Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Does Obama think it's gay people's fault that they're discriminated against?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 12:30 PM
Original message
Does Obama think it's gay people's fault that they're discriminated against?
I'm having trouble interpreting this any other way:

"Giving them a set of basic rights would allow them to experience their relationship and live their lives in a way that doesn't cause discrimination," Obama said. "I think it is the right balance to strike in this society."

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/group/NYC4Obama

Do gay people need to be officially coupled, in order not to be discriminated against? Are they allowed to be single, or is "Sex and the City" only for straight people?

What is he saying?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
TwilightGardener Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 12:32 PM
Response to Original message
1. I think you're overanalyzing this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MethuenProgressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 12:49 PM
Response to Reply #1
19. Basically he's saying "if you don't want to be discriminated against, stop acting Gay."
You there! Stop acting so Gay!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TwilightGardener Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 12:50 PM
Response to Reply #19
20. I didn't get that from his statement at all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MethuenProgressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 12:52 PM
Response to Reply #20
21. "live their lives in a way that doesn't cause discrimination"
You there! Stop acting so gay! A bigot might discriminate against you!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TwilightGardener Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 01:01 PM
Response to Reply #21
23. I take it as, basic rights protect them from discrimination as they
go about their lives. An analogy would be, if you make something officially legal, no one has any valid grounds to take action against you for that activity. If you guarantee someone a right, no one will have just cause to discriminate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 01:09 PM
Response to Reply #23
24. But what about gay people who aren't in partnered relationships?
Shouldn't they be protected from discrimination whether or not they enter civil unions?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TwilightGardener Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 01:13 PM
Response to Reply #24
26. Just because he was speaking here in a "couples" context doesn't
Edited on Sat Jan-12-08 01:14 PM by wienerdoggie
mean you can extrapolate that as allowing discrimination against individuals.

edited for clarity
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 01:26 PM
Response to Reply #26
28. But what about when the couple is not interested in a civil union?
What about an over-night couple? Is that couple causing discrimination that can only be remedied by entering into a civil union?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 09:57 PM
Response to Reply #28
160. They already have the same rights than an heterosexual couple that is not in a civil union of some
sort: none.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 10:04 PM
Response to Reply #160
161. delete
Edited on Sat Jan-12-08 10:04 PM by Mass
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 10:49 PM
Response to Reply #160
167. A single straight person wouldn't be barred from a job because of his orientation
but a gay person might be.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Marrah_G Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 12:32 PM
Response to Original message
2. I believe he is discussing civil unions- not gblt discrimination as a whole
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Essene Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 03:17 PM
Response to Reply #2
58. That's how i read it. He's arguing for civil unions
Edited on Sat Jan-12-08 03:18 PM by Essene
Irony.

Civil unions and "marriage" arent the same. He really needs to get clear and progressive on this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LeftyMom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 12:33 PM
Response to Original message
3. "a set of basic rights" doesn't sound like full and equal rights, either.
He's either a 'phobe or a panderer to 'phobes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clintonista2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 12:35 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. Animals have basic rights in a society. GLBT should have FULL rights in a society
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LeftyMom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 12:38 PM
Response to Reply #5
10. Nah, they don't (but that's another thread) Yes, GLBT people should have all the rights straights do
Edited on Sat Jan-12-08 12:38 PM by LeftyMom
Kindly let your pick know, 'cause she's doing better than Obama but she's not exactly out there swinging for equal marriage (and if she's going to run on Bill's record she needs to demounce DOMA and DADT.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bicentennial_baby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 02:33 PM
Response to Reply #10
49. *crickets chirping*
;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VotesForWomen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 04:51 PM
Response to Reply #49
108. well, i agree with what she said. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bicentennial_baby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 12:36 PM
Response to Reply #3
7. Ayup
:thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
krabigirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 12:37 PM
Response to Reply #3
8. Yeah, what does that mean.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MollieBradford Donating Member (149 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 03:26 PM
Response to Reply #3
65. is that like basic cable?
you can only have basic cable unlike the rest of your neighbors!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Chovexani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 04:12 PM
Response to Reply #65
91. LOL!
That's the best analogy yet. Welcome to DU.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MollieBradford Donating Member (149 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 05:19 PM
Response to Reply #91
125. Thank you for the welcome
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NMMNG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 10:30 PM
Response to Reply #65
163. Something like that
Edited on Sat Jan-12-08 10:31 PM by BuffyTheFundieSlayer
Because you're only partially human and American, though you have all the same responsibilities and pay all the same taxes (if not more).


Welcome to DU! :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fenriswolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 12:33 PM
Response to Original message
4. like every other candidate he is trying to strike up a
compromise with the gay vote not by giving them marraige but by giving them a marriage/hybrid civil union, either way it doesnt really affect me and I think your gonna have to try harder if you want to make people question if obama hates gay people or not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 12:41 PM
Response to Reply #4
12. I don't think he hates gay people, or I wouldn't have been leaning toward
him in the first place. But some of this statements -- like this one about gay people somehow "causing" discrimination -- and actions (McClurkin) have made me question how supportive he is of the gay community.

But since it "doesn't really affect" you, you obviously don't care.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fenriswolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 12:49 PM
Response to Reply #12
18. wait i never said i didnt care, and for what its worth i'm not an obama
fan. If take this issue seriously then go to a different candidate. If i were gay and I saw the people obama was associated with and heard some of the rehtoric i would not vote for obama if I was strickly looking at gay rights.

