboy @ Jun 13 2008, 12:20 PM)
Thank you, Tyo. Maybe other board members will like it better if they read it from you. Cuz many here just cut your throat, say: "fuk u", and throw you in the lake, etc etc just cuz you said you don't feel comfortable voting for either candidate.
You're kind!!
You're kind!!
Because you spoke up in general topics as a spokesperson for the gay community, a position I didn't vote for you to be.
I suggest you read the last part of what Tyo said.
QUOTE (Claystation @ Jun 13 2008, 12:21 PM)
The fact of the matter is, Dennis Kucinich was the ONLY candidate that supported completely equal rights for us.
Hillary Clinton didn't. Barack Obama doesn't. John McCain certainly doesn't... he probably wants to reverse some of the advances we've made.
So I don't understand the issue here.
Hillary Clinton didn't. Barack Obama doesn't. John McCain certainly doesn't... he probably wants to reverse some of the advances we've made.
So I don't understand the issue here.
You're right. In practical terms. See my post above.
The issue for me is that I don't like Obama's religious justification for keeping marriage a party that only straights are invited to. Would be nice if he could come up with some sort of reason not tied to the bible and his faith for denying marriage to us.
I also think that he's dodging the issue by leaving it up to the states when he must know that that is a recipe for Jim Crow, the gay version. Perhaps i hold Obama to a higher standard than I did Hillary, but I would think that his background and his journey through life would have made him a more enthusiastic advocate for us than he is.
QUOTE (Tyo @ Jun 13 2008, 12:29 PM)
You're right. In practical terms. See my post above.
The issue for me is that I don't like Obama's religious justification for keeping marriage a party that only straights are invited to. Would be nice if he could come up with some sort of reason not tied to the bible and his faith for denying marriage to us.
I also think that he's dodging the issue by leaving it up to the states when he must know that that is a recipe for Jim Crow, the gay version. Perhaps i hold Obama to a higher standard than I did Hillary, but I would think that his background and his journey through life would have made him a more enthusiastic advocate for us than he is.
The issue for me is that I don't like Obama's religious justification for keeping marriage a party that only straights are invited to. Would be nice if he could come up with some sort of reason not tied to the bible and his faith for denying marriage to us.
I also think that he's dodging the issue by leaving it up to the states when he must know that that is a recipe for Jim Crow, the gay version. Perhaps i hold Obama to a higher standard than I did Hillary, but I would think that his background and his journey through life would have made him a more enthusiastic advocate for us than he is.
Living in reality, like I like to do... I know it's going to be awhile before we have a presidential nominee that will support equal rights.
That doesn't mean you stop fighting... it also doesn't mean you check out of the election either. That is a VERY, VERY irresponsible thing to do.
Did yall see the Logo debate?
On the plus side, Obama was very outspoken on "Don't ask, Don't tell" on the presidential debates. Very critical it existed at all, indignant we didn't respect Gay servicmembers that serve and die for our country, etc.
That's a good thing.
But I think the politician comes out when the question of marriage arises. Personally, I don't think he would have a single problem with this, but practically, he is thinking of the "big tent" approach. May not provide much solace to someone wanting a frank and open endorsement of equality right out of the gate, but it's hardly indicative of a homophobic nature as espoused by McCain.
You may not get to "taste" everything Obama is about until after the elections are over and he can make some decisions. But the ingredients are solid and it smells damn good, so I can wait.
That's a good thing.
But I think the politician comes out when the question of marriage arises. Personally, I don't think he would have a single problem with this, but practically, he is thinking of the "big tent" approach. May not provide much solace to someone wanting a frank and open endorsement of equality right out of the gate, but it's hardly indicative of a homophobic nature as espoused by McCain.
You may not get to "taste" everything Obama is about until after the elections are over and he can make some decisions. But the ingredients are solid and it smells damn good, so I can wait.
QUOTE (toreyj01 @ Jun 13 2008, 09:58 AM)
I think a nice solution to the Gay marriage issue is to eliminate the word "marriage" from legal contracts between consenting adults who decide to remain together.
If civil union is good for gays, its good for straights too.
If marriage is a religious union, than any religion can marry two people, but its not a legal term.
