Skip to main content

Since the "boycott" began, I've seen a lot of people say that we (the gay community) are being unreasonable and need to be patient.  That there are a lot of important issues out there like health care reform, Iraq and Afghanistan, the economy, and so on that need to be addressed first.  That 2010 is coming up fast and the mid-term elections are important... that making LBGT civil rights an issue now only helps the Republicans.  So how long are we supposed to wait?  How long are we supposed to be 2nd tier citizens in our own party let alone country?  How long should we remain silent until it is a convenient time for the party and the nation to decide that they can throw us a bone so we'll continue to open our wallets to the Democrats while we hope and pray and donate and vote so that things will get better?

And before you answer those questions, consider where we've come from and how long we've been working for this...

The Stonewall Inn riot in 1969 is generally considered the beginning of the gay civil rights movement.  By and large these are the people that started the push for gay civil rights by saying "enough is enough".  At the time of the riot, police raids on gay bars occurred on average once a month for each bar.  Women in the bar were required to wear three pieces of feminine clothing and would be arrested if found not wearing them.  Men without identification or dressed in full drag were arrested.  I'm saying this so you understand where we started from.

In 1969, having consensual sex in the privacy of your own home was a crime in every state in the United States except Illinois (who repealed their sodomy law in 1962).  Gay marriage wasn't even a pipe dream.  The end of being classified as having a mental disorder was still 4 to 6 years away.  And hate crimes were likely committed more often by the police than they were by ordinary citizens.  In 1971, Connecticut was the next state to repeal their sodomy law and they were followed by 34 other states, the District of Columbia and 4 territories up until 2003.  On June 26, 2003, the Supreme Court struck down the Texas same-sex sodomy law and in the process invalidated the state sodomy laws of the other 13 states that had kept them on the books.  That these laws were selectively enforced by this time is true... but it made us fugitives in our own country.  Worse still were the punishments for our "crime":

Alabama - up to 1 year and a $2000 fine
Florida - up to 60 days imprisonment and $500 fine
Idaho - felony punishable by imprisonment for 5 years to life
Kansas - up to 6 months imprisonment and $1000 fine
Louisiana - felony punishable by up to 5 years imprisonment and $2000 fine
Michigan - felony punsihable by 15 years in jail for the first conviction, and life imprisonment for the second conviction
Mississippi - felony punishable by up to 10 years imprisonment
Missouri - punishable by up to 1 year's imprisonment or a $1000 fine
North Carolina - felony punishable by up to 10 years imprisonment and discretionary fine
Oklahoma - felony punishable by up to 10 years imprisonment
South Carolina - felony punishable by up to 5 years imprisonment and $500 fine
Texas - misdemeanor punishable by up to $500 fine
Utah - punishable by up to 6 months imprisonment and $1000 fine
Virginia - felony punishable by 1-5 years imprisonment

Although the 8 states that classified sodomy as a felony were bad enough, Michigan stood alone as actually having a greater minimum sentence for a sodomy conviction than murder although it was joined by Idaho in allowing for a life sentence.  These laws were on the books as recently as 6 years ago.  Let me make this clear... Just six years ago consensual sex between adults was a felony in 8 states and a misdemeanor in 6 more, in other words almost one third of the country.  And it wasn't an elected official that ended it, it was the judiciary.

From the beginning of the "gay civil rights movement" in 1969 until 34 years later in 2003, that was pretty much all the improvement in things that we saw... at least we're not criminals any more.  Even "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" just moved things from it being "a punishable offense" to it being "a punishable offense if they find out".  And yes, that's a big part of why repealing DADT is such a big deal... it's the last remnant of our criminal past.  The last place in the United States where being gay is punishable, and DADT is worse in some ways as just being gay at all is punishable.  In fact the Supreme Court decision in 2003 invalidated Article 125 which made sodomy punishable by the military except in cases where there was a clear problem in maintaining military discipline.  So having two men having sex in the military is ok, but being gay isn't.