As per the point of gays causing descrimination thats just BS, where did you pick up on that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 12:53 PM
Response to Reply #18
22. Where did I pick up on that? It's the second half of his sentence. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fenriswolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 01:10 PM
Response to Reply #22
25. its not his sentance
Edited on Sat Jan-12-08 01:11 PM by fenriswolf
you linked this to a blog started by "kim" and other private citizens. this is not any offical blog, manuscript, transcript or any offical campaign notification or statment, this is a private citizens blog. so dont misrepresent what you link.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 01:37 PM
Response to Reply #25
30. Obama makes this a lot harder by not including anything about GLBT issues
on his official website. I expected to see something about it in "Civil Rights." Wrong. And it's not discussed in "Families" either.

As a family member, I'm aware that the number of people concerned about these issues is not limited to GLBT people themselves -- they have friends and families, and all of us want to see these issues addressed.

As far as the quote is concerned, I originally got it from another DUer who cited the Gay and Lesbian Task Force. I don't have a link, though.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fenriswolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 01:40 PM
Response to Reply #30
32. well then please be more careful in the future
this is an interesting subject but when people start miquoting candidates or missourcing or fail to source quotes it gets pretty heated and claiming that obama said

Do gay people need to be officially coupled, in order not to be discriminated against?

would be very shoddy punditry
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 01:50 PM
Response to Reply #32
34. I never claimed that he said that. My question was whether his statement
leads to that conclusion. Some of us think so, others do not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fenriswolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 01:53 PM
Response to Reply #34
35. in your posts you keep reffering to obama as him
and in the last title you had "It's the second half of his sentence" i don't know if this was done malevolently, unintentionally or accidently or i am misinterpreting just pointing out it sounds like to me that you were claiming that statement was from him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 01:59 PM
Response to Reply #35
37. The Chicago Tribune says the statement was made by Obama.
Edited on Sat Jan-12-08 02:04 PM by pnwmom
"Giving them a set of basic rights would allow them to experience their relationship and live their lives in a way that doesn't cause discrimination," Obama said. "I think it is the right balance to strike in this society."

(You may need to look in the cached page.)

http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:5sVpZEU_-eoJ:www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0409250111sep25,1,7998660.story%3Fcoll%3Dchi-newsopinion-hed+%22right+balance+to+strike%22+Obama&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=24&gl=us

The questions I asked were from me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ruggerson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 03:12 PM
Response to Reply #37
57. And... so ends the conversation because you just blew the legs out from under the poster
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cameron27 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 03:48 PM
Response to Reply #57
80. Yup
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-13-08 02:19 AM
Response to Reply #32
169. .
Edited on Sun Jan-13-08 02:20 AM by Bluebear
.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nailzberg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 05:52 PM
Response to Reply #30
142. LGBT page from Obama's wesbite
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 02:05 PM
Response to Reply #25
39. It is Obama's statement, according to the Chicago Tribune.
Edited on Sat Jan-12-08 02:31 PM by pnwmom
http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:5sVpZEU_-eoJ:www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0409250111sep25,1,7998660.story%3Fcoll%3Dchi-newsopinion-hed+%22right+balance+to+strike%22+Obama&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=24&gl=us

"Giving them a set of basic rights would allow them to experience their relationship and live their lives in a way that doesn't cause discrimination," Obama said. "I think it is the right balance to strike in this society."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
maddiejoan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 12:36 PM
Response to Original message
6. Who the hell knows?
Edited on Sat Jan-12-08 12:41 PM by maddiejoan
I think the guy is a blank slate. No core values.

The only thing I DO know is that he says his religious beliefs prevent him from seeing marriage as anything other than between a man and a woman --even though his church apparently doesn't hold that opinion.

I agree --it's a very odd and also telling statement.

He wants to give me a set of "basic rights"? What are "basic rights"? is that like a training bra version of "civil rights"? Let's see how them queers do with "basic rights" before we can trust them to have the same rights as everyone else?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cameron27 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 12:37 PM
Response to Reply #6
9. Well this perfect:
"What are "basic rights" is that like a training bra version of "civil rights"?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bishop Rook Donating Member (252 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 03:23 PM
Original message
As quoted in the very article linked here...
"Marriage has got historic, religious and moral content that goes back to the beginning of time, and I think a marriage is as a marriage always has been, between a man and a woman." -Hillary Clinton

Why is it so difficult to accept that John Edwards, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama have identical platforms on GLBT issues?

Literally, identical. They think DOMA should be repealed. They support civil unions with full marriage rights, but not nationally-mandated full marriage. They support expanding federal hate-crimes and anti-discrimination legislation to include sexual orientation, gender identity, and disease or disability. They support expanded testing and research funding for HIV/AIDS. Although all three of them hold religious beliefs that marriage is defined as between one man and one woman, they would not oppose legislation to allow gay marriage in their own states. All three oppose "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and think GLBT service members should be able to serve openly.

Can anyone point to a single platform difference between any of the three candidates that doesn't involve flip-flopping (for DOMA before she was against it) or pandering (McClurkin) or whatever the hell other accusations--a true policy and platform difference?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
maddiejoan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 03:31 PM
Response to Original message
68. Call it a gut check if ya like
Of those 3 candidates --I only believe one of them.