If it is a legal term, than any two consenting adults should be able to marry. Religion plays no part in decided who is entitled to a legal agreement. Separation of church and state yah know.
So civil union is fine, as long as marriage gets eliminated from all government considerations.
And, of course, any progressive church can marry any gay couple they deem fit to.
If civil union is good for gays, its good for straights too.
If marriage is a religious union, than any religion can marry two people, but its not a legal term.
If it is a legal term, than any two consenting adults should be able to marry. Religion plays no part in decided who is entitled to a legal agreement. Separation of church and state yah know.
So civil union is fine, as long as marriage gets eliminated from all government considerations.
And, of course, any progressive church can marry any gay couple they deem fit to.
I agree 100% with this.
QUOTE (Claystation @ Jun 13 2008, 12:21 PM)
The fact of the matter is, Dennis Kucinich was the ONLY candidate that supported completely equal rights for us.
Hillary Clinton didn't. Barack Obama doesn't. John McCain certainly doesn't... he probably wants to reverse some of the advances we've made.
So I don't understand the issue here.
Hillary Clinton didn't. Barack Obama doesn't. John McCain certainly doesn't... he probably wants to reverse some of the advances we've made.
So I don't understand the issue here.
And Edwards didn't at all.
IMO "civil unions" is b.s. gradualist talk and should thus be rejected at ever turn. But I feel I cannot afford to be a single-issue voter on that issue, facing an opponent who will put more Alitos, Roberts and Rehnquists on the SCOTUS.
Did anyone on this goddam thread watch the LOGO debates?????
Obama said he supported Civil Union, like in Canada and elsewhere. And he came forth to support the CA Supreme Court ruling for gay marriage. Hilliary has said the same thing as well.
Both Hill and Obama are at a better place then the repubs will be. And, at least they are including us in their speeches and platforms. It's a rather positive move forward for sure.
Please, go to the LOGO debates and watch what they say. Then, go read the PR on the CA decisions. You will see a unified democratic voice on our issues as opposed to the SILENCE from the Repugs.
Obama said he supported Civil Union, like in Canada and elsewhere. And he came forth to support the CA Supreme Court ruling for gay marriage. Hilliary has said the same thing as well.
Both Hill and Obama are at a better place then the repubs will be. And, at least they are including us in their speeches and platforms. It's a rather positive move forward for sure.
Please, go to the LOGO debates and watch what they say. Then, go read the PR on the CA decisions. You will see a unified democratic voice on our issues as opposed to the SILENCE from the Repugs.
QUOTE (Dan-From-LA @ Jun 14 2008, 03:26 AM)
Obama said he supported Civil Union, like in Canada and elsewhere. And he came forth to support the CA Supreme Court ruling for gay marriage. Hilliary has said the same thing as well.
Except gay marriage is universal in Canada, not civil unions.
October 21, 2004
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BT7qhGvykiQ
The Audacity of Hope (2006)
"It is my obligation, not only as an elected official in a pluralistic society but also as a Christian, to remain open to the possibility that my unwillingness to support gay marriage is misguided...and that in years hence I may be seen as someone who was on the wrong side of history."
HRC/LOGO debate
August 9, 2007
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HHAuvf_E790
SOLMONESE: Senator, thank you so much for joining us. It's a real honor to have you here with us tonight. And thank you for being the first to accept our invitation.
You have said in previous debates that it is up to individual religious denominations to decide whether or not to recognize same sex marriage, and so my
question is what place does the church have in government-sanctioned civil marriages?
Barack Obama: It is my strong belief that the government has to treat all citizens equally. I come from that in part out of personal experience. When you're a black guy named Barack Obama, you know what it's like to be on the outside. And so my concern is continually to make sure that the rights that are conferred by the state are equal for all people.
That's why I opposed DOMA in 2006 when I ran for the Senate. That's why I am a strong supporter not of a weak version of civil unions, but of a strong version, in which the rights that are conferred at the federal level to persons who are part of the same sex union are compatible.
When it comes to federal rights, the over 1,100 rights that right now are not being given to same sex couples, I think that's unacceptable, and as president of the United States, I am going to fight hard to make sure that those rights are available.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73oZ_pe1MZ8
Q: If you were back in the Illinois legislature where you served and the issue of civil marriage came before you, how would you have voted on that?
