Skip to main content

When he doesn't think I should have the same rights he has?

Yes, this is a gay rant in the aftermath of Prop 8 being overturned.

The President promised to be a fierce advocate for the rights of gays and lesbians. Yet at almost every chance he has been presented with, he has either ignored us or worse.

The man is a Constitutional scholar. The White House could have released the followed statement: "As a Constitutional lawyer by training, the President agrees with today's decision." Nothing more, nothing less. Is it the endorsement of marriage that i want? No. But neither is it a cowardly follow such as "the President doesn't support gay marriage." On the day of our friggin victory, a shiv into our sides! Why?

Is he trying to please someone or do we have a bigot in the White House?

If he's trying to please someone, who could it be?

Much of his campaign energy was from younger voters, who support marriage rights in large numbers. How does this keep them energized?

A fair amount of money came from gay voters. Not anymore. Why would we bother? I voted for him. Should I even show up to the polls when the Dems in Congress aren't doing much on our issues either?

The only group one can imagine he's trying to please are religious folks. Of them most of them aren't voting Obama anyway.

So that leaves a question of whether the man is a bigot, a homophobe.

So who's to the left of Obama on this issue?

Laura Bush - kinda interesting
Dick Cheney - yeah gay daughter and all, but still Dick Cheney
Ted Olsen - let me repeat, Ted Olsen - the man who gave helped the SCOTUS give us George W Bush

So some of you will probably tell me this is a tough issue, politically dicey and that we need to work other things first. My emotional response to you is to ask which right you are willing to have put up to a vote by a large group to which you don't belong. But then there's the question of leadership:

A white man born in central Texas who would later be President of the United States knew he was putting his party at risk for a generation in certain parts of the country when he pushed for civil rights legislation for African Americans. He did this because he was a leader and leaders know that they need to do the right thing. LBJ was a fierce advocate. Barack Obama, a man born of parents of different races, in a time before the Civil Rights Act and before interracial marriage was legal in all states is now telling us that separate can be equal.  What are we supposed to conclude about him?

As a gay man, voting for Obama again would be like an African American voting for Nixon after hearing about the Southern Strategy.

Maybe this isn't your issue. You're straight, you don't know or care about anyone who's gay and you think there are more important issues. I can understand that. Maybe you think health care is all it. OK, everybody, gay and straight, benefit from health care. Oh wait, in Obama's world, so do insurance companies. In the end, it doesn't matter what the issue is, he's not really with us.

It's time to take the blinders off. We were had.

Originally posted to palpatine316 on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 07:04 PM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
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

    •  Duck! Here they come... (22+ / 0-)

      P.S. You don't have to support him, or anyone. But, 2012 is a long ways away, and we're ~90+ days out from November. May I please ask that you find someone tolerable, who's running now and do what you can to GOTV?

      Pam and Joe just finished an Out for Kirsten event, I believe, and there are others who we actively want to keep in congress past 2012, which means getting them reelected now.

      Can we worry about the 2012 primary after the 2010 election, please?

      All evil needs to succeed is for good people to say "the votes aren't there in the Senate."

      by Jacques on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 07:14:06 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Look (35+ / 0-)

        I don't entirely agree with this diary BUT I am not gay so I don't think Its up to me or anyone else to tell this diariest what to do.

        Us straight folks can get married and serve in the military.

        and don't have to face enormous bigotry  and discrimination every day.

        Down with Prop H8! Jerry Brown for CA_GOV 2010

        by GlowNZ on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 07:16:49 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Kirsten has my vote in NY, Not sure about Maffei (7+ / 0-)
      •  no way man (6+ / 0-)

        The OP is right, this is a shiv in the side from our "fierce advocate".  Screw you guys, I'm going home, and staying there 2010.  This will be the first election I haven't voted in since 1986.

        Help you GOTV? Are you kidding?

        Minority rights should never be subject to majority vote.

        by lostboyjim on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 07:29:36 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  If you've been voting religiously since 1986, (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Cedwyn, soms

          prepare to experience some physical symptoms if you sit this one out.  Probably a rash or something.  

          Dick Cheney: "Reagan proved deficits don't matter." A little something to rub their noses in.

          by Winnie on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 08:34:25 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  That'll show em! (18+ / 0-)

          Let's make sure that because we don't agree with the way the President responded, we show 'em how pissed we are, and not vote! That's all right though, because when the republicans get back into power, they'll just add gay rights in with that repealing the 14th Amendment thingy, kind of like a two-fer!

          One thing I can guarantee: President Obama may not agree with it, but you can be sure he won't actively fight it, and he most definitely wouldn't try to repeal it.

          - It's beyond ironic that ophthalmologist Rand Paul is so myopic

          by second gen on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 08:43:34 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  National Dem leadership better than gop leaders? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            corvo

            There seems to be this accepted fact that gopers will be worse on gay rights than Dems.  Certainly they don't hide their hatred.  But really, in terms of real actions at a federal level, have Dems been better than gopers?  I don't include state Dems as at least here in Oyregun they push and fight back the homophobes.

            But really, from what I know, we have Clinton agreeing to DADT.  Clinton and Dems in Congress pass DOMA.  

            Obama's DOJ defends DOMA by linking homosexuality and incest--touchy touchy here in Oregon as the Oregon Citizens Alliance attempted to link homosexuality with incest, bestality, you name it.  Apparently Obama's DOJ lawyers were able to do some of that.

            I read some articles by gay activist who claim Obama's so-called edicts were useless and rules already in place to protect gays.

            Really, has the national gop, that is members in DC, been really that much worse than Dems?  My overall impression is "no".  But I am willing to be pursuaded otherwise with some facts.

            •  Oh Jesus, seriously? (15+ / 0-)

              Really, has the national gop, that is members in DC, been really that much worse than Dems?  My overall impression is "no".  But I am willing to be pursuaded otherwise with some facts.

              link

              Homosexuality is incompatible with military service
              We affirm traditional military culture, and we affirm that homosexuality is incompatible with military service.
              Source: 2004 Republican Party Platform, p. 18 Sep 7, 2004

              States should not recognize gay marriage from other states
              After more than two centuries of American jurisprudence, and millennia of human experience, a few judges and local authorities are presuming to change the most fundamental institution of civilization, the union of a man and a woman in marriage. Attempts to redefine marriage in a single state or city could have serious consequences throughout the country, and anything less than a Constitutional amendment, passed by the Congress and ratified by the states, is vulnerable to being overturned by activist judges. On a matter of such importance, the voice of the people must be heard. The Constitutional amendment process guarantees that the final decision will rest with the American people and their elected representatives. President Bush will also vigorously defend the Defense of Marriage Act, which was supported by both parties and passed by 85 votes in the Senate. This common sense law reaffirms the right of states not to recognize same-sex marriages licensed in other states.
              Source: 2004 Republican Party Platform, p. 85 Sep 1, 2004

              Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage
              We strongly support a Constitutional amendment that fully protects marriage, and we [oppose] forcing states to recognize other living arrangements as equivalent to marriage. The well-being of children is best accomplished [when] nurtured by their mother & father anchored by the bonds of marriage. We believe that legal recognition and the accompanying benefits afforded couples should be preserved for that unique and special union of one man and one woman which has historically been called marriage.
              Source: 2004 Republican Party Platform, p. 85 Sep 1, 2004

              Strong support for traditional definition of marriage
              We support the traditional definition of "marriage" as the legal union of one man and one woman, and we believe that federal judges and bureaucrats should not force states to recognize other living arrangements as marriages. We do not believe sexual preference should be given special legal protection or standing in law.
              Source: Republican Platform adopted at GOP National Convention Aug 12, 2000

              Let Boy Scouts exercise free speech (ok to ban gays)
              While the Constitution guards against state-sponsored religion, it honors the free exercise of religion. We will not allow government to ban religious symbols from the workplace. We support the First Amendment right of freedom of association and stand united with private organizations, such as the Boy Scouts of America. We believe religious institutions should not be taxed. When government funds privately-operated programs, it must not discriminate against faith-based organizations.
              Source: Republican Platform adopted at GOP National Convention Aug 12, 2000

              link

              The [TX GOP]'s platform also seeks to make gay marriage a felony offense, which may be confusing to most given that the state does not sanction or recognize same sex marriages, meaning any such ceremony conducted does not bear the weight of law. ...

              "We oppose the legalization of sodomy," the platform states. "We demand that Congress exercise its authority granted by the U.S. Constitution to withhold jurisdiction from the federal courts from cases involving sodomy." ...

              We believe that the practice of homosexuality tears at the fabric of society, contributes to the breakdown of the family unit, and leads to the spread of dangerous, communicable diseases. Homosexual behavior is contrary to the fundamental, unchanging truths that have been ordained by God, recognized by our country’s founders, and shared by the majority of Texans. Homosexuality must not be presented as an acceptable "alternative" lifestyle in our public education and policy, nor should "family" be redefined to include homosexual "couples." We are opposed to any granting of special legal entitlements, refuse to recognize, or grant special privileges including, but not limited to: marriage between persons of the same sex (regardless of state of origin), custody of children by homosexuals, homosexual partner insurance or retirement benefits. We oppose any criminal or civil penalties against those who oppose homosexuality out of faith, conviction, or belief in traditional values.

              link

              President Bush called Tuesday for a constitutional amendment to bar gay marriage (search), saying the nation must defend "the most fundamental institution of civilization."

              "If we are to prevent the meaning of marriage from changing forever we must" pass a constitutional amendment, Bush said from the Roosevelt Room at the White House.

              Bush said he was troubled by the decisions "a few judges and local officials" were making in favor of gay marriage in San Francisco, Massachusetts and elsewhere. San Francisco has permitted more than 3,000 same-sex unions in a display of wide-scale civil disobedience.

              That's with three seconds of Googling and using links on the first page only.

              I understand you're disappointed by O's statement (as am I), but let's get a grip here, ok?

              ... and we have seen the black suns | pouring forth the night. -- Clark Ashton Smith

              by bustacap on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 09:33:48 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  My point exactly. Read what I asked for. (5+ / 0-)

                You posted their rhetoric.  Do you get the point??  I will acknowledge their rhetoric and beliefs are horrid.  Sorry you did a lot of work for nothing.

                I wanted a list comparing laws, implemented policies, etc. at a Congressional level. Please no rhetoric.  

                I was asking for list of REAL actions and policies, not platforms or political posturing.

                Let's start here.  Mathew Sheppard.  Conyers introduced the bill in 2001.  Gordon Smith a republican form Oregon introduces similar law in the Senate.  You get the point here?  A real law was put into consideration.  A real action.  Not words out of someone's mouth.  You understand the differene??

                Sorry man, but you know, I watch what politicans do or NOT do...not what they say.

                •  totally (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  deaniac83, bustacap, kefauver

                  b/c demonizing gay people doesn't 'do' anything, it's 'just words'.

                  •  Just words (8+ / 0-)

                    That's an apt description of Obama's attitude towards our community.  And on this issue, his words are awfully confusing.  He opposed Proposition 8, but he's also opposed to same-sex marriage, because he thinks God is in the mix, or something.

                    The bottom line is that Barack Obama's position on this is heterosexist.  He believes that because he's straight, he's entitled to greater legal rights than I am.  If a white politician said something like that about African-Americans, everyone here would be screaming.  If a Christian politician said something like that about Jews, there'd be an eruption.  But since Barack Obama has said it about "teh gays," it's all just fine and dandy.

                    Maladie d'Amour, Où l'on meurt d'Aimer, Seul et sans Amour, Sid'abandonné

                    by FogCityJohn on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 10:44:28 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  Demonizing them by insisting they don't (3+ / 0-)

                    deserve to marry like "normal people"?

                    We need to stop going halfway around the world to wage war on people who don't even change out of their jammies to fight us.

                    by JesseCW on Fri Aug 06, 2010 at 01:10:56 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                •  Seems to me, even without using teh Google (2+ / 0-)

                  .... that the rhetoric is itself bad enough.  

                  Speech like that from political leaders strongly influences people, pushing them to be more bigoted, more intolerant, more contemptuousness, more afraid and more polarized against the idea of gay rights.

                  You talk about actions vs words ... okay.  I'm not going to do that type of research past midnight.  

                  On the other hand, I'm turning it right around on you.  I think that, in many instances, the words carry much more real world weight than the actions.  The legal status of gay civil rights didn't inspire the murders of Matthew Sheppard or Paul Broussard or August Provost (to take two notable example from right here in Houston), hateful speech did.  Hateful teachings, hateful speeches, hateful beliefs ... propagated and intensified by hateful rhetoric.  

                  You show me a mainstream Dem that makes statements that foster the hatred necessary to commit such acts.  In ten minutes I could find fifty incidences of mainstream Republicans doing it.

                  You want to be disappointed about the progress of legalistic gay rights under the Dems, fine ... as I said, so am I.  But don't ever fucking say that Republicans are better for gays than Dems are, because the Dems don't actively encourage hate, suspicion and intolerance against you, okay?

                  ... and we have seen the black suns | pouring forth the night. -- Clark Ashton Smith

                  by bustacap on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 10:35:04 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  contemptuousness - "ness" = what I meant (0+ / 0-)

                    ... and we have seen the black suns | pouring forth the night. -- Clark Ashton Smith

                    by bustacap on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 10:36:07 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  Responding to a certain theme (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    corvo, Jacques, m00finsan

                    The theme fundamentally is to put down the diarist with the claim that he must essentially shut up because the alternative to Dems are worse.  Then the words DADT and DOMA struck me.  And those were under a  Dem president  with many Dems like Joe Biden voting for DOMA.

                    So I thought, how good are the Dems at a national level (White House and Congress) when it comes to gay rights?  Extending hate crimes is good, but it does not extend rights.

                    It is a false either/or that is being proposed.  Maybe the alternative for example is to threaten to withold political support from Obama like support primary candidates who promise to repeal DADT  against who Obama supports.  

                    For sure, the altnernative is not blind obedience and support--which goes around to my question sorta of--what has the support given to gays in real terms?

                    •  You may recall that, at the time, (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      bustacap

                      DADT was progress. It allowed gays to serve in the military with a bit less fear and trembling. It prevented them from being directly asked, "Are you gay."

                      It's not what it should be, but it was all Clinton could get votes for.

                      We're in a period of transition, which makes for lots or frustrating inconsistencies and problems. Things will change, but it may take several years or a generation.

                      Just think of all those civil rights activists who worked their asses off and, five years later, said, "Great. Now I can sit at that stupid lunch counter I didn't really want to sit at." But it was a necessary step in the transition.