I know --not much to go on, but it's there --and I'm going with it.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 03:48 PM
Response to Original message
78. They all support civil unions on paper.
But their DEGREE of support may vary. And whether they will actually go to bat for gay rights as President is still to be shown. IMHO, Obama's willingness to use McClurkin in his campaigning puts his commitment in question, as does the statement in the OP.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bishop Rook Donating Member (252 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 04:04 PM
Response to Reply #78
85. Then why not check out the Human Rights Campaign
And see what they have to say?

In 2002, Edwards and Clinton both scored a 100 from the HRC's Congressional scorecard. Kucinich also got 100.
In 2004, Edwards got a 66, Clinton an 88, Kucinich 100.
In 2006, Clinton and Obama both got an 89, Kucinich 100.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-14-08 05:32 AM
Response to Reply #85
175. As I said, they all look okay on paper.
Time will tell whether the next Democratic President is actually willing to stick his or her neck out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kurt_and_Hunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 12:40 PM
Response to Original message
11. There is a legitimate ambiguity
Edited on Sat Jan-12-08 12:42 PM by Kurt_and_Hunter
It took me a few minutes to come up with any interpretation other than what the words seem to say.

The controversial phrase is "live their lives in a way that doesn't cause discrimination..."

It reads like he's saying that some aspect of current gay ways of living their lives causes discrimination.

But I can find a charitable interpretation that he might be saying that pushing for full marriage, rather than civil union, causes discrimination. That is probably true, sociologically. (But then, the civil rights movement also caused a lot of discrimination in the same way.)

If that's what was meant, it's sort of an unpleasant thing to say, but not nearly as bad as the more straightforward interpretation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cameron27 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 12:42 PM
Response to Reply #11
13. My question is
Edited on Sat Jan-12-08 12:43 PM by seasonedblue
why the need for ambiguity on a matter as crucial as civil rights?

/poorly constructed sentence, but I don't care ROFL
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 12:44 PM
Response to Reply #11
14. Maybe. It would be nice if he would clarify this. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mitchtv Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 12:47 PM
Response to Reply #14
16. He's not about to
say nothing is the campaign
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MethuenProgressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 12:47 PM
Response to Original message
15. "live their lives in a way that doesn't cause discrimination" is an anti-Gay smear.
"Black people should live their lives in a way that doesn't cause discrimination."
What if some low level Clinton staffer had said that to some small newspaper somewhere?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cameron27 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 12:48 PM
Response to Reply #15
17. Interesting
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bishop Rook Donating Member (252 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 03:40 PM
Response to Reply #15
73. You're reading it wrong.
"in a way that doesn't cause discrimination" is a clause modifying "would allow them," not "live their lives."

Holy crap this is literally semantic parsing. You're searching for something to hate with a fine-toothed comb.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 03:49 PM
Response to Reply #73
81. How do you know who is wrong? Has Obama clarified this? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bishop Rook Donating Member (252 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 04:06 PM
Response to Reply #81
86. Why does he need to?
It's perfectly clear unless you're actively searching for ways to misinterpret it. The way that you're attempting to interpret it also goes completely against all of his other positions on gay rights and GLBT equality.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 04:12 PM
Response to Reply #86
90. I'm one of many who read this sentence in this obvious way.
You're giving it a reading based on other things you know about him. I'm reading it as it stands, warts and all. Hopefully it was just a poor choice of words.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cloudythescribbler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 04:55 PM
Response to Reply #86
109. Yes, that's exactly true -- and some of those who whine about an eminently reasonable reading ...
of an unambiguous quote from an article from HUFFINGTON POST are here treating this interpretation with the UTMOST of civility. The contrast is glaring.

The key word in the interpretation is "cause". This was probably a poor choice of language because the word cause CAN be read to suggest that the gays' way of life somehow IMPELS others to discriminate against them. But, as in legal interpretation, you look at context to see if this interpretation makes sense or if it contradicts other statements. Here the interpretation of the OPer CLEARLY contradicts the repeatedly stated position of Obama on gay rights, one that trolls who have been going after him on the McClurkin affaire (as if Obama was responsible for what McClurkin says or thinks, or as if Obama agreed with or failed to distinguish his own position from McClurkin's, which he CLEARLY has) can't wait to jump on.

Now what DOES the word "cause" mean in this context? Well, cause can mean many things, indeed so many things that he probably shouldn't have used this word. But the notion that gays, being denied basic rights, eg, like access to one another in hospitals or to hospital records and such, this "causes" them to be turned away even when someone's straight partner would normally have access. Thus the provision of rights allows gays to live their lives in a way that ... etc.

There are myriad other examples of discrimination being CAUSED by the circumstances that arise out of the lack of rights. BECAUSE gays don't have the same inheritance rights or tax form rights etc etc as straights, this CAUSES them to be subjected to discrimination. Obama could have expressed himself better, and someone might do well to put this quote to him and ask for his clarification, but there is every reason to believe that (a) this interpretation, consistent with Obama's overall position, is the right one and (b) there is NOTHING indicating that Obama is trying to or stands to gain by "gay" baiting, unlike the race-baiting strategy that has emerged as CENTRAL TO the Hillary Clinton campaign.