Barack Obama: My view is that we should try to disentangle what has historically been the issue of the word "marriage," which has religious connotations to some people, from the civil rights that are given to couples, in terms of hospital visitation, in terms of whether or not they can transfer property or Social Security benefits and so forth. So it depends on how the bill would've come up. I would've supported and would continue to support a civil union that provides all the benefits that are available for a legally sanctioned marriage. And it is then, as I said, up to religious denominations to make a determination as to whether they want to recognize that as marriage or not.
Q: On the grounds of civil marriage, can you see to our community where [your stance of separating gay rights from the word "marriage"] comes across as sounding like "separate but equal"?
Barack Obama: Look, when my parents got married in 1961, it would have been illegal for them to be married in a number of states in the South. So obviously, this is something that I understand intimately, it's something that I care about. But if I were advising the civil rights movement back in 1961 about its approach to civil rights, I would have probably said it's less important that we focus on an anti-miscegenation law than we focus on a voting rights law and a non-discrimination and employment law and all the legal rights that are conferred by the state. Now, it's not for me to suggest that you shouldn't be troubled by these issues. But my job as president is going to be to make sure that the legal rights that have consequences on a day to day basis for loving same sex couples all across the country.
Don't Ask, Don't Tell
October 7, 2007
http://bloggernista.com/2007/10/07/obama-c...n-gay-soldiers/
And finally...
Human Rights Campaign Endorses Sen. Barack Obama for President of the United States
June 6, 2008
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BT7qhGvykiQ
QUOTE (Barack Obama)
I believe marriage is between a man and a woman but I also detest the sorta bashing and vilifying of gays and lesbians because I think it's unduly divisive, it's unnecessary. Most gays and lesbians are simply seeking basic recognition of their rights, so that they're not discriminated against in employment, so they're not discriminated against with respect for renting a house, that they are able to visit their partner in a hospital, that they are able to transfer property.
The Audacity of Hope (2006)
"It is my obligation, not only as an elected official in a pluralistic society but also as a Christian, to remain open to the possibility that my unwillingness to support gay marriage is misguided...and that in years hence I may be seen as someone who was on the wrong side of history."
HRC/LOGO debate
August 9, 2007
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HHAuvf_E790
SOLMONESE: Senator, thank you so much for joining us. It's a real honor to have you here with us tonight. And thank you for being the first to accept our invitation.
You have said in previous debates that it is up to individual religious denominations to decide whether or not to recognize same sex marriage, and so my
question is what place does the church have in government-sanctioned civil marriages?
Barack Obama: It is my strong belief that the government has to treat all citizens equally. I come from that in part out of personal experience. When you're a black guy named Barack Obama, you know what it's like to be on the outside. And so my concern is continually to make sure that the rights that are conferred by the state are equal for all people.
That's why I opposed DOMA in 2006 when I ran for the Senate. That's why I am a strong supporter not of a weak version of civil unions, but of a strong version, in which the rights that are conferred at the federal level to persons who are part of the same sex union are compatible.
When it comes to federal rights, the over 1,100 rights that right now are not being given to same sex couples, I think that's unacceptable, and as president of the United States, I am going to fight hard to make sure that those rights are available.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73oZ_pe1MZ8
Q: If you were back in the Illinois legislature where you served and the issue of civil marriage came before you, how would you have voted on that?
Barack Obama: My view is that we should try to disentangle what has historically been the issue of the word "marriage," which has religious connotations to some people, from the civil rights that are given to couples, in terms of hospital visitation, in terms of whether or not they can transfer property or Social Security benefits and so forth. So it depends on how the bill would've come up. I would've supported and would continue to support a civil union that provides all the benefits that are available for a legally sanctioned marriage. And it is then, as I said, up to religious denominations to make a determination as to whether they want to recognize that as marriage or not.
Q: On the grounds of civil marriage, can you see to our community where [your stance of separating gay rights from the word "marriage"] comes across as sounding like "separate but equal"?