                    •  There has been no nation-wide (0+ / 0-)

                      ... decades-long campaign of speech promoting hatred against gays from Dems.  They do not go out on the campaign trail fostering anti-gay bigotry in their stump speeches.  

                      Rs do (and have done) these things ... all. the. time.  For chrissake, what is the middle "G" in the perennial GOP go-to electoral strategy "God, Gays and Guns"?  That's sure a hell not because the GOP is pro-gay.

                      If you want to make the argument that the progress has been slow, that the support has been wishy-washy, you'll have a point.  But there has been progress, there have been --- even in the face of Republican't opposition --- legislative and social victories.  

                      ... and we have seen the black suns | pouring forth the night. -- Clark Ashton Smith

                      by bustacap on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 11:46:13 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                  •  Yes they do. (0+ / 0-)

                    because the Dems don't actively encourage hate, suspicion and intolerance against you, okay?

                    What do you think opposing the basic civil right of marriage does?

                    What was that Louisiana JP doing when he refused to marry interracial couples?

                    Was he not (amoung other things) encouraging hate, suspicion and intollerance of interracial couples?

                    Better unemployed than imprisoned: Vote Democrat 2010

                    by banach tarski paradox on Fri Aug 06, 2010 at 08:01:48 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  He was acting on his own racist prejudices (0+ / 0-)

                      ... and violating the law of the land while doing it.  

                      I say again that decades of out-and-out demonization of gays and gay causes by Republicans in public statements and speeches has influenced far more people to be more bigoted than any failed or tepid legislative jiggery-pokery by any Dems.

                      ... and we have seen the black suns | pouring forth the night. -- Clark Ashton Smith

                      by bustacap on Fri Aug 06, 2010 at 12:44:19 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  At least we can point and laugh at the R's, ... (0+ / 0-)

                        ...while we raise our wine glasses in celebration of yet another victory.

                        The celabration continues uninterrupted...

                        I say again that decades of out-and-out demonization of gays and gay causes by Republicans in public statements and speeches has influenced far more people to be more bigoted than any failed or tepid legislative jiggery-pokery by any Dems.

                        But the D's only make me want to cry.

                        Better unemployed than imprisoned: Vote Democrat 2010

                        by banach tarski paradox on Sat Aug 07, 2010 at 11:59:20 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

              •  Yeah, their rhetoric is hateful (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Predictor

                But how many of those things did they actually manage to get passed into law? Answer: None. Kind of like the Democratic Party platform in reverse. It's full of really pretty rhetoric about gay rights, but as this president, this Congress, and this incarnation of the party leadership have made abundantly clear, it goes no deeper than the rhetoric. Ergo, there isn't that much substantive difference between the two parties on this particular set of issues:  both of them talk a good game (as far as their respective bases are concerned), but neither one wants to spend the political capital to get it done. For that matter, though I don't remember where I saw the link, not all that long ago someone did a poll of some of the wingnuts and asked them what their top two issues were. Gay issues didn't even come close to making the cut. Over here on the Democratic side, people actually do want motion on this issue--and the party, the Congress, and the president are not providing it. So I'd argue it's a bigger problem for a Democratic president to ignore the issue than this president's behavior would indicate.

        •  Yup (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Major Tom, corvo, m00finsan, pawtucketpat

          I hear you. My sister and my young niece are gay, and on Obama's election my niece cried all night because of the passage of Prop 8. "How can people be so hateful?" she wanted to know. I pointed out 'look how far blacks have come' - she then said how betrayed and hurt she felt about  Obama's comments on gay marriage and his having  Rick Warren speaking at his inauguration. The passage of Prop 8 was made much worse/hopeless for her by Obama's sticking it to the gay community.

          I think his stance on gays is apiece with his stance towards ordinary Americans and progressives; he seems to have some pathological need to "punish" and thwart them at every opportunity. He really seems to want to make the little guy feel hopeless - the opposite of his campaign rhetoric (as hollow as his "Change" rhetoric). I really think something is screwed up in the psychology of this guy; really, anyone who writes 2 autobiographies before he's even accomplished anything should have raised some red flags (and NO, Obama police, pointing this out does NOT make me a teabagger; calling someone who doesn't like Obama a teabagger just makes you a shill).

          Don't let the awful be the enemy of the horrifically bad.

          by virtual0 on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 08:46:19 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Okay... (6+ / 0-)

            now I'm waiting for the usual: "And I voted for Obama, I really worked to GOTV for him...."

            - It's beyond ironic that ophthalmologist Rand Paul is so myopic

            by second gen on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 08:49:35 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Prop 8 may end up being a gift. It created a (7+ / 0-)

            space legally for this issue to be debated cleanly and squarely.  Opposition to gay marriage is based on nothing more than bigotry and small mindedness, the judge in this case exposed the supporters of Prop 8 openly and on the record.  This case is going to be to gays what Brown v the Board of Education was to AA.  

            "When fascism comes to America, it'll be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross." Sinclair Lewis

            by lakehillsliberal on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 09:19:29 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  work smarter not harder (6+ / 0-)

              obama is a constitutional scholar, for crying out loud.  who actually thinks he hasn't been watching this case like a hawk as it wends its way through the process?

              cuz guess what?  after loving v. virginia, no further presidential/legislative action was needed to ensure couples of mixed race could marry!

              so why have obama fight battles that are fighting themselves just fine?  there is no fucking way prop 8 survives the 14th amendment.  no fucking way, especially in light of the judge's ruling yesterday.  prop 8 is freakin' toast and not even the roberts court can pull out saving it or other measures against gay marriage.

              okay, so the complaint to that is how long are people supposed to wait; anyone got any ideas for a quicker fix that's half as effective or lasting?  no?  okay.  

              Die with your boots on. Gonna try? Well stick around. Gonna cry? Just move along. The truth of all predictions is always in your hands. - Iron Maiden

              by Cedwyn on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 09:42:30 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  This case could roll gay marriage across the (4+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Cedwyn, ferallike, juturna, m00finsan

                country in one fell swoop by making it's denial a constitutional issue.  This may in fact be the short cut because even it Congress passes a law..if it is not written correctly than SCOTUS could overturn.  They are NOT going to overturn the protections of the 14th amendment.  My guess is that they will not take the case so that this ruling will only apply to CA and will not have sweeping ramifications.  

                "When fascism comes to America, it'll be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross." Sinclair Lewis

                by lakehillsliberal on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 09:54:27 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  Because issuing bigoted statements (3+ / 0-)

                from the bully pulpit has impact.

                He is fighting this battle.

                He's just on the wrong side of it.

                We need to stop going halfway around the world to wage war on people who don't even change out of their jammies to fight us.

                by JesseCW on Fri Aug 06, 2010 at 01:13:14 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

        •  Then don't complain..... (11+ / 0-)

          ....when the nutjobs take over.  

        •  "Ach, I'm sitting out 1932" (0+ / 0-)

          "The Weimar government has done nothing for me."

          "Valerie, why am I getting all these emails calling me a classless boor?"

          by TLS66 on Fri Aug 06, 2010 at 12:03:43 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Its not just GOTV (6+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Cedwyn, Winnie, begone, second gen, bigmikek7, soms
        Volunteer Now if you want victory in November.  You can help defeat a republican every day and night at your own home with virtual phone bank.  Sign up at the website of your favorite candidate, anywhere in nation if you have the right kind of cell phone account.  Make 100 calls a week.  Do it.  The whole world needs you to do it.

        Youth lives by personality, age lives by calculation. -- Aristotle

        by not2plato on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 08:21:10 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Huh? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        soms, m00finsan

        Today's news, about and from Obama, is today. One should not discuss the news of the day, and its implications?

    •  I'm gay. (49+ / 0-)

      And I'm telling you that your rant isn't helping anyone.  Apart from Ted Olson, who's fighting a court case, what have Dick Cheney and Laura Bush done for gay rights, exactly?  Oh yeah, backed a President who wanted to pass the Federal Marriage Amendment.  Talk is cheap.  It's action that matters more.

      Obama has already:

      + signed the Matthew Sheppard Hate Crimes law
      + had his HHS order hospitals that receive Medicare/Medicaid money that they provide equal treatment to same sex partners.
      + Expanded all legally possible partnership rights to partners of federal employees.

      If you don't think any of this is important, may I ask what state you live in?  Ever seen a high school kid's head bashed in because he was gay?

    •  Because, even though he continues to uphold (14+ / 0-)

      his religious beliefs that marriage is between a man and a woman, he's done more for the GLBT community than any other President.

      Also, while he may continue to say he doesn't support gay marriage, he's not doing anything to strip you of your right to it and he's come out against those who are trying to do so.

      "Palin tried marijuana years ago. She said it distorted her perceptions & impaired her thinking. She hopes the effects will eventually one day wear off." -

      by marabout40 on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 07:38:35 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Join us! We of the under-bus! (6+ / 0-)

      those of us who are vagina-enhanced will move over to make space under the bus.

      Hey it is crowded down here. We need a bigger bus!

    •  i'm an old... (10+ / 0-)

      straight, white southern man living in new york. in 1972 i was play bass for amnesia, a glam/pop band in tampa, fla. i dyed my hair, wore effeminate clothes and worked as a carpenter during the day. a lot of the people that understood who i was were gay or lesbian and the acceptance that i had has never been forgotten or lessened. one of the lessons i learned then was, no matter who you are, if you find someone who loves you, you are the luckiest person alive and who cares what others think. any of my fellow humans that may love someone, who loves them back, should be able to celebrate that love and have the right to declare it by marrying them. if the president doesn't have the understanding of what that means, well, i feel sorry for him. i wish you and everyone a happy and healthy life.
      tung sol

      There is a fine line between genius and insanity. I have erased this line.--Oscar Levant

      by tung sol on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 08:14:53 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Because the alternative... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bustacap, Cedwyn, flhiii88

      may not be tepid, cautious, or agonizingly slow progress.

      Try Sarah Palin and a GOP congressional majority for lack of support for...

      Sucks. But there it is.

      "Be just and good." John Adams to Thomas Jefferson

      by ogre on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 08:55:14 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Where is the rant against Congress? (18+ / 0-)

    Its appropriate to criticize Obama but Congress is the one that writes and passes legislation.

    Down with Prop H8! Jerry Brown for CA_GOV 2010

    by GlowNZ on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 07:09:10 PM PDT

  •  You weren't had... (23+ / 0-)

    You were just not paying attention.  As I seem to recall this stance was known during the 2008 campaign.  

    "This guy"?  At least you didn't say "That one"...

    Politics is like playing Asteroids - You go far enough to the left and you end up on the right. Or vice-versa.

    by Jonze on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 07:12:54 PM PDT

  •  Because the Republicans are worse. (9+ / 0-)

    And you only have 2 choices.  That's all I have.  

    We only have to look at ourselves to see how intelligent life might develop into something we wouldn't want to meet. -Stephen Hawking

    by satanicpanic on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 07:13:33 PM PDT

    •  By that logic (18+ / 0-)

      Dems can take almost any group for granted as the Repubs are worse for just about everybody. Maybe you think that's the way things should work. I don't.

      •  yep (6+ / 0-)

        That's the way it works. And it works fine. It's called coalition-building.

        People panic too much on this site.

        by thematt523 on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 07:17:42 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  It's not how things SHOULD work. (6+ / 0-)

        But it is how things ARE.

        It sucks, big time.  But that suckage doesn't change the facts on the ground.

        We have three choices at Presidential Election time.  Vote Dem, Vote Repug, or Don't Vote.

        If you are a previous voter for the Dems and decide to go to "Don't Vote" that's essentially a half vote for the Repugs.  

        I said I'd hold my nose and vote for Hillary if she won the primary.  

        What else can we do.  Nothing.

        :: Not so hopeful now ::

        by Rick Aucoin on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 07:19:02 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Then what's the point of participating (10+ / 0-)

          If all we get to do is "vote for change" and then get no change.

          Until one side holds their victor accountable to their campaign promises, there's no point in playing this silly game.

          •  That's a lie. This President signed the (8+ / 0-)

            Matthew Shepard act into law. THAT IS CHANGE.

            He's put more GLBT people in positions of power in his administration than any other president before him. THAT IS CHANGE.

            GLBT Americans now have the right to visit their loved ones in the hospital. THAT IS CHANGE.

            GLBT Americans who work for the Fed can now get benefits for their loved ones just like straight employees. THAT IS CHANGE.

            You can argue it's not the change you want or it's not enough, but to say you voted for change and got NO change is dishonest.

            "Palin tried marijuana years ago. She said it distorted her perceptions & impaired her thinking. She hopes the effects will eventually one day wear off." -

            by marabout40 on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 07:44:29 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  No, they can't. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              musing85, JesseCW

              This simply isn't true:

              GLBT Americans who work for the Fed can now get benefits for their loved ones just like straight employees. THAT IS CHANGE.

              DOMA doesn't permit it.

              Maladie d'Amour, Où l'on meurt d'Aimer, Seul et sans Amour, Sid'abandonné

              by FogCityJohn on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 11:09:07 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  You'd make a much better advocate for the (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              musing85

              case you're trying to advance if you educated yourself just a little bit about the claims you're making.

              GLBT Americans now have the right to visit their loved ones in the hospital. THAT IS CHANGE.

              No, they have the ability ( not the recognized right )to visit their loved ones in some* hospitals, merely though an Executive Order the next President can overturn with the stroke of a pen.

              GLBT Americans who work for the Fed can now get benefits for their loved ones just like straight employees. THAT IS CHANGE.

              This is just false.  Completely, and absolutely, false.

              I won't say you're being dishonest, because I don't think you've bothered to research your claims.

              We need to stop going halfway around the world to wage war on people who don't even change out of their jammies to fight us.

              by JesseCW on Fri Aug 06, 2010 at 01:34:04 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  hmmm.... (0+ / 0-)

                (Reuters) - President Barack Obama on Wednesday expanded benefits for same-sex partners of federal employees, a move likely to be welcomed by gay rights activists who have questioned his commitment to their causes.

                Obama said he had directed government agencies to offer a number of new benefits to the families of gay and lesbian federal employees, including family assistance services, hardship transfers and relocation expenses.

                His directive builds on a move he made last year to offer healthcare benefits, sick leave and medical evacuation for same-sex partners of federal employees.