Interpretation of what people say requires a degree of common sense, and trolls, like I say, are all about agenda and zero about truth.

Elsewhere in this thread I note the incredible WHINING about a perfectly reasonably interpreted quote from a column published yesterday at Huffington Post.

I notice that there are ENORMOUS threads for anti-Obama trolling, but anything accurate but edgy FOR Obama gets pilloried.....

Fortunately there ARE a lot of Obama supporters on DU, and I think that number is apt to increase ....

(Here's the thread about Huffpo to which I refer):
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4043443&mesg_id=4043443

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
avrdream Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 05:28 PM
Response to Reply #86
132. Same could be said about the outrage over the Clinton's words on blacks.
"It's perfectly clear unless you're actively searching for ways to misinterpret it. The way that you're attempting to interpret it also goes completely against all of his other positions on AFRICAN AMERICAN rights and equality."

Once again, I say, actions speak louder than words. Donnie McClurkin's use in the Gospel Tour was an ACTION on Obama's part.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bishop Rook Donating Member (252 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 05:38 PM
Response to Reply #132
139. I've never accused Clinton of racism or race-baiting
And I believe I've defended her against it here on DU. The Obama supporters who do it are just as wrong.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cloudythescribbler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 07:29 PM
Response to Reply #139
156. Actually, the race-baiting issue is WELL-recognized, the McClurkin thing merely milked nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cloudythescribbler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 05:00 PM
Response to Reply #73
114. sorry, I tried elsewhere to gather what Obama is saying, but your interpretation is more intelligent
Oh well. Yes, the notion of Occam's razor is that the simpler explanation is probably better. The point is that one should first look to an interpretation consistent with one's overall position (like Obama's overall position on gay rights) rather than trying to find in it invidious discrimination.

The more general point about interpretation I stand by -- of his statement being reasonably interpreted in consonance with his overall position on the issue
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lerkfish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 01:26 PM
Response to Original message
27. that's not how I read that statement
:shrug:

it seems to me that he's saying making sure they have rights will go a long way towards ensuring them of protection from discrimination.

not sure why you read it the way you did.

also note: I'm not excausing obama for other things regarding the gay community, but this statement seems to be a positive, not a negative. IMHO
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
varelse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 01:37 PM
Response to Original message
29. Human rights aren't ours to give or take away
Human beings are born with the same rights, worldwide. All a government has control of, is whether these rights are protected, or violated.

(in my humble opinion, that is)

I support a candidate who I believe is firmly on the side of equal protection of all human rights, not only for US citizens but for all members of the human race. And, I won't be backing away from that support. My hope is that all the Democratic candidates will recognize the importance of protecting equal rights for all human beings, among these the right to choose their own life companions and the right to conduct their private lives without discrimination or harrassment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AGirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 01:39 PM
Response to Original message
31. I don't think he meant that
if your relationship don't have "a set of basic rights", you will be discriminated against. He doesn't sound very sure though..he said.. "I think"... and a "a set of basic rights" - which is vague.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zulchzulu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 01:49 PM
Response to Original message
33. Obama is talking about domestic partnerships and civil unions as a first step
To think he is trying to say it's their fault that they are discriminated against is an utterly dishonest argument.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 01:57 PM
Response to Reply #33
36. What's dishonest about my question?
I'm trying to understand what he said, I'm not arguing anything.

And he said that basic rights -- civil unions -- would "allow them to experience their relationship and live their lives in a way that doesn't cause discrimination."

It appears to me that he's saying that gay people (in the absence of a sanctioned civil union) are living their lives in a way that causes discrimination.

You haven't explained how he's saying anything different.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zulchzulu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 02:54 PM
Response to Reply #36
52. You are clearly making up something that is not there
Edited on Sat Jan-12-08 02:55 PM by zulchzulu
If you are really serious and not trying to bash Obama based on a half-truth or lie, then you hopefully are intelligent enough to see how Obama is for equal rights for the LGBT community and others.

His solution starts with allowing and making it federally recognized that civil unions and domestic partnerships between same-sex relationships are enacted. Getting gay marriage recognized and made federally legal is the obvious next step.

You have to be dishonest about Obama if you think he has implied that the gay lifestyle as a choice brings the conclusion that it's their fault they are discriminated against. To imply he thinks that is nothing more than a lie.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreeState Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 03:38 PM
Response to Reply #52
72. That is not Obamas plan
you keep repeating this - but never link to it. Its not the truth - Obama is not for marriage equality and has stated it over and over. You are not helping Obama by making up what you think he believes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 03:45 PM
Response to Reply #52
76. It's not a lie. According to the Chicago Tribune, Obama said:

"Giving them a set of basic rights would allow them to experience their relationship and live their lives in a way that doesn't cause discrimination."

So, gay people need civil unions so they'll "live their lives in a way that doesn't cause discrimination." Right now, apparently, without civil unions, they're living their lives in a way that DOES cause discrimination.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 04:00 PM
Response to Reply #52
83. Obama hasn't ever indicated support for gay "marriage," has he?
Not according to the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force.

www.thetaskforce.com

PDF file here: http://www.thetaskforce.org/downloads/reports/reports/final_candidates_positions.pdf


“And I should say that personally, I do believe that marriage is between a man and a woman.”
“I am somebody who has not embraced gay marriage. I’ve said that it’s not something that I think the society is necessarily ready for. And it strikes me that in a lot of ways for a lot of people; it may intrude in how they understand marriage.”