Barack Obama: Look, when my parents got married in 1961, it would have been illegal for them to be married in a number of states in the South. So obviously, this is something that I understand intimately, it's something that I care about. But if I were advising the civil rights movement back in 1961 about its approach to civil rights, I would have probably said it's less important that we focus on an anti-miscegenation law than we focus on a voting rights law and a non-discrimination and employment law and all the legal rights that are conferred by the state. Now, it's not for me to suggest that you shouldn't be troubled by these issues. But my job as president is going to be to make sure that the legal rights that have consequences on a day to day basis for loving same sex couples all across the country.
Don't Ask, Don't Tell
October 7, 2007
http://bloggernista.com/2007/10/07/obama-c...n-gay-soldiers/
QUOTE (Barack Obama)
Anybody who is willing to serve our country and die on a battlefield for us and our patriots, that’s the criteria for whether or not they should be able to serve in our military. England doesn’t have this policy. Israel doesn’t have this policy. It’s an outdated policy.
And finally...
Human Rights Campaign Endorses Sen. Barack Obama for President of the United States
June 6, 2008
QUOTE
WASHINGTON–The Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s largest gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender civil rights group, today announced that the organization will endorse Senator Barack Obama (D-Ill.) for president of the United States. The decision was made by the HRC Board of Directors based on Senator Obama’s support for GLBT equality, his demonstrated leadership, and his unwavering commitment to civil rights.
“HRC is proud to throw our full support behind Senator Obama’s presidential campaign,” said HRC President Joe Solmonese. “Senator Obama has consistently shown that he understands, as we do, that, GLBT rights are civil rights, and human rights. Senator Obama has said that embracing ‘our gay brothers and sisters’ is true to Martin Luther King’s vision; I know that Senator Obama’s vision is one of equality, fairness, and justice for all of us,” he said. “We have just witnessed a historic primary contest in which two champions of our community demonstrated that they hear our voices and share our dreams. For millions across this country, their candidacies—as the first woman and the first African American to be top contenders for the nomination of a major party—have already been life-changing, inspiring, and groundbreaking. Senators Obama and Clinton both remained our allies whether they were campaigning in New Mexico or Nebraska; in California or Kansas. They are, quite simply, heroes to anyone fighting for equality,”
Senator Obama supports federal benefits and protections for same-sex couples, a fully-inclusive Employment Non-Discrimination Act and hate crimes legislation, comprehensive sex education, the repeal of the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, and increased funding for HIV/AIDS. He opposes the federal marriage amendment and bans on adoption by GLBT people. Senator Obama participated in HRC’s and Logo’s historic presidential forum in 2007, and submitted HRC’s presidential questionnaire.
“The Human Rights Campaign has been at the forefront of the fight for GLBT equality and opportunity, and I am proud to have its endorsement,” said Senator Obama. “Too often, the issue of GLBT rights is exploited by those seeking to divide us. But at its core, this issue is about who we are as Americans. I look forward to working with HRC to end discrimination against GLBT Americans and to ensure that all of our citizens are treated with dignity and respect.”
Solmonese concluded, “I’ve been consistently impressed by Senator Obama’s willingness to speak about GLBT issues in front of diverse audiences. Matters of life and livelihood for GLBT Americans are on the line in this election and after eight years of an anti-gay stranglehold on the presidency, Sen. Obama’s message of fairness and acceptance is a breath of fresh air.”
The Human Rights Campaign is America’s largest civil rights organization working to achieve gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender equality. By inspiring and engaging all Americans, HRC strives to end discrimination against GLBT citizens and realize a nation that achieves fundamental fairness and equality for all.
“HRC is proud to throw our full support behind Senator Obama’s presidential campaign,” said HRC President Joe Solmonese. “Senator Obama has consistently shown that he understands, as we do, that, GLBT rights are civil rights, and human rights. Senator Obama has said that embracing ‘our gay brothers and sisters’ is true to Martin Luther King’s vision; I know that Senator Obama’s vision is one of equality, fairness, and justice for all of us,” he said. “We have just witnessed a historic primary contest in which two champions of our community demonstrated that they hear our voices and share our dreams. For millions across this country, their candidacies—as the first woman and the first African American to be top contenders for the nomination of a major party—have already been life-changing, inspiring, and groundbreaking. Senators Obama and Clinton both remained our allies whether they were campaigning in New Mexico or Nebraska; in California or Kansas. They are, quite simply, heroes to anyone fighting for equality,”
Senator Obama supports federal benefits and protections for same-sex couples, a fully-inclusive Employment Non-Discrimination Act and hate crimes legislation, comprehensive sex education, the repeal of the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, and increased funding for HIV/AIDS. He opposes the federal marriage amendment and bans on adoption by GLBT people. Senator Obama participated in HRC’s and Logo’s historic presidential forum in 2007, and submitted HRC’s presidential questionnaire.