But it's 2009 now and we're at the stage where it's still ok to discriminate.  Only 21 states (and the District of Columbia) have laws preventing job discrimination against homosexuals (and 9 of those don't protect the transgendered).  Pay attention here, 40 years in to the "gay civil rights movement" and it's still hunky-dory to fire homosexuals for no other reason than their being gay in well over half of the country.

Hopefully at this point, you'll understand why we're a bit tired of being put on the back burner.  40 years of literal blood, sweat, and tears and pretty much the sum total of our progress is that we're not criminals any more and we can keep our jobs in about 42% of the country.  While marriage equality is a big deal and I long for the day that I can marry my husband, there's a reason why we're a bit ticked about DADT and ENDA being set aside and put off for another election cycle or two or three.

Just for reference, I was born about 5 weeks after the Stonewall riots (yes, I'm 40 and I've earned every one of my gray hairs).  For 29 of those years I would have been considered guilty of a felony in the state in which I lived (Tennessee and then Georgia).  To this day, I can be fired from my job if my employer decides that my being gay (not any action I do or don't take, just the fact that I am gay) is a problem or more likely as I am in Georgia, that it's a sin.  So yes, I'm a bit ticked.  It's annoying when politicians court my vote and make promises to help our community to get a bit closer to equality only to have them tell us that there are more important issues or that we're too controversial once they're in office.  And it's offensive when other Democrats tell me that my issues can wait.  I've been waiting 40 years now.  So let me ask you, how long are we supposed to wait?  When will it be "the right time"?

Originally posted to AdamSchmidt on Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 11:24 AM PST.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Well, there is never a "right time", for any (22+ / 0-)

    issue. It is the right time when the people insist on it being acted on. These kinds of things are always hard and politicians would always rather put them off.

    So, I'd say the time is now. If it is not then we lose and we get back to work on winning. But to wait is to be left waiting forever.

    Getting Democrats together and keeping them that way is like herding cats that are high on meth, through L.A., during an earthquake, in the rain -6.25, -6.10

    by Something the Dog Said on Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 11:28:33 AM PST

  •  Yanno. This whole boycott thing (12+ / 0-)

    Seems a tad misunderstood to me by some....

    It actually makes sense to donate to Dems that are working for you, instead of all of them including the ones who are working against you...
    Cannot choose that kind of thing with taxes, but campaign funds are voluntary and all that....

    Anyway. Yup.

    A Creative Revolution- - To revolt within society in order to make it a little better- Krishnamurti

    by pale cold on Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 11:33:04 AM PST

  •  i missed this (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Fabienne, DaleA, Redbear

    boycott thing. am i supposed to be boycotting something, as a gay man?

    pelosi was on CSPAN the other day. she said her timeframe is ... ENDA, DADT, and then DOMA. of course healthcare, jobs, and energy are relatively more important (to gays and everyone else) and would come first.

  •  Hitting nails on their heads (10+ / 0-)

    Exactly right.  I am a very strong supporter of this President and appreciate what he has done for us.  However, he ran on promises to do much more and directly encouraged us to hold his feet to the fire.  No matter how you feel about the "boycott", the fact remains that we were given leave to hold this administration accountable.  You may not agree with this tactic, and I understand the concern. But please tell me, what other leverage do we have than money?  As I've always done with my contributions, I send them directly to campaigns and target issues I support.  I will continue doing just that.

    respice adspice prospice

    by Steven Payne on Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 11:37:32 AM PST

    •  so.. Barney Frank's (0+ / 0-)

      statement that this is on the agenda to be included in next year's defense bill isn't good enough? They begin work on that in the Spring, just a few months away!

      I'm sorry.. I really don't understand why you are doing this!