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hulklogan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 02:08 PM
Response to Reply #33
40. So taking something Senator Obama says at face value is now dishonest?
I'm so confuzzled :silly:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 02:32 PM
Response to Reply #40
47. Me, too, hulklogan. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreeState Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 02:48 PM
Response to Reply #33
51. as a first step to what?
he has come out against equal marriage numberous times.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ruggerson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 02:00 PM
Response to Original message
38. He's coming from a mindset where gays need to be "given" rights by straight people
instead of the reality of the situation: gays are currently DENIED what should be their rightful equal status by straight people.

It's an interesting glimpse into how he perceives gays and lesbians.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
acmavm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 02:09 PM
Response to Reply #38
41. That's the first thing I thought of when I read this. He's gonna 'give' gays
rights? He is the gay rights Santa now? They aren't already entitled to the rights the rest of Americans have? They have to be 'given' to them?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AGirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 02:11 PM
Response to Reply #41
42. and he's using "them" = gays
we = straight
them = gay
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 02:34 PM
Response to Reply #42
50. Welcome to DU, AGirl! And to add to your point,
in his website in his section on civil rights, he doesn't say a word about GLBT rights. Or in his section on families.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bishop Rook Donating Member (252 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 03:30 PM
Response to Reply #50
67. I thought that too
But in another discussion on Native American rights, I was pointed back to his website, and noticed that beside the menu for "Issues" there is also a menu for "People" which is where that information is included.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 04:02 PM
Response to Reply #67
84. Thanks, I'll check that out. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bishop Rook Donating Member (252 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 03:29 PM
Response to Reply #42
66. As Obama is a straight man...
There's something off about that? Seems to be accurate pronoun usage to me. Though he doesn't actually use the word "we" in this quote.

I am GLBT, but when talking about GLBT issues, I frequently use the pronoun "them" just to make it clear who I'm referring to.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maven Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 04:45 PM
Response to Reply #66
105. Why would you need to use the term "them"
Edited on Sat Jan-12-08 04:49 PM by Harvey Korman
if you're part of "us?"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bishop Rook Donating Member (252 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 05:11 PM
Response to Reply #105
122. For clarity
When one wants to make a point of being included in the group one is talking about, the pronoun "we" is better. "They" is better when making an objective comment about a group without trying to explicitly point out one's inclusion in that group.

If I wrote... "Americans are largely united in their support for universal health care"... would you think anything of it? Despite the fact that I am, in fact, an American who supports universal health care?

That's as contrasted to, say... "Americans are largely united in our support for universal health care." In a statement of objective analysis, that "our" feels off, because I'm going out of my way to point out that I'm a member of the group. It's not well-suited when the author should be invisible to allow the message or analysis more space.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NMMNG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 05:54 PM
Response to Reply #42
144. He's using us all right
Edited on Sat Jan-12-08 05:54 PM by BuffyTheFundieSlayer
And welcome to DU. :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jonnyblitz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 02:11 PM
Response to Reply #38
43. Obama is a tool. he can go fuck himself.
sorry, this pisses me off.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CyberPieHole Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-13-08 02:23 AM
Response to Reply #43
172. I'd like to kick and recommend your post, jonnyblitz...
but since I can't I'll do so in spirit.:hi:

:kick: and recommend
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maven Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 02:31 PM
Response to Reply #38
45. This is the correct reading.
:thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fightindonkey Donating Member (674 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 02:26 PM
Response to Original message
44. Barack Isn't Exactly Good At Articulating Policy. Nothing To See Here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CyberPieHole Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-13-08 02:24 AM
Response to Reply #44
174. That's what we need...another president who has trouble expressing himself...
just like bush.:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tomreedtoon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 02:32 PM
Response to Original message
46. "Sex and the City" is not even for straight people!
Edited on Sat Jan-12-08 02:34 PM by tomreedtoon
Haven't you seen what's going on out there? Sex is a fearful, exploitive thing. It hasn't been "fun" since the 1960's. People usually kill each other over sexual matters. You've been letting The Bachelor delude you again.

On edit: Wake up and smell the burning bodies from Mrs. Lovett's pie factory, already. There are more important things in the world than sex or who's having it or how often.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maven Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 02:33 PM
Response to Original message
48. Don't forget this quotation
Obama: "Marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman."

Thanks Obama, I hadn't heard that enough from Rick Santorum.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bishop Rook Donating Member (252 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 03:12 PM
Response to Reply #48
56. Yes, that horrible deluded theocrat...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlY9HFRNUHs

Is the concept of a religious politician not foisting his religious beliefs on the people he's elected to lead so alien that we refuse to believe it's possible?

Yes. Obama personally believes marriage to be defined as holy matrimony, a sacred bond between a man and a woman. But time and time again, he has resisted every attempt to force that definition upon anyone else. He opposes the Defense of Marriage Act, he opposed the Constitutional amendment defining marriage... He has among the best records for protecting GLBT rights even among Senate Democrats.