                "Palin tried marijuana years ago. She said it distorted her perceptions & impaired her thinking. She hopes the effects will eventually one day wear off." -

                by marabout40 on Fri Aug 06, 2010 at 06:20:26 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  A tiny subset of the same benefits (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Predictor, JesseCW

                  that non-gay federal employees get--and none of the important ones, like the right to be carried on a partner's insurance, the right to retirement benefits, or not being taxed extra because you are carried on a partner's insurance. And all of those things were actually in place under Bush--who could, as any of Obama's successors can, if they are so inclined--have done away with them with the stroke of a pen.

                •  So you really can't see what you wrote right (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  musing85

                  up stream?

                  GLBT Americans who work for the Fed can now get benefits for their loved ones just like straight employees

                  They can get some of the benefits their straight coworkers get.

                  1. They can buy into Federal Health Benefits at the group rate, but they have to pay the full price, unlike their straight coworkers who are heavily subsidized.

                  That mean they may be able to get coverage for 700 a month for their partner with cancer.  That's some progress, but it's not just like their straight coworker who is paying 120 a month out of pocket to cover their partner with cancer - and getting a tax break for it.

                  1. No pension benefits for their partner.

                  Now, please, for once, be honest.

                  Just admit you overreached, instead of insisting on missing the point and shouting "WELL THAT"S STILL SOMETHING!!!" and then going off grumbling about how 'some people can't be satisfied with anything'.

                  Because "just like" was just wrong.

                  We need to stop going halfway around the world to wage war on people who don't even change out of their jammies to fight us.

                  by JesseCW on Fri Aug 06, 2010 at 12:59:28 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  Actually, I don't even think we have the right (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Predictor, JesseCW

                yet. If I'm not mistaken, we're still in the public comment period for the regulations that the DHHS has proposed. They have not, to the best of my knowledge, been implemented yet.

                But everything else you said was spot-on.

      •  I don't think that's the way it (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        soms

        should work.  I don't even think it does work.  That's just how it is.  If you have an alternative, please provide it.

        We only have to look at ourselves to see how intelligent life might develop into something we wouldn't want to meet. -Stephen Hawking

        by satanicpanic on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 07:21:45 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Yup (0+ / 0-)

        The Democratic leadership (and their shills) are counting on you being a good little sheep and voting for them again no matter how many times they sell you down the river for the Big Money crowd; they'll just keep playing on the fear card because that's all they have left. The Democratic base needs to wake up and not fall for their BS anymore; only way  the Democratic Party to change so it once again serves the PEOPLE is for the people to push back and refuse to vote for them; I would suggest 3rd party or a truly independent and TRUE progressive Democrat.

        Sure, it may mean a Republican gets elected in the near term, but at this point, we've enabled them to keep kicking us to the curb endlessly and shifting the party so far to the right that in practical terms, there truly is not that much difference anymore. At some point the Democratic Party will need to face the consequences of betraying its platform and the American people and the future of this nation time and time and time again...that is the only hope for turning the party and this country around.

        Don't let the awful be the enemy of the horrifically bad.

        by virtual0 on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 09:16:45 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Oh groan, so I'm a sheep now? (0+ / 0-)

          Look, I had low expectations from Obama and so I haven't been disappointed.  There truly is not that much difference anymore is a joke.  Did you sleep through the last 10 years?  Does anyone really think that the Iraq war would have happened if Gore had won?  If so, you're not paying attention.  When you have a viable plan for something other than lesser of two evils bring it.  Until then, you're just full of hot gas.  

          We only have to look at ourselves to see how intelligent life might develop into something we wouldn't want to meet. -Stephen Hawking

          by satanicpanic on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 10:24:59 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Yep. The lesser of two evils. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      gmb, satanicpanic

      It's pretty rare to be able to vote for a candidate, upticket or down, who is truly good.

      I don't expect this to change anytime soon.

      However, that won't stop us from causing pain to our side for acting like a bunch of damn fools. What else are we going to do, throw the election?

  •  I'm sure his opponent will be more gay-friendly. (13+ / 0-)

    Um, that's all I have to say.

  •  He got DADT (14+ / 0-)

    on the road to repeal. LGBT couples now have far more rights than in 2008. Obama supports the ruling in CA. What more do you ask of him?

    And LBJ was not a fierce advocate of civil rights. His record of it in the Senate was atrocious. It changed after he became President, but that was after the Senate (not him) overcame a filibuster (back then a rare occurrence) to get it passed, and after riding a century of momentum for it, plus a death of a president and various beatings in the South. It wasn't a magical bill that HE pushed through.

    And the president doesn't support gay marriage, but he's not against it, either. Axelrod made that clear. But Obama's actions show that he does indeed care about gay people, and that's what matters.

    People panic too much on this site.

    by thematt523 on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 07:15:52 PM PDT

  •  Unfortunately (12+ / 0-)

    O is palying politics on this issue.  I'm not sure where the American public is on this - I think they don't really care.  This doesn't effect me directly but I think it's a matter of equal rights - I just don't know why so many people get all up in arms over it.

    I think Obama believes it's a trigger issue and it will be used by the RR to motivate their voters.

    As someone who is straight, I wish O would show some concrete support for the GL community.

    The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government. - Thomas Jefferson

    by ctexrep on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 07:16:14 PM PDT

    •  He said he wasn't for gay marriage before he was (4+ / 0-)

      elected, but that he did believe gays should have the same civil rights in relationships.

      Nov. 1, 2008

      Barack Obama Answers Your Questions About Gay Marriage, Paying For College, More

      "I think it's unnecessary," Obama told Sway, in response to a question sent in by Gangstagigz from San Leandro, California. "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage. But when you start playing around with constitutions, just to prohibit somebody who cares about another person, it just seems to me that's not what America's about. Usually, our constitutions expand liberties, they don't contract them."

      ....

      In addition to expressing his opposition to Proposition 8, Obama said he believes and supports "strong civil unions ... that provide legal rights to same-sex couples [so] that they can visit each other in the hospital if they get sick, [so] they can transfer property to each other. If they've got benefits, they can make sure those benefits apply to their partners. I think that's the direction we need to go in. I think young people are ahead of the curve on this for the most part. Their attitude, generally, is that we should be respectful of all people, and that's the kind of politics I want to practice."

      I can't change the direction of the wind, but I can adjust my sails to always reach my destination. ~Jimmy Dean

      by ParkRanger on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 07:33:09 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Why Would You Say This? (0+ / 0-)

      This doesn't effect me directly but I think it's a matter of equal rights

      250 is the new 180

      by kerplunk on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 09:42:13 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Simple (0+ / 0-)

        I'm not gay.

        I'm for equal rights for all citizens including the G/L community.  I stand behind them because not only is it my personal belief, but it is the right thing to do.

        That said - by not allowing same sex marriages - it doesn't effect me directly other than to make me upset.

        The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government. - Thomas Jefferson

        by ctexrep on Fri Aug 06, 2010 at 07:24:53 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  The system is binary (10+ / 0-)

    If you don't vote for the conservative candidate, you will get the crazy rightwing nut candidate. Changing that dynamic will take a long time. Justices like Sotomayor and Kagan rather than Roberts and Alito are a pretty good reason too.

  •  Republicans are worse... (9+ / 0-)

    of that I'm quite certain: they actively court fundies who abhor anything not male/female.  

    However, it would be nice if just once a president would say "it's no skin off my nose if you gay folks get married."

    Rather than voting against something, it's always better to vote for something...well, like "change" for instance.

  •  Why should I read this diary? (9+ / 0-)

    Man goes into cage, cage goes into politics. Shark's in the politics. Our shark.

    by Troubadour on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 07:18:25 PM PDT

  •  So don't (12+ / 0-)

    if you feel there is somebody better, who can win and can actually achieve the goals for the LGBT community you seek by all means support that person.

    In the choice between changing ones mind and proving there's no need to do so, most people get busy on the proof.

    by jsfox on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 07:19:24 PM PDT

  •  I know it hard to accept (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    satanicpanic, soms, marabout40, ParkRanger

    Obama has been pretty clear on his position, but alas election (silly) season is upon us so don't expect much action until after Nov 4th. The truth is you need to start convincing more senators to vote for equality.

    "Everybody does better, when everybody does better" - Paul Wellstone 1997

    by yuriwho on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 07:19:27 PM PDT

  •  Yea bash President Obama... (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ferallike, soms, foufou, marabout40, JoanMar

    for being honest about his personal feelings while supporting the decision...that is leadership!!!

    Obama - Change I still believe in

    by dvogel001 on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 07:20:56 PM PDT

  •  So you are okay with a Republican (10+ / 0-)

    becoming president? A Republican who would be much worse on gay rights than Obama. I mean, a Republican would not have signed the hate crimes bill. A Republican would not have signed an executive order extending hospital visitation rights to gay partners(In fact, a Republican president will probably rescinded that order when they get into office). We wouldnt be talking about a DADT repeal with a Republican president. I understand your frustrations, and you certainly have a right to vote for anyone you want, or not vote at all. But just think about it. I just hope you dont regret not voting in 2013, if a Republican becomes president.  

    •  We suck less isn't a winning strategy (9+ / 0-)

      As you will find out in November.

      •  The election is between a Democrat (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        kefauver

        and a Republican. Sometimes it's a Democrat who doesnt agree with you on every single issue. But I would rather have that Dem in office than a Republican. And I think most liberals feel the same way. I just hope they dont realize it when a Republican becomes president. And I'm sorry if you see some of things I listed as "less worse", including hospital visitation rights and the hate crimes law, that Matthew Shepard's family was working to get passed for a decade, I believe.

        •  Not agreeing on some things (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ssgbryan, blueoasis, JesseCW, m00finsan

          is just a wee bit different than not thinking you have a basic civil, basic human right

          •  Fair enough (0+ / 0-)

            But unfortunately, the Republican candidate will also feel that way. But unlike Obama, they wont support civil unions. Or the hate crimes law. They will rescind Obama's order on visitation rights. If DADT is repealed by then, a GOP president will probably try to put it back into place.  Not to mention being worse on pretty much every other issue. Like I said, you can vote for whoever you want or not vote at all, that is your right. But given the two choices in an election, I think there is a clear difference.

      •  Actually, it is. (0+ / 0-)

        When there's people like the diarist who is putting his single issue at the top of the President's agenda and at least implicitly arguing that any deviation is a reason to not support him, there's really only one argument: for your single issue, the republican would bury it forever.

        I have no idea why that wouldn't work in an election.  In an election, it's a binary choice.  

        Now, does it work on a blog?  No, because the diariest is challenging people to make him excuse  Obama, and he's not going to.   For that matter, he's not going to admit that "you'll get a republican" is a valid argument, either.  It's what happens when a diary is set up, not as a discussion, but a challenge to change the diarist's mind; the diarist usually decides it didn't work.
         

        Someone on daily kos called me a poopyhead. My life is SO like Nelson Mandela's.

        by Inland on Fri Aug 06, 2010 at 10:52:04 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  There's not much choice, unfortunately ... (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ferallike, soms, m00finsan, Shes a Riot

    ... which I'm sure you, diarist,  already know.

    Presidential vote-wise, you just have to suck it up and vote for the lesser of two evils. (or best,least-objectionable, whatever u want to call it)

    As far as other means of support, I assume that Obama's team has made a political calculation and feel that they get more mileage out of not saying much about it.

    So in essence, I assume that they've already calculated that they'll get less money, campaigning, etc from those they disappointing and are prepared to live with it.

    •  You know . . . (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      musing85, JesseCW

      I almost wish someone in the White House could be just that honest.  I'd actually feel better.

      It would make a hell of a lot more sense than the bullshit that was coming out of Axelrod's mouth about the president's position on gay marriage.  Rachel Maddow did a wonderful job of pointing out just how absurd it is on her show tonight.

      Maladie d'Amour, Où l'on meurt d'Aimer, Seul et sans Amour, Sid'abandonné

      by FogCityJohn on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 11:24:35 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  palpatine, I just did a Google search and he (17+ / 0-)

    said before he was elected that he was not for gay marriage, but he was for equal civil rights for gay couples.  I understand what you are saying about his knowledge of the Constitution, but from what I read, that is just what his personal belief is.

    I'm not trying to talk you into voting for him or not, but I really do see him as a compassionate man who values every person in this country -- who values every one of us.  I've read a lot about him and watched biographies.  He's always the same man and goes his own course.  

    I don't have links to it, but I remember reading last year that regarding gay rights, he wants to have legislation in place so that it can't be repealed.  Since Congress hasn't gotten their act together on that these are some things he has been able to do.  There's more, but I found this:

    Obama Team Takes the Lead on LGBT Rights at the UN

    Yesterday, after ordering hospital visits rights to the partners of gay men and lesbians, president Obama called Janice Langbehn, a woman from Florida who in 2007 lost her partner for 18 years, Lisa Pond. Lisa was stricken with a fatal brain aneurysm and Janice and their four adopted children, were not allowed seeing her. Janice even had power of attorney for Pond, but it didn't help. Pond died alone.

    Apparently, the president read the story last year. So last night he called Langbehn from Air Force One to tell her about the new policy. "I was so humbled that he would know Lisa's name and know our story," Langbehn told the NYT. "He apologized for how we were treated. For the last three years, that's what I've been asking the hospital to do. Even now, three years later, they still refuse to apologize to the children and I for the fact that Lisa died alone."

    When a president is all heart

    And Laura Clawson wrote a diary about his presidential memoradum to allow gay partners to visit in the hospital.

    A Huge Deal

    Dante Atkins wrote a beautiful diary on the FP and I hope you just celebrate

    But simply because yesterday--to paraphrase the immortal words of Dr. Martin Luther King--we saw the long moral arc of history bend irrevocably a little more towards justice. And that's what progressive history is all about.

    A stunning, historic day

    I can't change the direction of the wind, but I can adjust my sails to always reach my destination. ~Jimmy Dean

    by ParkRanger on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 07:25:48 PM PDT

    •  I do think (9+ / 0-)

      the thing that confuses me is..that he is against gay marriage and for equal civil rights? How does that work?

       Allowing everyone the right to marry is equal rights..because marriage confers civil rights.

      •  I think it's his religious upbringing, but I'm (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        marabout40

        not gay and so haven't gone in depth on his beliefs on this.  I have just noticed his compassion to the human need of gays to be with a partner who is sick and dying in the hospital or to provide for them financially. I can remember him telling someone who came to the WH last year that he wanted legislation so that it wouldn't be struck down.  Wish I could remember the article, but I don't.

        In my eyes, he's a human being.  He has opinions and beliefs and he seems to have been pretty clear about this all the way along. He seems to have the same position he always has.