      •  Did I say I had joined the boycott? (0+ / 0-)

        I haven't.  That is neither here nor there, I suppose because I do sympathize with it. There were many, many campaign promises made by Obama to the LGBT community, including the repeal of DOMA (which isn't in the offing yet).  In exchange, we supported him in huge numbers.  It's only fair that he live up to these promises and it's only fair that we make that expectation known.  Money talks.  The urgency around our issues comes from the uncertainty Democrats face in 2010.  If we lose large numbers in the House and Senate, it may be a very long time until we are able to push anything.  This is our window of opportunity, right now.

        respice adspice prospice

        by Steven Payne on Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 06:27:19 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  did he say he would repeal DOMA in the first (0+ / 0-)

          10 months of his first administration?

          The urgency around our issues comes from the uncertainty Democrats face in 2010.  If we lose large numbers in the House and Senate, it may be a very long time until we are able to push anything.

          So then why would anyone take actions that could harm the Democrats in the midterms! If you want Obama to enact all his promises you should do everything you possibly can to keep Democrats in office in 2010!

          I seriously doubt that Republicans will make significant gains, though... The only way that would happen is if there is too much in fighting among Democratic voters...

          In other words.. The boycott is the sort of thing that could actually cause the problem you are worried about!

        •  I guess what it comes down to is this.. (0+ / 0-)

          The Republicans go nuts with ridiculous attacks.. Instead of sticking together groups start to splinter off to make sure that their particular issues are taken care of before the majority is lost..

          Given the economy, climate, energy situation etc., Republican control could be a calamity.

          The point is that the party needs to stay together. We need to trust that we can maintain our majorities and that if we do that our issue will get addressed. We need to trust our leaders to enact what they promised, and not risk throwing them out at the first opportunity.

          Today Obama surprised everyone by signing a clean energy agreement with China.. Earlier people were discussing the death of Cap and Trade and assuming no effort was going to be make on the issue.

          It is like we have a small hole in our ship, and instead of helping to patch the hole people start running for the lifeboats in hopes that they can be the first on board because no one trusts the engineers who say the hull can be fixed! Time and energy is wasted deploying the boats and then pulling them back up once the hull is fixed..

          •  I completely understand (0+ / 0-)

            I think you think that I'm going to argue in favor of the boycott and try to convince you that it is merited.  I've said twice now that I understand why people find this unreasonable.  

            It's also very complex.  I've tried to explain why I sympathize with the boycott. Being told we must be in lock-step with the Democrats while simultaneously being told that our needs are too risky to be pushed right now, doesn't exactly motivate a lot of gay people to support the Democrats 100%.  If we truly have a spot under the big tent, then just attempting to understand why the boycott has happened is good enough for me right now.  You don't have to agree, but just a moment of shoe-on-the-other-foot understanding would be great since we're all supposed to be sticking together.

            I'll end with my experience of election day.  I cried tears of joy the night Barack Obama was elected.  I got to enjoy that feeling for just a few short hours when I then cried tears of pain when Prop 8 passed.  That moment when we saw our civil rights granted and snatched away again, well, it really sucked.

            respice adspice prospice

            by Steven Payne on Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 08:23:14 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  One more thought (0+ / 0-)

            This one is just a little more cynical.  I can guarantee you this.  Most of the people involved in this boycott are not stupid.  Gay folks know the Democrats are the only game in town for us.  This boycott is more a political statement, a little muscle flexing for a moment, rather than a true threat.  When it comes time to defend the party in earnest for 2010, we'll rally to the common defense as we always do.  No queen is going to cut off his own nose to spite his face.  

            respice adspice prospice

            by Steven Payne on Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 08:42:02 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Yes.. I know (0+ / 0-)

              The past week or so I've been encountering a lot of people saying things like this... In one case someone outright said they wanted the Republicans to win the midterms because it was easier to be angry than disappointed! It isn't just the gay rights issues, but on issue after issue people seemed ready to give up on the party.

              I realize that most won't actually do something to sabotage the Democrats chances and also that Obama is smart enough to make sure that he is on good terms with his supporters at the midterm elections. Everything will likely be fine! It has just been a bit unnerving to see so many people ready to give up so soon!