Why is it so difficult to comprehend that he can follow a political philosophy that includes keeping his beliefs separate from his governance?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maven Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 03:23 PM
Response to Reply #56
63. OBAMA is the one who chose to make his "personal beliefs" a public issue
OBAMA is the one who brought them up during a debate about 5 times, even when it didn't even really fit with the question he was being asked, to make sure the "right" people knew he was no threat to them.

And I don't want a president who couches his opposition to my rights in such religious code. NONE of the other candidates talk about this issue the way he has regardless of their actual nuts-and-bolts position on the subject. The president sets the agenda and the tone for the country, and I don't want a president who talks about "sanctity" of marriage at every turn.

"Why is it so difficult to comprehend that he can follow a political philosophy that includes keeping his beliefs separate from his governance?"

Why don't you ask Obama, not me. He's the one who brought it up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bishop Rook Donating Member (252 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 03:47 PM
Response to Reply #63
77. What the hell?
NONE of the other candidates? I have to quote it a third time in this thread?

"Marriage has got historic, religious and moral content that goes back to the beginning of time, and I think a marriage is as a marriage always has been, between a man and a woman." -Hillary Clinton

"Cheney appeared to stiffen at Edwards’ remarks during the debate, which was by far the most public forum in which the vice president’s lesbian daughter had been discussed. But it was Edwards who repeatedly indicated that he and his running mate, Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, 'believe that marriage is between a man and a woman.'"

DK and Gravel are the only two who support full marriage rights. Edwards, Clinton, and Obama all support civil unions but not full marriage, all three of them admittedly for religious reasons.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maven Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 03:59 PM
Response to Reply #77
82. I don't see the word "sanctity" there do you?
Fact is, NO ONE ELSE uses such language designed specifically to appeal to religious voters who work against our rights. I don't see any of the other candidates talking about "believing in things unseen," or a "king who took us to the mountaintop," or "reconciling" faith and politics. I don't see any of the other candidates using an anti-gay bigot as a headliner for a gospel tour and then telling us we should be less divisive when we object.

Sorry. We GLBTs have been doing this for enough election cycles to be able to recognize a false friend. We don't need any "interpretive" help from you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bishop Rook Donating Member (252 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 04:11 PM
Response to Reply #82
89. Good assumption there
I'm rather insulted by your assumption that support for Obama automatically means I'm straight. I'm a bisexual man, for the record. I'm also an atheist, so Obama's religious rhetoric does nothing for me.

That hard to believe someone could stand for him on issues and record?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maven Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 04:26 PM
Response to Reply #89
97. Then you should know better.
Edited on Sat Jan-12-08 04:26 PM by Harvey Korman
What do you want me to tell you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bishop Rook Donating Member (252 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 04:31 PM
Response to Reply #97
100. I don't want you to "tell me" anything
I just find the idea that "no queer people should support Obama" to be just as condescending as "all women should vote for Clinton" or "all poor people should vote for Edwards." You don't think he supports gay rights, fine, I probably can't convince you otherwise, but I'm not the one suggesting you're gullible or stupid for holding those beliefs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreeState Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 03:41 PM
Response to Reply #56
74. That is not what Obama's church teaches - hes being disingenuous.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8463741/

United Church of Christ endorses gay marriage
Approves resolution for same-sex unions, opposes gender-specific definition

ATLANTA - The United Church of Christ’s rule-making body voted overwhelmingly Monday to approve a resolution that endorses same-sex marriage, making it the largest Christian denomination to do so.

The vote is not binding on individual churches, but could cause some churches to leave the fold.

Roughly 80 percent of the members of the church’s General Synod voted to approve the resolution. They debated for about an hour before voting.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bishop Rook Donating Member (252 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 03:48 PM
Response to Reply #74
79. He disagrees with his church on this issue
He has publicly pointed out that his church endorses same-sex marriage, as quoted downthread.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 04:07 PM
Response to Reply #56
87. He has specfically said he doesn't embrace gay marriage, so his religious
beliefs clearly seem to have influenced his political positions.

ww.thetaskforce.com

PDF file here: http://www.thetaskforce.org/downloads/reports/reports/f...


“And I should say that personally, I do believe that marriage is between a man and a woman.”
“I am somebody who has not embraced gay marriage. I’ve said that it’s not something that I think the society is necessarily ready for. And it strikes me that in a lot of ways for a lot of people; it may intrude in how they understand marriage.”


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bishop Rook Donating Member (252 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 04:18 PM
Response to Reply #87
93. He has said that
However, he supports repealing the Defense of Marriage Act, and voted against the proposed Constitutional amendment to define marriage as being between a man and a woman. He is quite open about his own definition of marriage, sure, but he's been completely consistent in resisting attempts to force that definition on anyone else.

At the same time, he's resistant to Federally mandating another definition of marriage that includes gay couples.

I disagree with him on this issue, because it's not a definitional matter, but I can see where he's coming from. And Federally-protected civil unions would be a step in the right direction. That is, in any case, what all the other candidates support.

In my ideal world, we'd see civil unions for all and civil marriage for none, and leave marriage up to religious institutions... I still hope.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 04:32 PM
Response to Reply #93
101. I wouldn't have a problem with civil unions for all, either.
It would simplify everything.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NMMNG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 06:06 PM
Response to Reply #56
148. The part where he supports Colored Only drinking fountains--
I mean Civil Unions--for gay/lesbian couples.