        Beliefs aren't logical at all.  They are just thoughts that we think over and over until we think they are true.  So, he learned that one when he was growing up.

        Beliefs can be changed, too.  I would much rather he has his own beliefs than to change them for political expediency.  I don't want him to try to please me.  I can handle not agreeing with him just fine.

        I can't change the direction of the wind, but I can adjust my sails to always reach my destination. ~Jimmy Dean

        by ParkRanger on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 07:43:55 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  well he is my president (5+ / 0-)

          so a belief system that doesn't allow me equal access to civil rights- right that others have access to...pains me.

           Better to be compassionate than not compassionate. I praised him for the hospital decision....but I hope you can understand why that is not enough.  If someone's belief system is that my love is not allowed the same title because its not the same . .its painful.

          •  I'm so clueless that I don't even know what (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            ferallike

            in the Constitution prohibits gay marriage.  I thought marriage in a church was a church decision and that the civil part would be whether the state recognized it as a civil union.

            So, I thought he was saying he recognized it as a civil union.  In other words, that it should be legal, but that it didn't fit with his religious beliefs.

            "I think it's unnecessary," Obama told Sway, in response to a question sent in by Gangstagigz from San Leandro, California. "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage. But when you start playing around with constitutions, just to prohibit somebody who cares about another person, it just seems to me that's not what America's about. Usually, our constitutions expand liberties, they don't contract them."

            ....

            In addition to expressing his opposition to Proposition 8, Obama said he believes and supports "strong civil unions ... that provide legal rights to same-sex couples [so] that they can visit each other in the hospital if they get sick, [so] they can transfer property to each other. If they've got benefits, they can make sure those benefits apply to their partners. I think that's the direction we need to go in. I think young people are ahead of the curve on this for the most part. Their attitude, generally, is that we should be respectful of all people, and that's the kind of politics I want to practice."

            Barack Obama Answers Your Questions About Gay Marriage, Paying For College, More

            To me, love is very precious and I understand everyone's desire to express committment in marriage.  I don't want to get into any kind of argument with you over this. I'm getting tired so I'm losing my train of thought, but I thought I was responding to someone about Obama's position on gay marriage and in a Google search, it looked like it hadn't changed.

            I can't change the direction of the wind, but I can adjust my sails to always reach my destination. ~Jimmy Dean

            by ParkRanger on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 08:10:07 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  that quote was his reponse to Prop 8 -- that it (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              gmb, ferallike

              was unecessary.

              I can't change the direction of the wind, but I can adjust my sails to always reach my destination. ~Jimmy Dean

              by ParkRanger on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 08:11:36 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Nothing in the Constitution prohibits it. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              ParkRanger

              But usually marriage decisions are up to States and many of them ban gay marriage. Ruling on Prop 8 said that California's ban on gay marriage is prohibited by US Constitution b/c it discriminates against a specific group (gays) and has no obvious public policy benefits.

              •  I see. The states are trying to rule above the (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                FG

                Constitution by making it a state's right and this ruling is very significant because it places the Constitution above the state on this issue.  This is a very significant ruling then!  

                I was confused because I thought whether a church married someone or not would be the specific church policy and whether it was legal or not was according to the state (civil).

                So now, they just have to find a church that performs same sex marriage or have a civil union as many hetero couples do.

                Thank you!

                I can't change the direction of the wind, but I can adjust my sails to always reach my destination. ~Jimmy Dean

                by ParkRanger on Fri Aug 06, 2010 at 09:09:27 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Yeah, pretty much. It's not that the states (0+ / 0-)

                  were trying to be above Constitution. Marriage is a state issue and has always been. But Constitution doesn't say outright 'gay marriage is legal' so until a Supreme Court finds that the Constitution means that it's legal states can do whatever they want on the issue. Recent ruling is the first step and if it is sustained on appeal it will make same-sex marriage available in more states (possibly even all but it's highly unlikely).

        •  I think it's a political decision, actually (4+ / 0-)

          when I hear support for civil unions but not for gay marriage, I think - political pragmatist trying to have it both ways.

        •  You know, it wasn't but a few years ago (6+ / 0-)

          that "religious upbringing" and a whole slew of Bible quotes were the justification for laws against "racial mixing".

          So, spare me the "religious upbringing" justification. Civil rights, as a constitutional scholar knows, should not be subject to ANYONE's religious beliefs.  Civil rights are the most basic, fundamental, essential reasons this nation came into being. The first words of every cherised document of our national origin are ALL about civil rights and practically ONLY about civil rights.

          So, saying, "Yeah, um, well, I've got religious beliefs against those civil rights" is pretty weak coffee in my book.  It's a cop-out.

          Progress occurs when courageous, skillful leaders seize the opportunity to change things for the better. -- Harry S Truman

          by YucatanMan on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 08:57:05 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I don't feel it's a justification at all, but it (0+ / 0-)

            is his belief whether we share it or not.  

            A majority of the young ones coming up don't believe this way, even the ones that are voting age.  The time has come for this change in consciousness in our country and this ruling on Prop 8 is big news.

            I can't change the direction of the wind, but I can adjust my sails to always reach my destination. ~Jimmy Dean

            by ParkRanger on Fri Aug 06, 2010 at 09:14:32 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I truly don't believe it is even his "belief" (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              palpatine316

              It is his excuse and it is a Political Calculated Position. And... to that, wow.

              Look at all the grief he is catching for everything under the sun, nearly 99.99% of which is totally invented.

              And then think, as I do, "if this is politically calculated to save him from catching grief it sure as hell ain't working for him."  

              Maybe it is his sincere belief that homophobic ministers should be on the stage with him. If that is so, I'm sorry I supported him.  But maybe it was only political calculus -- just screw the homos over a little to show you're not really Liberal or that you're really a part of the (homophobic) Black community or whatever that was. And that is just plain sad.

              He's far out of touch.

              The statement made yesterday could have been as simple as, "We always support each branch of government acting in their Constitutional roles as planned by our nation's founders."  Politicians deflect questioning like that all the time.  But no.

              Federal Judge:  Gay people have a right to marry. The California actions were unconstitutional.

              Obama's response:  I support civil unions for gays, but I do not support gay marriage. (or I don't believe in it, or whatever).

              Sorry, that's a slap in the face, when a federal judge has just ruled there is a CONSTITUTIONAL right not to be discriminated against in the matter of marriage.

              And the thing is this:  Supporting gays would cost him the support of WHO? Teabaggers? (it's to laugh!) Any Republicans? Hardly.  Independents? (evenly split on gay marriage - they are LOTS more worried about JOBS which is being flubbed pretty handily too, with the only decent economic adviser leaving).

              So, he is pissing off one segment of his base. That's a big help to the Dems.  

              Bottom line:  Stupid position statement for what gain, for what plus??? No reason that I can see.

              Progress occurs when courageous, skillful leaders seize the opportunity to change things for the better. -- Harry S Truman

              by YucatanMan on Fri Aug 06, 2010 at 09:41:02 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  Then perhaps you'd be good enough to explain (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Predictor

          why his "religious upbringing" did not prevent him from stating, long before he ever thought about running for the presidency (when he was running for the Illinois Senate) that, not only did he favor gay marriage, he would sponsor legislation to make it legal. And then you can attempt to explain, by any other means that what was almost certainly the real reason--i.e., the need to appear more "moderate"--why he felt the need to change his mind when he decided to run for higher office.

    •  I'll make this short and sweet (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      musing85, JesseCW

      Here's what's wrong with the president's position on same-sex marriage.  It is predicated on a belief that straight people (like him) are superior to gay people (like me).  Got that?

      You see, when you believe that some personal characteristic that you happen to possess entitles you to greater rights than someone else, that's known as bigotry.  And all the supposed "compassion" in the world can't disguise just how fucking ugly it is.

      Maladie d'Amour, Où l'on meurt d'Aimer, Seul et sans Amour, Sid'abandonné

      by FogCityJohn on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 11:28:38 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  What the fuck are you referring to? (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    askew, soms, marabout40, JoanMar

    Could you provide a link to whatever it is Obama allegedly said today that got you foaming at the mouth?

    Otherwise, this is an incoherent rant about something or other.

    Always make new mistakes - Esther Dyson

    by RandomActsOfReason on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 07:26:27 PM PDT

  •  If this reason is not enough for you: (12+ / 0-)

    The Supreme Court

    then you should have a closer look at how conservative judges would like to treat gays, specifically those that belong to the Federalist Society.

    As can be seen in California, the Federal Judiciary will likely be far more important on this issue in the long run than any presidency.

    "The perfect is the enemy of the good." - Voltaire

    by Lawrence on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 07:27:32 PM PDT

    •  And that's the reason he got my vote in 2008 (0+ / 0-)

      Because JPS wasn't going to make it through another Repub presidency.

      I was turned off by Obama after the Donnie McClurkin issue - definitely gave me pause, but the court was too big a risk.

      On the other hand, if all the old libs (i'm talking about you RBG) are replaced before 2012, there's less of a reason to vote.

      •  Ok. The problem that I see with your reasoning (0+ / 0-)

        here, is that you seem to view the Supreme Court as divorced from the federal judiciary.

        I wrote a diary about how the Republicans have screwed us by stacking the federal judiciary with their ultra-conservative and Federalist Society judges.  Please have a look at it:

        http://www.dailykos.com/...

        "The perfect is the enemy of the good." - Voltaire

        by Lawrence on Fri Aug 06, 2010 at 04:40:12 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Well (0+ / 0-)

          When neither the president not the senate have the balls to push through his nominations at the lower level the way the repubs did - remember the up or down vote mantra, is there much point in worrying about it?

          •  Being aware of it is very important (0+ / 0-)

            imo, we dodged the bullet of having a virtual takeover of the judiciary by the Federalist Society when Obama was elected instead of McCain/Palin.

            And yes, I agree that the Senate is a problem.... that's why I'm working to get more and better Democrats elected.

            We are making progress, though, albeit not fast enough for me.  But it is nonetheless progress and far better than what would be going on if Republicans had more power.

            List of federal judges appointed by Barack Obama
            From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

            Following is a list of all United States federal judges appointed by President Barack Obama during his presidency.[1]

            As of July 12, 2010, 42 Obama nominees to Article III judgeships have been approved by the United States Senate, namely two Justices to the Supreme Court of the United States, ten judges to the United States Courts of Appeals, and thirty judges to the United States district courts.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/...

            "The perfect is the enemy of the good." - Voltaire

            by Lawrence on Fri Aug 06, 2010 at 05:25:21 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  To answer your question: (11+ / 0-)

    Because whoever the Rethug candidate is, I can assure you that he/she will make President Obama look like Harvey Milk.

    You're welcome.

    Certainly from our standpoint, this gives us a sense of momentum -- when the United States has accolades tossed its way, rather than shoes. - PJ Crowley

    by nsfbr on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 07:31:09 PM PDT

  •  Elena Kagan and Sotomayor will be on the bench (13+ / 0-)

    voting to strike down prop 8. That 's reason enough for me to vote for him over and over and over again.

    Impeach Obama- some dkos clown (Jan 05, 2010)

    by soms on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 07:32:36 PM PDT

  •  F@#$k Obama (9+ / 0-)

    Yeah, great idea. The courts are doing the heavy work here as they should. Want to hobble the most progressive president you're going to see in your lifetime? In a year or two it won't matter what the president thinks, republican or democrat. Think about that. We're going to be free of the bigoted moronic moralism of the soon to be defunct religious right. They're imploding before our eyes. Let Obama do what he needs to do and respect him for his ability to stay out of fights he can't win.

  •  Dunno about supporting him... (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ssgbryan, gmb, YucatanMan, blueoasis, ypsiCPA

    ...and I don't necessarily believe he's a bigot, but he sucks at constitutional law. Prop 8 and all 31 of the amendments like it are clearly unconstitutional (and have now been declared so by a court), but he refuses to admit that.

    "Why are people so tied in knots about two people tying the knot?" --Julian Bond FOR THE HORDE!

    by PerfectStormer on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 07:34:38 PM PDT

  •  I get you. (11+ / 0-)

    When I hear someone who's supposed to be on the political left say they don't fully support true marriage equality, I'm very disappointed. I'm much more willing to put up with a wide range of ideas on economic policy, foreign policy, even war, but for some reason I'm far more disappointed when I hear of someone who won't say they're in favor of gay marriage.

    I want to live forever. So far, so good.

    by NMDad on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 07:42:46 PM PDT

  •  I would have thought that you'd be busy (6+ / 0-)

    celebrating - savoring - your historic win. Or better yet, strategizing for the next challenge. It is enlightening that you are not here blasting the government, or the congress, or the Republicans.
    No sirree.
    All the vitriol is directed against Obama.
    It seems that we can no longer discuss an issue without putting this President right slap in the middle of it. I wonder why?

    Maya Angelou: "Without courage, we cannot practice any other virtue with consistency. We can't be kind, true, merciful, generous, or honest."

    by JoanMar on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 07:51:56 PM PDT

  •  I read the whole thread and it was (10+ / 0-)

    depressing. The best thing that can be said for Obama is that he is the lesser of two evils.

    Might and Right are always fighting, in our youth it seems exciting. Right is always nearly winning, Might can hardly keep from grinning.

    by hestal on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 07:53:39 PM PDT

  •  He really shouldn't have said anything - or (13+ / 0-)

    at least just agreed with the court's finding as it related to constitutional law that denying marriage to anyone is wrong according the the law.  

    I understand your frustration - well..no I really can't because I'm not gay and no one is denying me anything.  I can only imagine and I'm sorry.

    "...I enjoy helping people who are vulnerable. And I enjoy crushing bastards.".Julian Assange

    by Sydserious on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 07:55:30 PM PDT

  •  "So who's to the left of Obama on this issue?" (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    deaniac83, ferallike, soms, QES

    Just for the record, Cheney may say he's much more pro-gay than Obama (on this issue), but... I'm looking at what Cheney did in his 8 years as the second-in-command, and I'm not seeing a whole lot.  Oh sure, he couldn't have passed marriage by fiat, but did he say anything to Congress either of times it the federal marriage amendment was brought to the floor?  Did he help relax anti-gay policies within the executive branch?  Did he promote a single policy or attitude that ran counter to the GOP platform of homophobia?  

    I'm not 100% behind how Obama has handled LGBT issues (which, by the way, involve a few things more than marriage, ya know?) during his tenure so far, but this is a ridiculous argument.  

    Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce

    by pico on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 08:02:26 PM PDT

    •  An obviously I'm not (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      gmb, blueoasis, m00finsan

      supporting Dick Cheney. My point is that when Dick Cheney is comfortably to the left of you, perhaps you might want to reconsider your position.

    •  Bill Richardson for one (0+ / 0-)

      To my knowledge he did not oppose gay marriage.  He only said that it seems that voters were ready for it yet.  But he definitely spoke in favor of civil unions and said that all people should have the same rights, which was pretty close to supporting gay marriage in his campaign in 2008.

    •  I think the key words in all of that are (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Predictor

      I'm looking at what Cheney did in his 8 years as the second-in-command, and I'm not seeing a whole lot.

      Yes, it is indisputable that the Republican Party officially, and most Republicans personally, spout a lot of anti-gay rhetoric. They define themselves, in part, by opposing gay rights and gay equality. But it's nowhere near being at the top of their list of things to do. Rather like the Democrats in reverse, really. The Democratic Party has officially stated its support for gay people and for gay equality for years. But they've never really gotten around to doing anything to further that agenda.

      So how are the two parties (on this issue, anyway) in any substantial way different from each other again?

  •  I'm sure the GOP will give you a better deal (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jj32, ferallike

    This diary is all about whining that progress isn't happening fast enough.  Well, you just won a seminal victory and your response is to bash Obama.

    Ask yourself.  What, specifically, would Hillary have done differently, other than just offer words of encouragement.   If mere words are all you are looking for then perhaps you are more in need of a hug that a President.

  •  Has not created New Deal Jobs (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    gmb, kerplunk, Knarfc

    I am upset that Obama hasn't proposed a program of New Deal jobs and that he doesn't seem to think it is an emergency that hundreds of thousands of people will begin to become homeless in 4-6 weeks when the 99 weeks of unemployment run out.  I am a lifelong liberal Democrat and not a troll but I cannot support Obama in 2012.  We need someone who is in touch with the reality of the common people.

  •  Lest we forget .......... (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MA Liberal, gmb, kerplunk, blueoasis, m00finsan

    ........... it all started with Rick Warren's invocation.  ;)

    This thread is full of trolls, at least one of which is very likely a zombie. Zombies and trolls: Seen any elves lately?

    by ThAnswr on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 08:27:43 PM PDT

    •  At The Time I Had Hoped It Was Simply A (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MA Liberal, Predictor, m00finsan, ThAnswr

      way for him to reach out to the right wing (as much as I abhor that).

      But it has actually turned out that Obama is inspired by the likes of Rick Warren and his anti-gay agenda.

      250 is the new 180

      by kerplunk on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 08:36:02 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Actually, it was another one of those ......... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        kerplunk, m00finsan

        ...... Obama moments that told you everything you had to know.  ;)

        This thread is full of trolls, at least one of which is very likely a zombie. Zombies and trolls: Seen any elves lately?

        by ThAnswr on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 08:37:47 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Oh fucking sweet Jesus on a stripper pole... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        deaniac83

        But it has actually turned out that Obama is inspired by the likes of Rick Warren and his anti-gay agenda.

        The POTUS has an anti-gay agenda now...

        Have you READ any of his books?  He talks at LENGTH at how Democrats alienate some Americans by running away from religion so fiercely.  And that this distancing is pushes religious Americans to the Right because they are the only ones willing to at least bullshit in their general direction.  He's doing exactly what he said he was going to do and try to reach out to the religious and make some of them Democrats.  Or at least alleviate some of the Democrat aversion...

        While you might think Rik Warren was poor judgement (and I agree) it's not because he has some "anti-gay agenda".

        •  Separate But Equal Is Part Of The Anti-Gay (5+ / 0-)

          Agenda.

          250 is the new 180

          by kerplunk on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 10:11:35 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Define "marriage" for me... (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            ferallike, lightshine

            If you define "marriage" as a religious ceremony (which he has) then exactly what are you asking for him to support?  Are you asking for him to demand churches marry GLBT partners?

            Or are you asking that state-sponsored partnerships be provided and accepted nationwide?

            The problem is the double-use of a word with two different definitions depending on who uses it.

            I am "married" (legal union).  I am not "married" if you ask any church because I did not have a religious ceremony.  The GLBT in California that were "married" weren't any more or less "married" than I am.  He supports you (gay) and me (not gay) being "married" in exactly, equally, and precisely the same ways.  Exactly.

            The only thing that Barack Obama has ever said he was against, was forcing religious institutions to accept GLBT partners.  Yes the language is coded.  Yes you may be unhappy with that.  But coded language has a real meaning and it goes right over your head.  

            He is FOR everything you want him to be FOR.

            • Wants every state in the union to conduct legal unions (which is what they are called for heterosexual people too, btw).

            • Wants repeal of DOMA
            • Wants repeal of DADT
            • Ban discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation
            • Hate crimes legislation
            • Every equal right you don't currently have

            But actions speak louder than words, right?  Ok

            "Barack Obama did vote against a Federal Marriage Amendment and opposed the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996."

            What Obama can't do however, is make everyone use the proper word to refer to the proper thing.

            So what am I missing?  Enlighten me.

        •  The religious being spoken of in the same (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MrWebster, Predictor, m00finsan

          breath as Rick Warren are not going to vote Democratic. If you believe they are being driven away by the Democratic Party, then you have no  concept of what "charismatics" and "evangelicals" in the mega-churches are doing. In my family there are strong religious beliefs, two of my siblings and their spouses are evangelicals whose stated purpose is to "return America" to the times when it was a "Christian nation" and to put America's Federal government under "Christ's dominion" as it once was... In other words, they have no place in the Democratic Party, not because we are pushing them away, but because they believe we are doing Satan's work; therefore, let's stop this bullshit, evangelicals are never going to be at home in the Democratic Party and reaching out to them is self defeating and stupid. By the way Rick Warren does have an anti-gay agenda and strongly supported Prop. 8 in California. He also has an anti-woman agenda and a generally anti-liberal agenda. Both you and the President are naive if you believe otherwise.  

          "Intelligence is quickness in seeing things as they are..." George Santayana

          by KJG52 on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 10:21:14 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  That's not true... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            ferallike

            breath as Rick Warren are not going to vote Democratic.

            Rick WARREN religious folks are not going to vote Democrat.

            There are PLENTY of religious folks that don't gibe at all with conservatives or Rick Warren but vote Republican because they think Democrats are "anti-faith".

            •  Then Obama should use the silver tongue of his (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              m00finsan

              To show the religious who may vote Dem that being for full gay rights is not anti-religious.

              •  They do. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                lightshine

                Most of America is not like you or me. (atheist).

                Most of America is religious.

                Many of those religious people vote Democrat and support full gay rights.

                More would if they didn't worry about that Democrats were anti-faith.  This the same kind of perception that has people voting against Dems because they're not "fiscally responsible".  It's a false perception but it motivates votes.

                See if you can wrap your head around this.

                Washington -- The typical American believes in God (92 percent), believes in absolute standards of right and wrong (78 percent), prays at least weekly (75 percent), believes in life after death (74 percent) and believes in sacred scripture as the word of God (63 percent). But that typical American is also tolerant of other peoples’ beliefs and strikingly nondogmatic in the sense of not believing his or her own religion to be the only path to salvation or to have a monopoly on truth.

                These findings emerge from a new study by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life.

            •  I am a "religious folk" in fact, I teach... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              MrWebster

              classes in OT, NT, Church History, Philosophy and Theology; however, I  am already a Democrat and a member of a mainline protestant religion being attacked for our pro-woman, pro-gay stance. I have found very little interest in the evangelical church up the block from mine, except perhaps to mark me as a defiler of Christianity. The belief that there are evangelicals in the white community that will move toward the Democratic Party is a fantasy...

              "Intelligence is quickness in seeing things as they are..." George Santayana

              by KJG52 on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 11:25:23 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I didn't say (0+ / 0-)

                "evangelicals".  And I conceded that choosing to make overtures to Rick Warren was poor judgment.

                There are lots of religious people who aren't evangelical.

                   Washington  -- The typical American believes in God (92 percent), believes in absolute standards of right and wrong (78 percent), prays at least weekly (75 percent), believes in life after death (74 percent) and believes in sacred scripture as the word of God (63 percent). But that typical American is also tolerant of other peoples’ beliefs and strikingly nondogmatic in the sense of not believing his or her own religion to be the only path to salvation or to have a monopoly on truth.

                   These findings emerge from a new study by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life.

                Many of these people are reachable.

                •  Good Luck, I have been trying to reach them (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Predictor

                  for thirty years, very few successes, many failures, if you read the Pew study carefully, you also found that young people do not fit the profile you sketch out and believe generally that Christians are homophobic, mean spirited, rigid and dogmatic. Young people are leaving Christianity in droves, it's the 50 somethings that keep the mainline protestants going and the evangelicals as well, they aren't generally theologically similar but attracting them to the Democratic Party seems futile to me...

                  "Intelligence is quickness in seeing things as they are..." George Santayana

                  by KJG52 on Fri Aug 06, 2010 at 01:18:40 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Clearly you're not understanding the statistics. (0+ / 0-)

                    Those numbers say we are ALREADY REACHING some.  So your hypothesis is wrong on its face.

                    •  Clearly your not understanding the people (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      kerplunk, Predictor

                      outreach to "religious" people is being done all the time, by both parties; however, the belief that you can form a progressive Democratic Party with neatly parsed positions like "civil unions" which neither the "religious" or the LGBT community is going to find palatable is simply wishful thinking at best and easily penetrated self-serving political posing, at worst. Either way its not going to bring religious people into the Party, gay issues are splitting every traditional mainline protestant denomination and some Jewish congregations as we speak...

                      I am a member of a church, teach every Sunday,  attend services every Sunday and during the week, you say you're an atheist, and you're the expert? I think you're kidding yourself and if Obama is treading these steps, he's kidding himself too.

                      I have some respect for polling organizations, and some I respect more than others; however, this is completely wrong headed, even if the polling is correct, this is not a direction that Democrats should be taking. The more we inject religion into Party politics, the more we betray the foundation of this country's political heritage. I do not want political parties courting religions of any stripe or trying to mold policy to accomodate some type of religious agenda, in order to attract voters. This is dangerous and divisive, as Republicans have found out, and we can't incorporate the agenda of any religion into governance in most cases in any event. This is just a mistaken and foolish pursuit and should be abandoned immediately.  

                      "Intelligence is quickness in seeing things as they are..." George Santayana

                      by KJG52 on Fri Aug 06, 2010 at 10:35:51 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  You've missed the point entirely. Good grief.. (0+ / 0-)

                        You don't even take the time to try and understand... You all just talk past each other regurgitating stock beliefs in something that resembles a conversation but is entirely one way but in two directions.

                        •  What's the point I missed, that Obama still (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Predictor

                          has not closed the Office of Faith Based Initiatives, that religious people need to be treated as a class apart from "people" because Democrats supposedly are offending them out of the Party? The point is that religion and politics are not copartners in  governance, and if we have learned anything about the concerns of "people of faith" it should be that just because they are people of faith should not give them any particular preference from political parties. You're the one trying to advance an agenda here and it's wrong headed, we should be treating everyone fairly and equitably, not using pollsters to shake and bake new factions into the Democratic Party. We have enough factions as it is...

                          "Intelligence is quickness in seeing things as they are..." George Santayana

                          by KJG52 on Fri Aug 06, 2010 at 03:50:27 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                  •  And even if you're 100% right (0+ / 0-)

                    and Obama is wrong and those people can't be reached no matter how hard you try.  The point it's not an "anti-gay agenda".  It's a futile (in your mind) to attempt to reach a segment of voters that don't vote Democrat.

              •  That is my experience (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                KJG52

                Had evangelical in-laws and attended various churches to support kids in bake sales, events, etc.  It was apparent after awhile that being evangelical meant have core beliefs around issues like homosexuality, politics, war, the welfare state, etc that were just as critical as their ideas on redempetion, etc.

                The mistake being made in thinking that evangelicals can be won over  is that evangelicals somehow hold social and economic views outside their religious beliefs.  They don't. It is part of the whole deal--take it or leave it.  Jesus in fact was an anti-gay, pro-free market religious leader.

    •  No, it all started in South Carolina (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Predictor

      with Donnie McClurkin.

  •  Thoughtful Diary With Some Good Questions. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    gmb, m00finsan

    So far Obama doesn't have leadership skills.

    He's charismatic.

    He's likable enough.

    I wanted a leader.

  •  You are full of crap for (3+ / 0-)
    1. calling the POTUS a bigot
    1. for comparing the struggle of AA with Gays which BTW is not comparable as race is different than sexual orientation
    1. for voting for him knowing his religious believe which he has been honest about for a long time where he believes a marriage is between a man and a women. Also, let's not forget the support he has for civil union for LBGT community which gives just as equal right as married couples.

    You think this rant is going to get you love from anyone except some idiots who probably don't know how much this POTUS has done to advance many LGBT issues. Here is a list for you:

             

    1.  Extended  benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees
    1. Signed the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act
    1. Instructed HHS to require any hospital receiving Medicare or Medicaid funds (virtually all hospitals) to allow LGBT visitation rights.
    1. Banned job discrimination based on gender identity throughout the Federal government (the nation's largest employer)
    1. Signed the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Treatment Extension Act
    1. Issued diplomatic passports, and provided other benefits, to the partners of same-sex foreign service employees
    1. Lifted the HIV Entry Ban effective January 2010

    Listen you ignorant person, if you want to make a case for progress, you sure have lost it. Further, don't you ever compare what African American went thru for 400 years as equal as you as a gay person.

    Have you been chained and displaced from your home land in shackles?

    Have you been considered as a property?

    Have you been lynched for trying to read?

    Have you been beat, hung and murdered because of your skin color?

    Have you been segregated, discriminated, separated, humiliated because racist white people didn't like our skin color?

    NO NO NO!

    The misuse of Blacks struggle to compare it to LGBTs struggle make you look very uninformed or I would say a bullshitter.

    For further accomplishment in the LGBT and what Obama stands for

    http://www.thenation.com/...

    http://www.equalitygiving.org/...

    ...We have many more issues that bind us together than separate us!

    by ThisIsMyTime on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 08:33:42 PM PDT

    •  False (5+ / 0-)
      1. for voting for him knowing his religious believe which he has been honest about for a long time where he believes a marriage is between a man and a women. Also, let's not forget the support he has for civil union for LBGT community which gives just as equal right as married couples.