              I think part of it is that some of the baby boomers age people are reacting as if they are back in the 60's... They see the need to fight and get angry and threaten people with withdrawal of support. They seem to forget that they aren't outsiders, but now have supporters in the establishment who want what they want and will give it to them if they give them some time. I think the goal should be to expand the Democratic majority, perhaps replace some of the weaker Democrats with stronger Democrats but just the act of re-electing many of them will likely lead to a change in the attitudes of some of the more conservative Democrats. If they feel their seat is safe they are more likely to be free to support the more progressive elements of the party!

              I think thus the best thing to do is to actually back some of the weaker Democrats against the Republicans so they can win preferably without needing large contributions from questionable industries and thus can be more helpful.

              I did see above that you said you weren't participating in the boycott, I meant to acknowledge that but forgot to. Sorry...

              The thought of the crazy people we see on television anywhere near a position of power has me overreacting a bit to things today....

  •  Oh good lord! (15+ / 0-)

    I swear, you sound just like those whiny colored folks I knew when I was a kid. "We want equality," they moaned. "Am I less of a person than you," they asked, but they never waited around for the answer.

    Sheesh! Don't you understand there are IM-POR-TANT things going on here, and you just getting all uppity and demanding is going to really mess it all up. Also, haven't you seen how great Obama looks in all those pictures. Seriously, you want to mess that up, just for your own selfish motives?



    Done with politics for the night? Have a nice glass of wine with Two Days per Bottle.

    by dhonig on Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 11:37:42 AM PST

  •  you state yourself that the (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Fabienne, scotths

    last 40 years has seen a huge number of improvements in LGBT issues. And beyond the legal landscape, the change in social environment for gay people has overall improved dramatically.

    So the fact that we're now on the cusp of dealing with the next range of issues (DADT, DOMA, marriage) doesn't mean you've been told to sit at the back of the bus for the last 40 years. It means that this is what's next on the agenda. I don't think another 6-12 months will kill you.

    the greatest threat to america is its sense of exceptionalism.

    by SeanF on Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 11:48:36 AM PST

    •  Sean, how long would you wait for (14+ / 0-)

      your rights? Really. Would you put off being able to marry? Would you put off being able to serve your nation proudly? Would you put off being able to arrange a funeral for the love of your life?

      Yes, things might get better in the next 12 months, then again they might not. If we do not insist on this being a priority it never will become one.

      Getting Democrats together and keeping them that way is like herding cats that are high on meth, through L.A., during an earthquake, in the rain -6.25, -6.10

      by Something the Dog Said on Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 11:50:36 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  prop 8 took away my right to marry (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Sychotic1, scotths

        so i dunno how long I'm gonna wait for that. And yah, we gotta push or nothing will ever happen.

        But the misinterpration in this diary of the historical context of LGBT issues over the last 40 years is frustrating.

        the greatest threat to america is its sense of exceptionalism.

        by SeanF on Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 12:01:30 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Keep in mind that... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Predictor, nokkonwud

          ...while Prop 8 took away your right to marry, CA has domestic partnerships which mirror marriage.  It's not equivalent, but plenty of LGBT people are fighting for scraps compared to California.  The world doesn't revolve around CA.

          •  Thanks for letting us know (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            DaleA, Predictor, Alec82

            Or else we would have continued to be deluded into thinking we were the center of the universe.

            Repubs - the people in power are not secretly plotting against you. They don't need to. They already beat you in public. (Bill Maher)

            by Sychotic1 on Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 12:07:34 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  agreed (0+ / 0-)

            if it were me, i'd prioritize DADT (cuz that is proactively ruining people's careers and weakening our military) and somehow address workplace/living discrimination that happens in the less cosmopolitan areas of the country. Cuz that is also obstructing people's right to pursue life liberty and happiness.