“The Human Rights Campaign has been at the forefront of the fight for GLBT equality and opportunity, and I am proud to have its endorsement,” said Senator Obama. “Too often, the issue of GLBT rights is exploited by those seeking to divide us. But at its core, this issue is about who we are as Americans. I look forward to working with HRC to end discrimination against GLBT Americans and to ensure that all of our citizens are treated with dignity and respect.”
Solmonese concluded, “I’ve been consistently impressed by Senator Obama’s willingness to speak about GLBT issues in front of diverse audiences. Matters of life and livelihood for GLBT Americans are on the line in this election and after eight years of an anti-gay stranglehold on the presidency, Sen. Obama’s message of fairness and acceptance is a breath of fresh air.”
The Human Rights Campaign is America’s largest civil rights organization working to achieve gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender equality. By inspiring and engaging all Americans, HRC strives to end discrimination against GLBT citizens and realize a nation that achieves fundamental fairness and equality for all.
QUOTE (Dan-From-LA @ Jun 14 2008, 12:26 AM)
Did anyone on this goddam thread watch the LOGO debates?????
Obama said he supported Civil Union, like in Canada and elsewhere. And he came forth to support the CA Supreme Court ruling for gay marriage. Hilliary has said the same thing as well.
Both Hill and Obama are at a better place then the repubs will be. And, at least they are including us in their speeches and platforms. It's a rather positive move forward for sure.
Please, go to the LOGO debates and watch what they say. Then, go read the PR on the CA decisions. You will see a unified democratic voice on our issues as opposed to the SILENCE from the Repugs.
Obama said he supported Civil Union, like in Canada and elsewhere. And he came forth to support the CA Supreme Court ruling for gay marriage. Hilliary has said the same thing as well.
Both Hill and Obama are at a better place then the repubs will be. And, at least they are including us in their speeches and platforms. It's a rather positive move forward for sure.
Please, go to the LOGO debates and watch what they say. Then, go read the PR on the CA decisions. You will see a unified democratic voice on our issues as opposed to the SILENCE from the Repugs.
Canada has marriage equality for gays, not "civil unions". The language of marriage is gender-neutral. Straights can get married, gays can get married. Simple as that. This equality is recognized nationwide, rather than being accepted in some provinces and rejected in others. This is not what Obama is advocating for us. Still far better than anything McCain will deliver.
And it is annoying to me and somewhat worrying that Obama seems to have a religious hangup when it comes to what marriage is in this country and what it isn't. Marriage is a civil institution with an OPTIONAL religious overlay. Obama has it kind of backwards it seems to me.
QUOTE (Tyo @ Jun 14 2008, 07:55 AM)
Canada has marriage equality for gays, not "civil unions". The language of marriage is gender-neutral. Straights can get married, gays can get married. Simple as that. This equality is recognized nationwide, rather than being accepted in some provinces and rejected in others. This is not what Obama is advocating for us. Still far better than anything McCain will deliver.
And it is annoying to me and somewhat worrying that Obama seems to have a religious hangup when it comes to what marriage is in this country and what it isn't. Marriage is a civil institution with an OPTIONAL religious overlay. Obama has it kind of backwards it seems to me.
And it is annoying to me and somewhat worrying that Obama seems to have a religious hangup when it comes to what marriage is in this country and what it isn't. Marriage is a civil institution with an OPTIONAL religious overlay. Obama has it kind of backwards it seems to me.
I think you've missed the point. What Barack Obama is saying is that there is no room for religion in government and that marriage should be left to the churches to decide and that all "marriages" performed or recognized by the state and federal governments should be "civil unions." Essentially what he's saying is that nobody should be "married" in the eyes of the government.
QUOTE (Barack Obama)
And it is then, as I said, up to religious denominations to make a determination as to whether they want to recognize that as marriage or not.