      Obama Once Supported Same-Sex Marriage 'Unequivocally' (Before he did a John McCain like flip flop)

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

      250 is the new 180

      by kerplunk on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 08:42:51 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I said I was gay, I didn't say I was white (10+ / 0-)

      Common element among homophobes to assume gay men are all white with lots of disposable income.

      My guess is most of the list of items you asked me about haven't happened to you other than perhaps some forms of discrimination.

      Have you ever been left tied to a fence to die in an empty field in Wyoming?

      When was the last time you were beaten just for walking down the street holding hands with the person you love?

      I never said the two were the same or equal, just that there is a lesson in the Civil Rights struggle of African Americans and the "risk" LBJ was willing to take to do the right thing.

      If you don't see an element of civil rights to the gay issue, you're missing the big picture.

      •  Hummmmm (3+ / 0-)

        Common element among people like you is you think everything is about you. You should listen to deanic. May be you will learn a little bit of something.

        Have you ever been left tied to a fence to die in an empty field in Wyoming?

        Was it not Obama who signed the hate crime bill...did he not? or is that something LBJ did.

        What you are or who you are or what color you are is really irrelevant to the degrading condor you showed someone that is fighting to do the right things against all the fucking resistance/homophobia/transphobia/etc. If you think you are building a coalition with this diary, your have failed and doing a disservice to the cause.

        If you really want to teach about why it is important that Gays should have the same right as married straight people, try a different venue rather than cripple someone who is fight to get you there. As far as I am concerned be it civil union or marriage, either will do for me even thought I don't see any reason to call it a different name.

        But, since we are talking about race and gay rights, just for your information marriage equality does not address racism, classism, and sexism in the LGBT communities and I am sure you are aware of that.

        ...We have many more issues that bind us together than separate us!

        by ThisIsMyTime on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 09:30:18 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  People like me (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          musing85, SJerseyIndy, kerplunk, PhilJD

          If someone used that phrase on you, how would you react?

          You can say he's fighting to do the right things. Maybe you even believe it. But when most of the gay people who've posted in this thread suggest otherwise, maybe that should give you pause to consider that just maybe you're incorrect.

          If civil unions and marriage are just the same, do you support getting rid of civil marriage for everyone and calling it civil unions for all? I am, by the way. I'd be perfectly happy to leave the word marriage to the churches. i just want the government to treat everyone the same.

          •  Which is exactly what this Administration is (0+ / 0-)

            doing:

            i just want the government to treat everyone the same.

            What you are doing is not fighting for civil rights. You are dissecting the word marriage and yelling how a privilege has been taken away from you, comparing AA struggles of 400 years and wrap it up in a gift box. You know what, those folks who tip and rec you calling this President a bigot are not sound minds who give me a pause to consider much of what you or they have to say.

            Again your approach and misinformation as if the Administration is preventing benefits to same-sex partners is wrong and a lie.

            A more important question to you is if civil unions and marriage are just the same and does not preventing the dolling out of benefit that happens right now in most states, why would you have a problem to not support civil union as a equal interpretation as a union recognized by the government such as marriage. Further, why do you care to try to object to others who honor because of their religious views that a marriage is defined to be between opposite sex?

            As to my view of treating everyone the same...as far as I am concerned two or even three people who share economic cost and are not involved romantically should not be left out of the equation to rip the benefit exclusive to marriage and/or civil union.

            For your information, I have many strong, solid and decorated gay friends I value more than the folks you hang out with and I weigh their values more than yours or some of your friends. Just because you called in your friends won't persuade me when fundamentally your argument is fraud. Not to discount people like PhilJD while I disagree with at times on somethings, I still have a whole of respect for him. You are wrong for calling this President a bigot, PERIOD.

            ...We have many more issues that bind us together than separate us!

            by ThisIsMyTime on Fri Aug 06, 2010 at 11:35:15 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  People like you is meant to distigush people (0+ / 0-)

            who are Gay who don't think like you, who don't call this President a bigot, who don't chastise him for supporting the LBGT agenda, who don't take his support for granted, etc., so that we have a clear understanding and avoid this projecting. One thing you have to understand is that there are a lot of Gays who do not mirror your logic of thinking. But again, you call them sellouts for their differing views.

            ...We have many more issues that bind us together than separate us!

            by ThisIsMyTime on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 06:44:58 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Just responding to (0+ / 0-)

              you calling gay people who agree with you, class acts.

              I'm not old enough to remember, but I'm guessing there were plenty of whites who were happy to know the quiet black person who never objected to their second class status. They were the classy blacks, they knew their place unlike those uppity ones.

              Mr. Gibbs decided to throw many more than just gays under the bus today. Maybe you like the big payout to the insurance industry on the health care side. Then there are those of us who must be taking drugs because we think Canada's healthcare with lower cost and better lifespan is a better model.

              I don't consider myself a member of the professional left. I'm just somebody who voted for Obama and who expected, based on the man's word, that he'd be fighting for a whole lot more than he's done so far - and I don't just mean the gay issues.

              But feel free to keep thinking he's on your side

        •  And when signing a bill is enough (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          kerplunk

          to get credit, he'll get credit for it. That bill had been sitting in Congress for a decade--including the entire time Obama was in the Senate. He did nothing to move it forward. Not. One. Goddamn. Thing. He just threw the party. And wants, with the help of enablers like you, to claim credit for somebody else's work.

          •  You are a lost cause so it would be a waste of my (0+ / 0-)

            time to have any discourse with you. With or without you, we will prevail even with all of your disgusting blindfolds. But again, you can't find your ass with a flashlight and maps even if you are shown the way how to get there so again you are a waste of my time.

            ...We have many more issues that bind us together than separate us!

            by ThisIsMyTime on Fri Aug 06, 2010 at 12:40:08 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  As ever, when you can't find an argument (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Predictor

              or a fact to buttress your position, you resort to attacking anyone who disagrees with you. You had better hope that your MO isn't adopted by the people whose job it will be to try to convince people like me that they should vote Democratic this fall--or in 2012--because if they do, you're going to lose so big you won't know what hit you.

              Not to mention the fact that you couldn't define "discourse" (much less engage in it) if I handed you a dictionary open to the correct page.

              •  No fact is good enough for you or shall I say it (0+ / 0-)

                is something that you have no appetite for unless it is constructed with a narrative that fits you. Please...you wouldn't know what fact is even if it stairs you in the eyes. Like I said, "you can't find your ass with a flashlight and maps even if you are shown the way how to get there so again you are a waste of my time".

                ...We have many more issues that bind us together than separate us!

                by ThisIsMyTime on Fri Aug 06, 2010 at 01:00:18 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

      •  I agree the commenter was wrong about the (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ferallike

        point you address (it is a civil rights issue and very comparable in lots of ways).

        But can you answer his other (valid) point?  In my opinion you've disqualified yourself by naming him a bigot.  How can he be a bigot doing these things.

          1.   Extended  benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees

          2. Signed the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act

          3. Instructed HHS to require any hospital receiving Medicare or Medicaid funds (virtually all hospitals) to allow LGBT visitation rights.

          4. Banned job discrimination based on gender identity throughout the Federal government (the nation's largest employer)

          5. Signed the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Treatment Extension Act

          6. Issued diplomatic passports, and provided other benefits, to the partners of same-sex foreign service employees

          7. Lifted the HIV Entry Ban effective January 2010

        •  Lincoln was a racist who was horrified (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          musing85, SJerseyIndy, 4kedtongue

          at the very idea of "race mixing".

          He still issued the emancipation proclimation.

          LBJ was also a deeply racist man, who routinely dropped the N word without a second thought.

          I don't think we need to list the bills he signed.

          We need to stop going halfway around the world to wage war on people who don't even change out of their jammies to fight us.

          by JesseCW on Fri Aug 06, 2010 at 01:55:52 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  And Barack Obama in your view is a bigot who did (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            BrowniesAreGood

            the following...Right? Save the bullshit, please!

            By Andrew Tobias      
             

              1. Reversed an inexcusable US position by signing the UN Declaration on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity
              2. Extended benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees in 2009 and, further, in 2010
              3. Endorsed the Baldwin-Lieberman bill, The Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act of 2009, to provide FULL partnership benefits to federal employees
              4. Signed the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Treatment Extension Act
              5. Lifted the HIV Entry Ban effective January 2010
              6. Released the first Presidential PRIDE proclamations since 2000
              7. Hosted the first LGBT Pride Month Celebration in White House history
              8. Awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom to Harvey Milk and Billie Jean King
              9. Appointed the first ever transgender DNC member
             10. Issued diplomatic passports, and provided other benefits, to the partners of same-sex foreign service employees
             11. Committed to ensuring that HUD’s core housing programs are open to all, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity
             12. Conceived a National Resource Center for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Elders -- the nation's first ever -- funded by a three-year HHS grant to SAGE
             13. Testified in favor of ENDA, the first time any official of any administration has testified in the Senate on ENDA
             14. Signed the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, which expanded existing United States federal hate crime law to include crimes motivated by a victim’s actual or perceived gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability -- the first positive federal LGBT legislation in the nation's history
             15. Hired and appointed a record number of qualified LGBT Americans (like these), including more than 15 Senate-confirmed appointments
             16. Sworn in Ambassador David Huebner
             17. Changed the culture of government everywhere from – among others – HUD and HHS to the Export-Import Bank, the State Department, and the Department of Education
             18.

                 Appointed Sonia Sotomayor and nominated Elena Kagan, instead of conservatives who would have tilted the Court even further to the right and virtually doomed our rights for a generation.  To wit (quoting McCain): "I've said a thousand times on this campaign trail, I've said as often as I can, that I want to find clones of Alito and Roberts.  I worked as hard as anybody to get them confirmed. I look you in the eye and tell you I've said a thousand times that I wanted Alito and Roberts.  I have told anybody who will listen. I flat-out tell you I will have people as close to Roberts and Alito [as possible]."
             19.

                 Named open transgender appointees (the first President ever to do so)
             20.

                 Banned job discrimination based on gender identity throughout the Federal government (the nation's largest employer)
             21. Emphasized LGBT inclusion in everything from the President’s historic NAACP address ("The pain of discrimination is still felt in America.  By African American women paid less for doing the same work as colleagues of a different color and a different gender.  By Latinos made to feel unwelcome in their own country.  By Muslim Americans viewed with suspicion simply because they kneel down to pray to their God.  By our gay brothers and sisters, still taunted, still attacked, still denied their rights.") . . . to the first paragraph of his Family Day proclamation ("Whether children are raised by two parents, a single parent, grandparents, a same-sex couple, or a guardian, families encourage us to do our best and enable us to accomplish great things") and his Mothers Day proclamation ("Nurturing families come in many forms, and children may be raised by two parents, a single mother, two mothers, a step-mom, a grandmother, or a guardian.  Mother's Day gives us an opportunity to celebrate these extraordinary caretakers") . . . to creating the chance for an adorable 10-year-old at the White House Easter Egg roll to tell ABC World News how cool it is to have two mommies . . . to including the chair of the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce along with the Secretary of the Treasury and the President of Goldman Sachs in the small audience for the President’s economic address at the New York Stock Exchange . . . to welcoming four gay couples to its first State Dinner
             22. Recommitted, in a televised address, to passing ENDA . . . repealing Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell  . . . repealing the so-called Defense of Marriage Act
             23. Spoken out against discrimination at the National Prayer Breakfast ("We may disagree about gay marriage, but surely we can agree that it is unconscionable to target gays and lesbians for who they are -- whether it's here in the United States or, as Hillary mentioned, more extremely in odious laws that are being proposed most recently in Uganda.")
             24. Dispatched the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to call on the Senate to repeal Don't Ask / Don't Tell, in the meantime dialing back on discharges
             25. Launched a website to gather public comment on first-ever federal LGBT housing discrimination study
             26. Appointed long-time equality champion Chai Feldblum one of the four Commissioners of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
             27. Eliminated the discriminatory Census Bureau policy that kept our relationships from being counted, encouraging couples who consider themselves married to file that way, even if their state of residence does not yet permit legal marriage
             28. Produced U.S. Census Bureau PSAs featuring gay, lesbian, and transgender spokespersons.
             29. Instructed HHS to require any hospital receiving Medicare or Medicaid funds (virtually all hospitals) to allow LGBT visitation rights.
             30. Appointed Retired Colonel Margarethe Cammermeyer, an early public champion of open service in the military, to the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services
             31. Required all grant applicants seeking HUD funding to comply with state and local anti-discrimination laws that protect LGBT individuals.
             32. Adopted transgender recommendations on the issuance of gender-appropriate passports that will ease barriers to safe travel and that will provide government-issued ID that avoids involuntary "outing" in situations requiring ID, like hiring, where a gender-appropriate driver's license or birth certificate is not available
             33. Extended domestic violence protections to LGBT victims
             34. Publicly invited shunned MIssissippi high school prom student to the White House
             35. Extended the Family and Medical Leave Act to cover employees taking unpaid leave to care for the children of same-sex partners
             36. Issued guidance specifically to assist LGBT tenants denied housing on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity
             37. Issued a National HIV/AIDS Strategy praised as "long-overdue" by the Task Force, Lambda and others
             38. Successfully fought for UN accreditation of IGLHRC (the International Gay & Lesbian Human Rights Commission) -- against Republican attempts to block it

            ...We have many more issues that bind us together than separate us!

            by ThisIsMyTime on Fri Aug 06, 2010 at 07:27:47 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  That bullshit list has been debunked (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              kerplunk, Predictor

              numerous times. And yet you keep waving it around, as if by repeating the canard that this president has done a goddamn substantive thing to advance gay rights often enough, you'll be able to make it true.

              Ain't gonna happen. And if you think civil unions are "just as good" as marriage, I invite you to read Judge Walker's opinion from the other day, as he quite clearly demonstrates (as, indeed, the proponents of Proposition H8 admitted themselves) that they are not. Which makes President Obama's position unconstitutional on its face. And, yes, bigoted. Separate but unequal is not acceptable. And he of all people should know it.

            •  That's funny. I don't recall saying that (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              musing85, 4kedtongue

              President Obama is a bigot, despite the bigoted views he espouses.

              Personally, I have no idea if he is a bigot, or just takes a bigoted stance for political reasons.

              I realize that your illusion that you can read his heart and mind is very important to you.

              I simply point how very, very sloppy your argument is.