            We have it great in CA. And in my city, San Francisco, it's nearly a utopian gay bubble.

            the greatest threat to america is its sense of exceptionalism.

            by SeanF on Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 12:08:24 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Well we need to address... (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              SeanF, Predictor, nokkonwud, smellybeast

              ...minimum partnership rights in the rest of the country, including the South.  And I think we need to do it with federal legislation.  

              •  I'd just as soon not prioritize (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Predictor, smellybeast, Alec82

                I can, if I wish, read the diary as being over the top and ignoring the obvious progress that's been made. Still, when it comes down to it, we've gone from being virtually non-citizens, to being third-class citizens to being second-class citizens to being a higher grade of second-class citizens and (in some few places) legally equal at the local level while still being objects of prejudice and discrimination.

                The diarist was born a few weeks after the Stonewall riots. I turned 18 exactly a month before them. It's amazing what a difference in perspective can do. When the riots occurred I didn't even fully realize I was gay. To the extent I was aware of it, I viewed it with horror and I certainly didn't act on my feelings. It took several more years to come to grips with the idea that my attraction to other men was acceptable simply because it was part of who I was. At the time, that seemed like the most I could expect--simply not to be obligated to despise myself.

                It is well and appropriate that our expectations should have raised over the past forty years. Forty years ago we simply wanted the right not to be the official scapegoats of the era. Today we want--as we should--to be treated as equals to heterosexuals in all respects. Not because we're popular (obviously we aren't) but because we are just as good as anyone else.

                I want my equality and I want it now. Not next year, or next term. NOW. I've waited long enough.

                •  But your self-concept... (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:

                  ...was a product of oppression.  That's what no one at the time fully understood.  The Freudians were pushing junk science, the historians hid all evidence of gays from the historical record and most references were to "perverts."  

                  I don't think we really disagree on that.  As far as prioritization, we have to deal with facts on the ground.   Minimum partnership rights is part of that.  I want marriage everywhere, too, but I don't think we can get Congress to do that.  I've seen the concept of minimum partnership rights floated in the law blogs, though, and I think there's some merit to it.  

                •  Ok... (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:

                  "Over the top" hurm... it wasn't actually my intention but if it is, my apologies.  And I (at least from my perspective) didn't ignore the progress we've made.  We've at least gone in the public perception from being "freaks", "perverts", "deviants", and other far more derogatory terms to "alternative lifestyle" as much as I hate that term.  Legally, we've gone from being put in a jail or a psychiatric hospital to a more neutral state where our rights are ignored but we're not imprisoned either.

                  As for my own perceptions based on when I grew up and came out, the defining piece was AIDS.  When I was coming to the understanding of my homosexuality, it was "Gay Cancer".  Then it was about "God's Just Punishment" of homosexuals.  That and chatting with people over the BBS's and hearing about the funerals they attended this month.  And the people who didn't sign on any more and just quietly disappeared while we wondered if they were still alive.  Frankly, it's why I live in Atlanta and not SF... when I had the option to move to either one I chose Atlanta because every time I talked to friends in SF I heard about how many friends they'd lost that month and I didn't think I'd be able to handle that.

                  Fortunately, like social awareness of homosexuality, medicine has improved and that time has passed (at least here in the States).  But we are still at the point where our concerns rate "when we can get to it" to our political representatives and I'm damn tired of the Democratic Party taking us for granted.  I know we don't have any reasonable alternatives right now, but we have to get the message to them somehow.

                •  I think this is the point! (0+ / 0-)

                  When you came of age rights for gay people were in question. Now, the war has been won! The young people support gay rights by an overwhelming majority! There is no need for aggressive fighting. One by one the obstructions to gay people living a normal life will fall.

                  The next one should be less than a year from now as Barney Frank has promised that a repeal of DADT will be in the next defense bill!

                  For the life of me I can't figure out why with news like that you want to hold a boycott!