Too many people are hung up on his own personal views with respect to his religious stance and ignoring the details of his political stance.
We're not Canada, we're not The Netherlands, we're the United States of America which Constitutionally protects religion as well as individual rights. We could keep going the way of the Bush Crime Family and continue to systematically destroy our Constitution to suit the needs of special groups but I for one would like to see that stop, even if it means that marriage is to be redefined and kicked out of our government.
Barack Obama's ideas are very sound and very well stated on more than one occasion throughout more than just a few years. If we all want to cry about not being able to use the term "marriage" then you're not looking at the overall picture which is that nobody would be able to call themselves married from a legal standpoint.
Give this a thought: Under Barack Obama's view, you could get a civil union recognized throughout the country and everywhere that a "marriage" in the United States is currently recognized in the world and you could go to Barack Obama's church (that's right, he's UCC) to have your marriage sanctified as legitimate. See where I'm going with this, you WOULD be married. If a straight couple went to get "married" but did so in front of a Justice of the Peace, they would only have a civil union unless it were recognized by a church.
I will not vote for Obama. I’m going to write in Hillary Clinton. Even though she cannot win with write-in votes, my vote will be symbolic. I still believe Obama is not a good candidate for president.
I think by making Obama the next President of the US, does not send a clear message of change to the rest of the world.
If Obama had won the nomination fairly and without the DNC party having to devalue the votes of the citizens of FL and MI, I would have voted for him. The way it stands today we have no candidate that has the experience or integrity at a time when we need it most.
And of course he "won" the caucuses, have you not been paying attention, over 2000 reports were filed with Austin TX about how they were improperly done. Someone I know, had to call the police during theirs. They were fudged by Obamas campaign people. It was madness. I do believe, according to what I have heard that Hillary could have at least turned TX purple, it’s amazing how many Republicans there would have voted for her over McCain.
I think by making Obama the next President of the US, does not send a clear message of change to the rest of the world.
If Obama had won the nomination fairly and without the DNC party having to devalue the votes of the citizens of FL and MI, I would have voted for him. The way it stands today we have no candidate that has the experience or integrity at a time when we need it most.
And of course he "won" the caucuses, have you not been paying attention, over 2000 reports were filed with Austin TX about how they were improperly done. Someone I know, had to call the police during theirs. They were fudged by Obamas campaign people. It was madness. I do believe, according to what I have heard that Hillary could have at least turned TX purple, it’s amazing how many Republicans there would have voted for her over McCain.
well, we have pretty much figured out who is voting for who and who is purposely not voting for who...
instead of arguing with the minority about this issue, I suggest we move on to ideas of how to not only support our candidate
but to outline and highlight the massive horror story it would be were mccain to be elected or selected...
(this is a liberal board, owned by a liberal person who is a very big supporter of Obama, thus when I say us I am assuming I am including the vast majority of those on the board, not saying anti obama folks cant be here, they can and are, and they can discuss whatever they want, but it doesnt mean we have to feed that negative discussion by responding, seems the issues, like a 22 yr old being told he now has to serve an additional 9 months in war, our nephew, are real, they are serious and if mccain is selected/elected, they will get much worse)
instead of arguing with the minority about this issue, I suggest we move on to ideas of how to not only support our candidate
but to outline and highlight the massive horror story it would be were mccain to be elected or selected...
(this is a liberal board, owned by a liberal person who is a very big supporter of Obama, thus when I say us I am assuming I am including the vast majority of those on the board, not saying anti obama folks cant be here, they can and are, and they can discuss whatever they want, but it doesnt mean we have to feed that negative discussion by responding, seems the issues, like a 22 yr old being told he now has to serve an additional 9 months in war, our nephew, are real, they are serious and if mccain is selected/elected, they will get much worse)
QUOTE (Jessebttmboy @ Jun 14 2008, 10:30 AM)
I will not vote for Obama. I’m going to write in Hillary Clinton. Even though she cannot win with write-in votes, my vote will be symbolic. I still believe Obama is not a good candidate for president.
I think by making Obama the next President of the US, does not send a clear message of change to the rest of the world.
If Obama had won the nomination fairly and without the DNC party having to devalue the votes of the citizens of FL and MI, I would have voted for him. The way it stands today we have no candidate that has the experience or integrity at a time when we need it most.