That's where he's legislating his religious belief that Marriage is between a woman and a man into law.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bishop Rook Donating Member (252 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 07:56 PM
Response to Reply #148
158. Okay, I hate to have to keep doing this...
But you realize that Clinton supports civil unions but not marriage rights for GLBT couples as well, right? And for the same reason?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bishop Rook Donating Member (252 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 03:04 PM
Response to Original message
53. Let me assist...
I think you're interpreting as:

"(Giving them a set of basic rights would allow them to experience their relationship) and (live their lives in a way that doesn't cause discrimination)," Obama said. "I think it is the right balance to strike in this society."

When in fact it was:

"Giving them a set of basic rights would allow them to (experience their relationship and live their lives) in a way that doesn't cause discrimination," Obama said. "I think it is the right balance to strike in this society."

Giving them a set of basic rights via secular civil unions would allow them to do these things in a way that is not discriminatory as compared to straight, married couples.

I disagree with him, and think there should be full marriage rights, but his position is the same as the three top-tier candidates. Kucinich and Gravel are the only two who support full marriage rights.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ruggerson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 03:22 PM
Response to Reply #53
60. It's condescending and it's the wrong way to view human/civil rights
these are not things to be benevolently bestowed on people. These are things that people are entitled to and a candidate should be fighting for.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bishop Rook Donating Member (252 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 03:38 PM
Response to Reply #60
71. We're going to argue semantics over the word "give"?
Obama has always maintained that these are civil rights that cannot be denied, and has always fought for them.

When people say Lincoln "freed the slaves" by signing the Emancipation Proclamation, they're not suggesting that it was the ever-benevolent white guy granting rights that never previously existed. It's just shorthand for "recognized that their due freedom was being denied, and made it illegal to deny it."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ruggerson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 05:34 PM
Response to Reply #71
136. It's part of a pattern
if this was one isolated incident, I would agree with you. But, what he clearly is doing is reaching out to more conservative evangelicals and trying to frame it in language that will work for them. My problem with this is that I think it is naive. The rightwing evangelical community, both black and white, will never accept marriage equality, so the best way to proceed is to talk about how it is unequivocally the morally right position to take, as Coretta Scott King did, not talk about it in the language of compromise. The language of compromise, when dealing with an issue of human rights, demeans both the community it seeks to free and the candidate who seeks to pander to the opponents of freedom.

Btw, I appreciate you can have this disagreement civilly and intellectually without it descending into DU ad hom. By your posts, I know that you understand that these are important discussions for all of us to have as we head to the convention, and that the bottom line is that most of us are basically on the same page.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 04:10 PM
Response to Reply #53
88. Okay, if he means what you think, then the word "cause" was a poor choice.
Your wording was better and I hope that's what he meant.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bishop Rook Donating Member (252 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 04:19 PM
Response to Reply #88
94. I'll agree with that
"is discriminatory" would have been a better choice than "cause discrimination."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 03:05 PM
Response to Original message
54. He might urge you to be prayerful about it to find your answer
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cameron27 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 03:08 PM
Response to Reply #54
55. I'm getting very prayerful
everytime I hear his name lately. Well, prayerful isn't exactly the right word.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndianaJones Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 03:18 PM
Response to Original message
59. Its a deeply moral issue for him. nt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bishop Rook Donating Member (252 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 03:35 PM
Response to Reply #59
70. Not to mention for Clinton.
A deeply "historic, religious and moral" issue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
killbotfactory Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 03:23 PM
Response to Original message
61. He wants gay couples to have the same rights as straight couples
You can argue with semantics and spin it any way you want, that's what he wants.

Well, it is my strong belief that the government has to treat all citizens equally. I come from that, in part, out of personal experience. When you're a black guy named Barack Obama, you know what it's like to be on the outside. And so my concern is continually to make sure that the rights that are conferred by the state are equal for all people. That's why I opposed DOMA in 2006 when I ran for the United States Senate.

That's why I am a strong supporter not of a weak version of civil unions, but of a strong version, in which the rights that are conferred at the federal level to persons who are part of a same sex union are compatible. Now, as a consequence, I don't think that the church should be making these determinations when it comes to legal rights conferred by the state. I do think that individual denominations have the right to make their own decisions as to whether they recognize same sex couples.

My denomination, United Church of Christ, does. Other denominations may make a different decision. And obviously, part of keeping a separation of
churches and state is also to make sure that churches have the right to exercise their freedom of religion.

But when it comes to federal rights, the over 1,100 rights that right now are not being given to same sex couples, I think that's unacceptable, and as president of the United States, I'm going to fight hard to make sure that those rights are available.

http://www.2008electionprocon.org/pdf/Dem20070809.pdf
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 04:28 PM
Response to Reply #61
98. Thank you. I looked on his own site, under issues,
(civil rights and family) and wasn't able to find anything.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bishop Rook Donating Member (252 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 04:33 PM
Response to Reply #98
102. For the record, his LGBT page is at:
http://pride.barackobama.com/page/content/lgbthome

I was a bit stumped at first, too, because it's listed under "People" rather than under "Issues."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MollieBradford Donating Member (149 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 03:23 PM
Response to Original message
62. well if those gay people would just stop
having sex they wouldn't make people discriminate against them.