                  The diarist was born a few weeks after the Stonewall riots. I turned 18 exactly a month before them. It's amazing what a difference in perspective can do. When the riots occurred I didn't even fully realize I was gay. To the extent I was aware of it, I viewed it with horror and I certainly didn't act on my feelings. It took several more years to come to grips with the idea that my attraction to other men was acceptable simply because it was part of who I was. At the time, that seemed like the most I could expect--simply not to be obligated to despise myself.

      •  Yep, and unfortunately... (9+ / 0-)

        Many of us can't wait another 6-12 months.  Particularly with things like losing your job because of DADT, the ability of your partner to obtain health benefits, the ability to sponsor your partner for citizenship so they can stay in the damn country, the list goes on...

        So while it may seem reasonable to state that things are getting better, for many of things are so close yet so far that we are really gnashing our teeth here.  We are finally, after 40 years, nearly there.  Let's get it done.

        The game is deemed more above the law than the players. -8.25, -6.25

        by smellybeast on Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 12:05:24 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  You're making a presumption there... (7+ / 0-)

      That it'll be in the next 6-12 months.  Right now we have the holy grail of a Democrat controlled House, a Democrat controlled Senate, and a Democrat in the White House.  And still they won't put the bills up.  ENDA has been postponed again (it was supposed to be up two months ago) and now they're saying maybe February.  The February before the mid-term elections.  Yeah, I see that one working out. /snark

      Barney Frank can't even commit whether DADT will be part of the next appropriations bill and oh yeah... that's going up the spring before the mid-terms too.

      Frankly, it seems that they're being put off until they see how much they're going to get spanked by their electorate because of the health care reform bill (whether because it didn't pass, it did pass, or it's not good enough).  If they're in trouble, they can bypass or sink DADT and ENDA.

      •  i am making a presumption (0+ / 0-)

        we gotta push to make the next 6-12 months happen or else we have a problem. But spinning all of the good things that happened over the last 40 years as being forced to sit at the back of the bus isn't helpful.

        the greatest threat to america is its sense of exceptionalism.

        by SeanF on Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 12:15:12 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I find it hard to picture us elsewhere... (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          DaleA, sfbob, Predictor, nokkonwud

          We've gone from horrible to bad by and large.  From police beatings and our lives being considered a mental disorder and a felony... to "it's not cool to beat or kill homosexuals but it's ok to fire them from their job if you want".

          Now I'll be glad to grant the point that the last decade or so has seen some truly great strides.  But most of those were NOT the result of our elected officials and I won't call things like DADT to be a "great stride".

          My bottom line is this: We are not a priority for our elected officials at the state or federal level.  They know we don't have any choice but the Democrats and that we'll keep voting and donating to them just to keep the Republicans at bay.  So why should they put themselves out to do something "controversial" when there's nothing in it for them?

          •  Death Penalty For Gays And Lesbians. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            sfbob, Predictor

            The Anti-Homosexuality Bill that is now before Uganda’s Parliament. That bill would reaffirm a penalty of life imprisonment for anyone convicted of being gay and impose the death penalty under certain circumstances. It would also criminalize all advocacy on behalf of LGBT citizens, and impose criminal penalties on family, friends, teachers, counselors and ministers who fail to report LGBT persons to the police.


            •  There are times (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              sfbob, Predictor

              By and large I know that as an American, I've got it pretty good.  I pretty much hate my job but I have one and it pays pretty well.  My health care package is costing me an arm and a leg, but I have one.  But no matter how many jollies people used to get playing "beat up the faggot" (and yes, I've had a car full of late teens confront me on the street calling me "faggot" and threatening me so I'm familiar with this game), we still never went where Uganda's going now and for that I'm damn thankful.

              •  If Gays And Lesbians In The USA Are Not Vigilant (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                enhydra lutris

                about demanding equality, it is quite possible that we will begin seeing similar bills being proposed in the USA.  

                Don't underestimate the teabagger movement.  This is a group of the most evil hateful people we have  here in America today.  Their vicious leaders Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and Sarah Palin feed them everyday.  