              We need to stop going halfway around the world to wage war on people who don't even change out of their jammies to fight us.

              by JesseCW on Fri Aug 06, 2010 at 12:46:28 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I guess we just have to agree to disagree with (0+ / 0-)

                at least you not calling him a bigot. Right? Thank you!

                ...We have many more issues that bind us together than separate us!

                by ThisIsMyTime on Fri Aug 06, 2010 at 01:01:29 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  Bigot or bigoted (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                musing85

                Is sort of like saying someone who practices racism but isn't a racist.

                When someones says they personally don't support gay marriage, here's what it means:

                1. I think gay people being in a relationship is different than straight people.
                1. I think straight relationships are better (in some way, shape, or form) than gay relationships.

                Now substitute the word gay with Black, Jewish, etc. and tell me what you think of that.

                The only way you can think those items don't point to a bigot is if you believe being gay is a choice. In which case, all I can ask is when you made a decision to be straight and not be gay.

                •  I'm not into to judging people (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  musing85

                  but I'd have to be an idiot or a liar to deny that his statement was bigoted.

                  He may not believe his own statement.  It could be a lie he's telling for political expediency.

                  We need to stop going halfway around the world to wage war on people who don't even change out of their jammies to fight us.

                  by JesseCW on Fri Aug 06, 2010 at 06:05:03 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I incline toward the latter opinion (0+ / 0-)

                    Because if he really does believe that, then he was lying for political expediency back in 1996 when he said he was in favor of same-sex marriages and wanted to sponsor legislation to make them legal.

                    So I guess either way you slice it, he's got a reputation for lying when it serves a political need. It's just a question of whether the lie he told can be classed as a venial, little white social variety ("God is in the mix," yada, yada, yada) or whether he really does have a bigoted belief that opposite-sex couples are in some sense superior to same-sex couples and deserve a greater level of protection and recognition of their status from the state.

                  •  Just judge the actions (0+ / 0-)

                    No one can fully know what's in another's heart, but we can look at their actions to give us a clue.

                    A justice department brief comparing gay relationships to incest.

                    A shill reminding us on the day of our victory that he's not with us.

                    These aren't window dressing kind of statements. These go to the core of who we are.

                    How many actions do we need to see before we can draw conclusions?

          •  We are not talking about Lincoln or LBJ. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            ThisIsMyTime
            •  But we are talking about a very (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              musing85, 4kedtongue

              poorly constructed argument which rests entirely on a false premise.

              Passing or supporting legislation that benefits a minority group in no way indicates that a President is not bigoted against said group.

              We need to stop going halfway around the world to wage war on people who don't even change out of their jammies to fight us.

              by JesseCW on Fri Aug 06, 2010 at 12:47:45 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  And then on another day (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          musing85

          Have his justice department say my relationship is just like incest.

          Are some of the items listed above helpful? Sure.

          Marriage, as many on the wrong side of this issue like to say, is something at the core of adult life. Being with whom we want to be, and being treated just like anyone else is pretty basic human right. When the leader of the government doesn't support that, it's kind of a fundamental problem.

          •  Like i said, I don't give a shit about (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            BrowniesAreGood

            what that equal right is called...be it marriage or civil union even thought as I had said before I don't see any reason to call it a different name. But the notion, you crying foul demonizing this POTUS, calling him a bigot is out of line and makes you irrelevant. Where the hell did this President said that..."Being with whom we want to be, and being treated just like anyone else" is a right you don't deserve or can't have. You twist shit up to create your own delusional narrative when you can't even check your own biased views.

            ...We have many more issues that bind us together than separate us!

            by ThisIsMyTime on Fri Aug 06, 2010 at 07:24:07 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  There Is No Demonizing Of The President. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              musing85, palpatine316

              Simply stating the truth about the President's position on gay marriage.

              President Obama has taken a bigotted position of Separate But Equal.

              You have every right to support that bigotted position.

              250 is the new 180

              by kerplunk on Fri Aug 06, 2010 at 11:06:30 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I will support the President on many issues but (0+ / 0-)

                I am not going to let you get off calling him a bigot without you acknowledging the shit you spew. This is a typical so called appeal as if you are really concern about civil rights. This ain't about equality. If it was you would be addressing the racism, classism, and sexism in the LGBT communities of color. Further, this whole argument has become, you are not doing what we told you to do, so we are going to fuck you up. It is about the effort to polarize a black president that has done so much for the LGBT cause and being treated like a "boy"...yep...why don't you call him just that. That's what is left for you to say and some who are chastising him non stop. Just like many who tried to polarize and blame the black community for the failure of Prop 8, keep spewing your bigoted views because you ain't helping the cause.

                ...We have many more issues that bind us together than separate us!

                by ThisIsMyTime on Fri Aug 06, 2010 at 12:52:13 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

    •  "The misuse of Blacks struggle to compare it to (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      musing85, blueoasis, JesseCW, m00finsan

      LGBTs struggle make you look very uninformed or I would say a bullshitter."

      The struggle for LGBT rights is exactly like the struggle Blacks have and continue to go through.

      If you don't think it's the same thing you haven't been paying attention.

      Also, let's not forget the support he has for civil union for LBGT community which gives just as equal right as married couples.

      You and Obama are supporting "separate but equal", so your outrage is bogus.

      250 is the new 180

      by kerplunk on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 08:51:54 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Gay rights are a civil rights issue. (6+ / 0-)

      Making the statement that the LGBT community hasn't been oppressed as much as the African American community isn't helpful. It's not a contest to see who can win the title of "most oppressed".

      President Obama has done more than any other President to date for LGBT rights. But I have been and continue to be disappointed that he is not more progressive on this issue.

      As a straight person, I also don't feel comfortable telling the diarist to in effect STFU.

      "It's not enough to be right. You still have to use your nice voice." -said by my then six-year-old daughter; "Love binds us all."-willb48

      by be the change you seek on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 11:10:59 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Calling the only best friend you have (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        lightshine

        who is doing so much for you "a bigot" sure is a good enough reason for me to be comfortable telling a diarist they are horseshit. Sorry because as you have noted he has done more than any other public figure to date in the history of this nation but still gets the fucking double standard treatment the teabagging racists give him. NOT acceptable to me.

        ...We have many more issues that bind us together than separate us!

        by ThisIsMyTime on Fri Aug 06, 2010 at 05:32:56 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Seperate is not equal (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      musing85, kerplunk, 4kedtongue

      Also, let's not forget the support he has for civil union for LBGT community which gives just as equal right as married couples.

      And one has to be a bigot to think it is.

      We need to stop going halfway around the world to wage war on people who don't even change out of their jammies to fight us.

      by JesseCW on Fri Aug 06, 2010 at 01:51:10 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

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

        laming the failure of Prop 8 on Blacks is bigoted

        Wrong again...the usage of the word marriage is not inequality!

        The truth is that a sector of the affluent gay folks are leading the charge, more concerned about the privileges they no longer have when if fact the same privilege is granted to them via civil union (what Obama supports), than they are concerned with addressing civil rights for all people.  

        I will say what one of my friend said regarding this. "Marriage equality means just buying into and reinforcing the system, not demolishing or revising it to reflect an anti-racist, anti-classist, anti-sexist, anti-heterocentrist institution."

        Chew on that for breakfast.

        ...We have many more issues that bind us together than separate us!

        by ThisIsMyTime on Fri Aug 06, 2010 at 05:28:31 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Fully chewed (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          musing85, 4kedtongue

          I'm all for getting rid of civil marriage for all and calling it a civil union / domestic partnership, whatever other phrase you like. Let the churches keep the word marriage, I just have this quaint notion that says the government should treat (and define) everyone equally.

          •  So there it is... (0+ / 0-)

            The whole idea of wanting to achieve 'marriage equality' is about getting rid of civil marriage or to redefine the use of marriage between a man and a women. What I find it ridicules is people like you can't muster the balls but continue the begging to be accepted by a sexist, classist, and racist system and call the POTUS a bigot for fighting for you to give you the same right via a civil union. I think that is disappointing and disgusting. It has nothing to do with equal rights. Rights can not be defined by who can use "one" word.

            ...We have many more issues that bind us together than separate us!

            by ThisIsMyTime on Fri Aug 06, 2010 at 06:52:53 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  It would be lovely if you could read (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          musing85, 4kedtongue

          and respond to what people actually write.

          This

          laming the failure of Prop 8 on Blacks is bigoted

          Is both nonsensical and a nonsequitor.

          First, I think you mean "blaming the passage of Prop 8"....but the comment is so unrelated to anything I've ever written here that I find it difficult to believe that's what you meant.

          If you think "Negro Unions" would have been a perfectly good substitute for Marraige in the Jim Crow South, I'll take you seriously.

          Otherwise, seperate is not equal, and only a bigot could think it was.

          We need to stop going halfway around the world to wage war on people who don't even change out of their jammies to fight us.

          by JesseCW on Fri Aug 06, 2010 at 12:53:28 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  You are fucked up in the head... (0+ / 0-)

            If you think "Negro Unions" would have been a perfectly good substitute for Marraige in the Jim Crow South, I'll take you seriously.

            Gawd!

            ...We have many more issues that bind us together than separate us!

            by ThisIsMyTime on Sat Aug 07, 2010 at 06:46:15 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Let's get to the point (0+ / 0-)

              Do you support unequivocally equal marriage rights for gays and lesbians?

              And just to be clear that means all the rights and privileges that come along with it granted by the state, including the use of the same term (whatever it is).

              We either treat people equally in this country or we don't. It's your choice whether you want to agree with that position or not. Just be warned however that a government that doesn't have to treat people equally can always decide you're one of the people that it doesn't have to treat equally.

              No one here is arguing that churches must recognize gay marriage. No one here is arguing that people have to believe homosexuality isn't a sin. Your private beliefs are your own. All we are saying is the state must treat all of its citizens equally.

              Are you with us on that or not?

              •  Yes is the answer to all. (0+ / 0-)

                Do you support unequivocally equal marriage rights for gays and lesbians?

                Damn right I do! In fact, I find that question insulting but I will let it go.

                Here is my issue with your framing:

                And just to be clear that means all the rights and privileges that come along with it granted by the state, including the use of the same term (whatever it is).

                My issue with you is that you are calling the use of the same term (marriage) as an equal right issue and calling people like the president a bigot for using the term marriage exclusively for a man and a woman. That I don't agree with while I have made it clear in this thread that I don't see any reason to call it different terms. However, the usage of the term civil union so long as it gives exactly the same rights and privileges to Gay couples is just fine with me too. And, that is exactly what Obama supports and pursuing policies that accommodate this transition.

                I agree that there is no ifs and buts about the fact that we must treat all people equally and no one group of society should have more benefit and right than another. Even those that are domestic partners for economical reason who live in the same roof without any romantic relations should have just as much equal rights as married people.

                You calling the President a bigot for not supporting the usage of the term "Gay marriage" while he support granting every benefit and right heterosexual couples have to same sex couples in "civil union" is unjust, short sighted and unproductive to the cause to build a coalition for people to advocate on your behave. You have made a big mistake calling your best advocate a bigot. I do also have class act gay friends and they will say exactly what I am saying to you.

                ...We have many more issues that bind us together than separate us!

                by ThisIsMyTime on Sat Aug 07, 2010 at 10:30:03 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Actually what you have (0+ / 0-)

                  Are sell-out friends if they are willing to have the government treat (and that includes define) them differently and call that OK.

                  I've said that whatever the term, and it doesn't have to be marriage, has to be the same. If people want to say "marriage" the word is defined as something that happens between a man and a woman, I can live with that as long as that is not a term the government uses to describe relationships for the purposes of treatment, rights and privileges of anyone, gay or straight.

                  Think of the offense you took upon seeing "Negro marriage". That's how most of the gay community feels when they see you think it's OK for the government to call our relationships something different than what it calls marriage for heterosexuals.

                  I'm sure there were some African-Americans who comfortably sat at the back of the bus figuring hey it's better than walking. And a bus ride is a bus ride, it gets me from point A to point B just the same. The government is providing me a way to get from one place to another just like it provides white people a way to get from one place to another. What does it really matter if I have to sit in a specific seat?

                  We didn't choose to be gay. We may choose to act on our feelings or not, but we are gay. The fact that we are gay is no different than the fact some people have blue eyes or have dark skin.

                  The president's justice department compared gay relationships to incest. On a day of judicial victory, the president's shills come out to remind us that we're separate but equal. How much more do I need to see from the man to know he's really not my best advocate.

                  You wanna see best advocate, take a look at Jerry Brown. He's running in a state whose majority recently voted against marriage and his position is unequivocally clear that separate is not equal.

  •  I understand where you're coming from... (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    2laneIA, kerplunk, m00finsan, PhilJD

    I only wish we had a better choice.  I know McCain wouldn't have gotten us there either.  Not sure about Clinton, if she would have won the primary.

    So, that begs the questions... who will you vote for in the next presidential election?

    I know I've asked myself if I will work for Obama again.  My children and I busted our butts and I am less than happy with the results so far.  I had hoped for a stronger leader, one that took chances rather than played it safe.  I was ready for a one term president, if need be, just to rectify so many of the wrongs of the prior president.  

    It really is too soon to make any lasting decision.  But I don't blame you for being upset.

    •  Clinton said that she supports civil unions (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      lightshine

      Her position would have been no different from Obama's.

      I had hoped for a stronger leader, one that took chances rather than played it safe.

      You don't seem to understand that what you perceive as "playing it safe" is strategizing to bring about the most possible change under these circumstances. Hasn't it occurred to you that if the gay marriage issue was simply a matter of a president publicly stating that he/she supports gay marriage, it wouldn't have been still an issue in 2010???  

      Obama is as left as they come where electable presidents are concerned, and it is improbable that any opponent of Obama will be publicly for gay marriage.

      •  Has it occurred to you (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        SJerseyIndy, kerplunk, angelajean

        That using the bully pulpit to say something can change people's minds? Or in this case to reinforce their hatred?

      •  I do understand that 'playing it safe' (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        kerplunk

        can be seen as a strategy.  And I don't disagree with you that Obama is doing exactly that.

        My point is that I don't want a president who plays it safe.  

        During the primaries, Obama was bold and daring.  It's what got him the nomination.  During the election, he stepped back slightly, but he was still bold and daring.  It won him an election.  During his presidency, I haven't seen much bold and daring.  It could lose him the next election.  Being bold and daring could lose him the next election as well.  If I have to choose between the two, I choose the latter.