And of course he "won" the caucuses, have you not been paying attention, over 2000 reports were filed with Austin TX about how they were improperly done. Someone I know, had to call the police during theirs. They were fudged by Obamas campaign people. It was madness. I do believe, according to what I have heard that Hillary could have at least turned TX purple, it’s amazing how many Republicans there would have voted for her over McCain.
I think by making Obama the next President of the US, does not send a clear message of change to the rest of the world.
If Obama had won the nomination fairly and without the DNC party having to devalue the votes of the citizens of FL and MI, I would have voted for him. The way it stands today we have no candidate that has the experience or integrity at a time when we need it most.
And of course he "won" the caucuses, have you not been paying attention, over 2000 reports were filed with Austin TX about how they were improperly done. Someone I know, had to call the police during theirs. They were fudged by Obamas campaign people. It was madness. I do believe, according to what I have heard that Hillary could have at least turned TX purple, it’s amazing how many Republicans there would have voted for her over McCain.
You are in a VERY, VERY, VERY small minority.
I hate to say it, but your 'non-vote' won't matter.
Do what you want... stomp your feet and throw your little hissy fit at your pitty party. The VAST majoity of us are supporting the Democratic nominee.
So go ahead and cast your protest vote... spread all the vitriol you want, it's a wasted vote and it won't do any good... like it or not.
I'm done with you.
QUOTE (Tyo @ Jun 14 2008, 07:55 AM)
Canada has marriage equality for gays, not "civil unions". The language of marriage is gender-neutral. Straights can get married, gays can get married. Simple as that. This equality is recognized nationwide, rather than being accepted in some provinces and rejected in others. This is not what Obama is advocating for us. Still far better than anything McCain will deliver.
And it is annoying to me and somewhat worrying that Obama seems to have a religious hangup when it comes to what marriage is in this country and what it isn't. Marriage is a civil institution with an OPTIONAL religious overlay. Obama has it kind of backwards it seems to me.
And it is annoying to me and somewhat worrying that Obama seems to have a religious hangup when it comes to what marriage is in this country and what it isn't. Marriage is a civil institution with an OPTIONAL religious overlay. Obama has it kind of backwards it seems to me.
The problem is different segments attach different semantics to the word "marriage". Canada has one (legal) meaning. Some religious factions have other meanings. That is why I refuse to fight for the semantics of the word. I don't think you are in a position to judge what "marriage" means in this country; I think that begs the question. You can judge what it means to you, and what you'd like it to mean. But if it means something else to someone else, well, it just does. And I think it is especially wrong to pass judgment on someone else's beliefs about what marriage "should" mean. It is not wrong to insist on separation of church and state. As I read Obama's position in quotes above, I'm satisfied that he has separated issues enough for me. I'd like the position of a race-neutral, gender-neutral, generally non-disciminatory version of domestic partnerships, with all issues relating to children worked out. It should say nothing about love, sex or anything mysterious. It should be specific about property, taxes, inheritance, and care of children. I'd like the state to get out of the business of "marriage" if it has anything whatsoever to do with God or the metaphysical. I wouldn't mind at all if the state legally defined "marriage" as that secular concept described above. And I wouldn't mind at all if that meant that the religious folks had to find their own term for whatever they mean. I don't have a problem if some churches refused to marry some people that the state was happy to marry. I don't want to be involved in any form at all in disputes about who "owns" the term "marriage" - the state or churches - that just seems like a useless drama to me.
I think it's fine that you see marriage as primarily secular with an optional religious overlay. I think it's fine that someone sees it the other way. Both of you have the same concepts in your mind, and the dispute isn't so much about the concepts and how they interrelate (so long as church and state is kept separate), as it is an argument about what you call those concepts.
QUOTE (Claystation @ Jun 14 2008, 02:07 PM)
You are in a VERY, VERY, VERY small minority.
Not so small. Not so small!!!!
http://www.justsaynodeal.com/
QUOTE (Jessebttmboy @ Jun 14 2008, 01:19 PM)
lol
You are BEYOND hilarious with your creations.
Seriously...is anybody else wondering to whom we REALLY owe this entertainment?
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.