                Day after day.

                Also don't underestimate the Catholic Church's ability to impose their religious doctrine further upon the American government.

                •  really? (0+ / 0-)

                  If Gays And Lesbians In The USA Are Not Vigilant about demanding equality, it is quite possible that we will begin seeing similar bills being proposed in the USA.

                  There is absolutely no way such a bill has any chance of receiving any support in this country! I hope the tea baggers do propose such nonsense, the only result will be to drive more and more Republican voters away from the party. Just because they scream loudly doesn't mean anyone is going to listen!

                  The fact is, the gay rights movement has already won! You won the hearts and minds of the youth of this nation. It is just a matter of time before gays are viewed as full members of society in every state in the country. In most of the northern states it will probably happen in the next decade!

                  The tea baggers have nothing.. They are holding no cards, no secret cache of support for their craziness, they are just throwing chips into the pot on crazy bluffs with no chance of winning!

          •  In my state we just passed and (0+ / 0-)

            held a statewide referendum on a law giving gays the exact same rights as married people. As we do not yet have a majority of people in the state supporting gay marriage, this provides the next best thing and is backed up now by a vote of the people.

            In my state anyhow, it seems as if gay people are a priority!

    •  But it will kill a lot of people without health (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Predictor, smellybeast

      care and a lot of people living in the poorer areas of the country.

    •  Another Friedman unit? Just a few days ago it (0+ / 0-)

      was a baker's Friedman unit.  Who shortened it?  Why, more importantly, should anybody believe that anything whatsoever in support of gays or labor will occur soon.  They are only a captive population for the Dems until they actually obtain fair, just and equal treatment.  After that, they are not neceassarily at the party's beck and call.

      "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini

      by enhydra lutris on Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 04:13:13 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  of course, MLK said it right: (10+ / 0-)

    "The Fierce Urgency of Now"

    When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. ~H.G. Wells

    by ridemybike on Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 11:55:03 AM PST

  •  sigh... (0+ / 0-)

    Just last week we hear this...

    Repealing “don’t ask, don’t tell” will likely be included as part of next year’s Department of Defense authorization bill in both chambers of Congress, Congressman Barney Frank, a Massachusetts Democrat, said Wednesday.

    “Military issues are always done as part of the overall authorization bill,” Frank said, insisting that this has been the strategy for overturning the policy all along. “'Don’t ask, don’t tell' was always going to be part of the military authorization.”

    Frank said he has been in direct communication with the White House, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s office, and other congressional leaders about the strategy for ending the 1993 ban on gays serving openly in the military.

    Why now? Why is it this the right moment? You say 40 years, but this government has only been in power for 10 months... How can you blame them for the preceding decades? There is a plan on the table, a credible gay congressman has said this will happen!

    Yet, you want to start some kind of boycott because a length of time measured in months is too long to wait?

    If he pushes this issue now, and it weakens healthcare reform, would that be a good thing? What if he pushes the issue now and the anger over this combined with other things leads to a backlash against gay people that wouldn't be as strong next year?

    Sorry, I am 100% behind your cause, but I really don't understand at all the need for a boycott at this juncture!

  •  You cis gays are appropriating trans history! (0+ / 0-)

    Stonewall was not about gay rights. It was about trans rights.

    Trans people stood up for gay and lesbian rights too, and then lesbian and gay organizations began to turn on trans people. Transphobes boycotted Olivia records to force it to fire Sandy Stone. Transphobes' backstabbing has made it infinitely harder for transsexual people to get transition-related care.

    It is absolutely disgusting for cis gays to take Stonewall from trans folks.

    Now look, I'm trans, and I'm lesbian. It gets me pretty angry when people only mention the gays, and all but invisibilize the rest of the queer community.

    Remember Duanna Johnson. Tortured by the Memphis PD for being black and trans. Killed by the Memphis PD for speaking up.

    by Marja E on Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 04:02:55 PM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site