        I am not a Democratic voter - I am one of those progressive Independents that could vote for any candidate that comes along who expresses progressive views.  I might even go for that third party candidate at this point because I know that my vote matters.  It should not be taken for granted.  And folks that want me to accept Obama because he's as far left as we can elect don't seem to understand that I see myself as a pretty average citizen in this United States.  I think more people think like me than don't.  I think there is great potential to support a President who supports policies further to the left.  Especially social policy.  The time is ripe and the fruit is left rotting on the vine.

        Let Obama play it safe.  But don't be surprised when we're not there to help get him re-elected.  Don't be surprised when we start looking for another candidate to support.

  •  you're waiting for Obama? (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    deaniac83, kerplunk, Argyrios, QES

    I busted my ass for R-71 in Washington state - before it ever WAS a referendum.  We've laid the ground work for marriage equality in our state.  Working locally is the only way to force national change.

    Think about it - there would not even BE a court case if someone hadn't taken it upon themselves to file suit.  There would be nothing for Obama to comment on because that person would be waiting for him to do something?

    The President has a lot of power, but he's not all powerful.

    Your world is black and white. I live in vibrant color.

    by lr3921 on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 08:51:08 PM PDT

    •  He's not all powerful, but (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      blueoasis, JesseCW, m00finsan, PhilJD

      he doesn't have to throw dirt in our faces either.

      •  i get it (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        QES

        Obama talked a pretty tune during the campaign.  Many of us really believed it and were seeing stars and ponies.  I can point to a number of issues besides this where I feel like WTF?

        I am disappointed.  I thought he would be a truly visionary president.  He's more in the OK range... could be better, could be worse.

        So take your anger and frustration and point it at someone who really seeks to do you harm.  They are out there - everywhere.

        In regards to this court case, it will eventually work it's way to SCOTUS.  It doesn't matter what any presidents says about it before or after.

        Your world is black and white. I live in vibrant color.

        by lr3921 on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 09:17:21 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Interesting tactic (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          kerplunk, m00finsan

          Remember when the gay activists interrupted Obama's speech in California?  He said the same thing--go after the republicans who hate you.

          But one has to wonder? Who has the power in Washington?  The gay hate mongers or President Obama and a Dem lead Congress?  So if you wanted change, who would you lobby or even heckle?  The hate mongers or the people in power?

          So you go to the door that says "People in Power" and koock.  You say  "hey give me some rights".  And they respond basically "fuck you go next door and knock there instead".

          The door next says "Fuck you gays".  

          •  But Obama can't give you your rights. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            lr3921

            They are won at the local level and then at the supreme court. That's the strategy.

            Pushing federal legislation to undo state marriage laws is a loser from the start and if you're honest with yourself you'll admit that. I doubt there are even 6 votes in the Senate for that, let along 60.

            Entering the national debate on this matter is absolutely the worst thing Obama could do for gay rights and the rest of his agenda.

            •  Let me get this straight (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              JesseCW

              The leader of the Executive Branch and of the Democratic Party should keep his mouth shut about gay rights and let the local activist groups do all the work?  And if the Supreme Court rules that voters can deny gay people their rights?  What should Obama do?

              •  My judgment: (0+ / 0-)

                Until we have 5 justices on the supreme court, gay marriage throughout the US will. not. happen. Period.

                We may already have it because of Kennedy's track record on gay rights, and if so we'll get another Lawrence soon. Otherwise we'll get a Bowers and it will be another decade, during which the best bet is to vote for Democratic administration until Scalia croaks.

                Quiet incremental victories are the FASTEST way to get to where we BOTH want to go. Public support is built from the ground up and is nudged and encouraged by government, NOT imposed from the top down by the President. Forcing the issue without a clear majority of the citizenry will solidify opposition and only lead to crushing defeat.

                So we all have to do our part to make sure our friends, family, and neighbors are on the right side of this debate, and let the process work. Sure, vent your frustrations online with the pace of progress -- I could care less. But I'm glad that the people making the decisions in our party and our government understand the process that we need to go through as a country, tough reality though it is.

                •  And I say again (0+ / 0-)

                  I did not expect a reversal of Obama's position yesterday. It just would have been nice to not have the president and his shills remind us of the position on our day of victory.

                  It amounted to our "friend" saying "good for you guys, just remember I'm not really with you on this."

                  •  Was that Gibbs? (0+ / 0-)

                    And was he asked or did he volunteer it? I am not asking rhetorically.

                    Before I go further I just want to say I am interested in dialogue and I thank you for a respectful tone which I am also striving for.

                    Here's my thought:

                    That message was not for you. It was not intended as a shiv in your side. It was response designed to end the conversation in one sentence and let the process work at the ground level without igniting a call to arms. Yes, in politics there are cynical calculations. Pawns are sacrificed -- and before you get offended by that, I'm referring not to gay marriage, but to the press secretary's lip service, which is as small a pawn as you can get. (I know, make all the jokes you want about chess analogies -- how many dimensions are we up to now?)

                    Meanwhile, this President is playing his part in the strategy I support. I support incrementalism not because I don't want civil rights reform as soon as possible, but because I see it as the surest, fastest, and safest way to get there. Every time Obama says, "black or white, gay or straight" -- as no president has done before -- he shifts the ground incrementally and gently reinforces an analogy in the minds of listeners, an analogy with only one conclusion. When he has his defense secretary speak out against DADT, he shifts the ground and makes people think. That's his role -- words, not actions. The president sets the national tone, the national debate. The courts and the legislature have to act on this.

                    It's a fine line to walk. "I support gay marriage" would be to much of a jolt for too much of the country right now. Instead you incrementally build up and reinforce the underlying foundational premise that gay people are full citizens of the country with a struggle analogous to the black civil rights movement. This is a process that takes years. Then gay marriage will come about organically, in a solid way, in a way that sticks, because we did it right. That's the future I envision.

                    Thanks for reading.

                    •  Axelrod (0+ / 0-)

                      I've got the link somewhere in one my my numerous replies. Axelrod offered it.

                      He could have said nothing.

                      I understand the gamesmanship of politics. There are just some subjects, like basic human rights, that I think should be above gamesmanship.

                      The support of separate but equal cannot be seen any other way than bigoted. So let's say as many have that the tide of history is going the way we think it should and he eventually comes around. How is that different than George Wallace in later life saying he was wrong?

                      The fact is, he's doing harm now. And if he really believes separate but equal is fine, isn't that a problem? But if he doesn't believe it, and is just doing this for political gain, that may be even worse.

                      Teens kill themselves over this subject. Silence would have been better than the reminder we were given.

            •  Um, they could repeal DOMA. nt (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              musing85, MrWebster, JesseCW

              Maladie d'Amour, Où l'on meurt d'Aimer, Seul et sans Amour, Sid'abandonné

              by FogCityJohn on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 11:42:28 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  that's not it exactly (0+ / 0-)

            Say you have a 50/50 split in some legislative body.  50% are absolutely, unequivocally opposed to any movement on an issue.  30% support movement, and 20% quietly support it but would never say so.

            What you are suggesting is we should yell at the 20% telling them to grow some balls.  It's not going to do any good - probably it's going to work against you!

            Instead, work on getting rid of the 50%.  If you can grow the percentage of quiet supporters or moderate the extreme opposition, then maybe some of those quiet supporters will feel more comfortable showing support.

            Your world is black and white. I live in vibrant color.

            by lr3921 on Fri Aug 06, 2010 at 11:32:28 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  You Shouldn't. Go. Peace be with you. n/t (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kefauver, sephius1, Knarfc
  •  Could you post a link to what he said? I don't (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kefauver, sheddhead

    see it in the diary. Thx.

  •  I really don't think so. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    corvo, 4kedtongue

    So that leaves a question of whether the man is a bigot, a homophobe.

    Obama is a centrist, they keep telling me. Whatever that means. For many liberals, what this means, although far from clear in specifics, isn't particularly good, or even close to acceptable.

    It's time to take the blinders off. We were had.

    Well frankly my blinders were off a long time ago. Not specifically by this issue, however.

  •  The mythical white guy in Hooterville (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kerplunk

    It seems that Obama and Dem national leadership are afraid that if they don't keeping gays at an arm's lenght away, or bash old time "liberal hippies" like Sherrod (the social justice worker--you know the community organizer) that they will piss of some group of white guys in Hooterville, Alabama and all is lost electorally.

  •  Then dont vote and just see how fast a (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    deaniac83, kefauver, ferallike, griffin459

    Repug congress and Pres reverse what has been done.

  •  Don't support him... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    deaniac83, Fabian, ferallike

    if you think you can get a better deal from his opponent.  That's always the bottom line.  

    "A man of true science uses but few hard words, and those only when none other will answer his purpose..." - Melville

    by ZedMont on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 11:28:39 PM PDT

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

    ...Obama knows what's best. For White people. For Black people. For Asians and Latinos. For Hindus and Catholics. For Native Americans and Muslims and Jews. For Iraqis, Afghans, Somalis and Palestinians. For Straights and Gays and Lesbians and Bisexuals.
    For you, for me, and for everyone. Everywhere.

    And remember: the most important thing you can do is make sure Obama is happy.

    Illegal Alien: Term used by the descendents of foreign colonizers to refer to the descendents of indigenous people

    by mojada on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 11:35:13 PM PDT

  •  Now you know whose got your back, pal (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kerplunk

    ...and it sure as hell isn't the spineless centrists.

    Just as they pretended to be anti-war when all they really were was anti-Bush, they'll pretend to support GLBT rights as long as you know your place. Step out of line, and the truth becomes visible: they're just as bigoted as the fraud in the White House.

    Illegal Alien: Term used by the descendents of foreign colonizers to refer to the descendents of indigenous people

    by mojada on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 11:48:34 PM PDT

  •  Obama is the first President I ever heard (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Iberian

    talk about gay rights in his speeches.  Agree with the comment that Obama already knows your going to win!

  •  "What should I say"!? "Call FOX"! "Oh yea, (0+ / 0-)

    " The President doesn’t support gay marriage. "

  •  Blah blah blah (2+ / 2-)
    Recommended by:
    GN1927, kefauver
    Hidden by:
    SJerseyIndy, BFSkinner

    Obama = Bush

    Obama = Homophobe

    Obama = [insert asinine accusation here]

    I need not thank the rich for the crumbs they have tossed me, rather, I curse them for the bread stolen from our tables. -- MinistryOfTruth

    by sephius1 on Fri Aug 06, 2010 at 04:51:52 AM PDT

    •  Blah, blah, blah (0+ / 0-)

      I thought you were talking about Obama's campaign promises.

    •  This is a really callous (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      SJerseyIndy, triv33, PhilJD

      and immature comment, IMHO.

      Can you not begin to empathize with this person's situation and feelings about the situation?

    •  Deserves no debate. Shouldn't even exist. nt (0+ / 0-)

      More and Better Democrats

      by SJerseyIndy on Fri Aug 06, 2010 at 06:19:25 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  WTF (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        kefauver, soothsayer99

        From the gotdamned diary:

        Is he trying to please someone or do we have a bigot in the White House?

        So that leaves a question of whether the man is a bigot, a homophobe.

        Fuck yes, it is a beyond legitimate opinion that this shit is asinine, including the ridiculous "question" about POTUS as a homophobe.

        Shame on you ratings abusers.  So sick of this shit.

        climate.gov---POTUS' New Science-Based Climate Change Agency

        by GN1927 on Fri Aug 06, 2010 at 10:53:02 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  One kossack's HR... (0+ / 0-)

          is another kossack's ratings abuse.

          We'll all have different standards.

          My standard is an HR for comments I feel should not even exist.

          That one is but one.

          The one a while back about how you would physically assault someone out of love would be an example of another.

          Cheers.

          More and Better Democrats

          by SJerseyIndy on Fri Aug 06, 2010 at 11:42:58 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Give me a fucking break (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            kefauver, soothsayer99

            First of all, my months old comment was a very stupid use of metaphor coupled with new age gibberish, that's one, so your attempt to depict me as physically violent is disingenuous bullshit(I bet you've been in physical fights; guess what I haven't).  Second of all, your "standard" appears to be editorializing under the guise of community moderation.  The comment doesn't break a single site rule, and if this person would like to receive only positive commentary while making asinine accusations of homophobia, he shouldn't post here where there will obviously be dissent.

            With that, I'm done; I have just about NO interest in engaging you.

            climate.gov---POTUS' New Science-Based Climate Change Agency

            by GN1927 on Fri Aug 06, 2010 at 11:50:04 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  We'll agree to disagree. (0+ / 1-)
              Recommended by:
              Hidden by:
              soothsayer99

              Just so long as there is no mention of you assaulting me.

              Oh, that's right. That's only for those you love.

              You've told me plenty of times before you "hate" me.

              So, maybe I'm spared...

              More and Better Democrats

              by SJerseyIndy on Fri Aug 06, 2010 at 12:05:15 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  You lie (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                soothsayer99

                You were not a participant to that exchange in which I went back and forth with someone who chose to attempt to bully BWD utilizing her IRL information (obsessive dataminers determined that she is posting from another country and tried to beat her over the head with it), and yes, in one comment I did state that the disingenuousness and obsessive gameplaying with "Obamabots" at the expense of real dialogue on real issues caused me to "start hating some of these people."

                Yet here you are on this blog lying about being under the threat of physical assault.  Complete and utter phony disingenuousness, on display here, as well as your opportunistic and improper HR of the above comment.

                You are no victim.

                climate.gov---POTUS' New Science-Based Climate Change Agency

                by GN1927 on Fri Aug 06, 2010 at 12:10:58 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

  •  The Supreme Court. n/t (0+ / 0-)
  •  Solidarity (0+ / 0-)

    Whether or not I've got close friends or family who are gay, I stand with you.  

    One more positive thing about this situation is that, from what I've experienced (I have two teens and a tween), the kids are alright.

    My oldest, who went through his middle school phase of using the word gay as a derogatory term (which wasn't tolerated in this house, btw), came to me one night last year and asked if he could miss school the next morning.  He intended to go and counter protest the Westboro Baptist bigots at a nearby high school.  When I was in high school, there weren't many kids who would stand up and openly defend GLBT folk.  Nowadays, it's a lot different.

    Note that I know this anecdote doesn't help with the current situation with the President, and I don't intend to downplay your valid concerns.

  •  "do we have a bigot in the White House?" (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kefauver

    No.

    "If you're in a coalition and you're comfortable, you know it's not a broad enough coalition" Bernice Johnson Reagon

    by Denise Oliver Velez on Fri Aug 06, 2010 at 09:00:14 AM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site