Jeesh.... what the hell is a "set of basic rights"? How about equal rights? maybe Obama thinks gay people are promiscuous and "gay unions" would change that (as if straight people aren't totally promiscuous in and out of marriage). I really do not get his point either.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bishop Rook Donating Member (252 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 03:33 PM
Response to Reply #62
69. "Set of basic rights"
In this case is referring to civil unions with all the rights and privileges of marriage.

He supports and always has supported full and equal civil rights for the LGBT community, he simply opposes the use of the word "marriage." That's it. That's the big huge deal. And he also supports repealing DOMA so that states can, if they choose, use the word "marriage," however he personally feels about it.

As always... Unless you're planning to vote for DK or Mike Gravel, criticizing Obama on this area of policy is hypocritical, since he, Clinton, and Edwards have identical platforms on this issue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreeState Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 03:44 PM
Response to Reply #69
75. "civil unions with all the rights and privileges of marriage"
There is no such thing. Unless its called the same thing it will never have the same legal and social standing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
killbotfactory Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 04:14 PM
Response to Reply #75
92. I would prefer to allow civil unions for everyone who wants them
My wife and I would prefer it, since there is a religious institution of marriage we want no part of. Give people the same rights under law, and let them decide what to call it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bishop Rook Donating Member (252 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 04:20 PM
Response to Reply #92
95. Right on. (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maven Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 04:33 PM
Response to Reply #92
103. I wish everyone who made this "in an ideal world" type of argument
would put their money where their mouth is.

If you truly believe that civil unions are better than marriage, then get divorced from your wife and move to a state where there are civil unions. Otherwise, focus on making the civil institution of marriage available to all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bishop Rook Donating Member (252 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 05:00 PM
Response to Reply #103
115. I'm not married
And I and several friends of mine have committed not to get married until those legal benefits are extended to all members of our society. Granted, I'm single, so that's not a very big sacrifice on my part.

It would be ridiculous for me to simply sequester myself in a state that does have civil unions. That's as ridiculous a statement as saying "well if you're gay and want to get married, just move to Massachusetts." I want these rights extended to everyone in America, not just to me personally.

I don't personally care about the wording of marriage versus civil union, what I care about is that gay couples and straight couples have equal legal rights and responsibilities, and that every state is required to give "full faith and credit" to every other state's unions. This can be achieved plenty of ways...

a) Expand full marriage rights to gay couples. This is the simplest, but it will be an uphill battle in Congress and the electorate because people are afraid of marriage being "redefined" for them.
b) Give civil unions to everyone and marriage to no one. My ideal. More complicated because it involves two separate and probably controversial moves--granting Federally-protected civil union status to everyone, and then dismantling the institution of civil marriage. The latter of the two might even be more difficult and controversial than solution A.
c) Grant Federally-protected civil unions to gay couples, keep the institution of civil marriage, mandate that the civil unions have the same rights and responsibilities and inter-state transferability as marriage. Definitely the lowest-hanging fruit with the best chance of actually passing. Legally, it's equivalent to A and B, but philosophically, it's still "separate but equal."

C isn't the ideal solution, but it's still not a bad solution.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maven Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 05:09 PM
Response to Reply #115
120. Your ideal isn't going to happen.
Edited on Sat Jan-12-08 05:19 PM by Harvey Korman
A) Marriage is a legal term embedded in statute and decisional law that originates in English common law, before the creation of the U.S.

B) Married couples are not going to want to downgrade their marriages, and let's face it, that's how they'll see it. Civil unions were conceived in the U.S. as something less than marriage to give to GLBTs. Ultimately, arguments based on the religious attachments to the word "marriage" are bunk; what it boils down to is discrimination, i.e., maintaining a distinction between gays and straights so that relationships among the former are not put on a par with those of the latter. Not only would the replacement of civil marriage with civil unions never happen, the effort to do so would simply give more ammunition to those who claim it was our (GLBTs') intention to "destroy" marriage all along.

What you're proposing is a far more uphill (and unnecessary) battle than simply making marriage available to those who are currently denied it. You're worried about the backlash to "redefining" marriage, yet you propose to abolish it altogether!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bishop Rook Donating Member (252 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 05:20 PM
Response to Reply #120
126. Indeed, I recognize my ideal probably won't happen
I said so, in fact. Out of all three things I mentioned, my proposal would probably generate the most hostility and have the least chance of success. That's why I call it an ideal. :P

And marriage has existed since long before English common law. What's the point? It's a big mess of social, religious, legal, and financial significance; I want our society to recognize that a secular government has no business in any part of that except the legal and financial. If we had separate concepts of civil partnership and religious marriage, instead of conflating the two, this argument could have been over long before it started, without all this "definition of marriage" wrangling...

I do recognize it's a pipe dream, though, since people are too invested in civil marriage after centuries of tradition. It will take generations to change if it ever does get changed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bishop Rook Donating Member (252 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 04:22 PM
Response to Reply #75
96. Sort of
The plans that the candidates are coming out with would provide Federally-protected civil union status, meaning every state would have to recognize it. It's not like the civil unions of Vermont which are completely void in any other state.

As for social standing, the government should not be providing that to begin with.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 04:29 PM
Response to Reply #69
99. They have the same platforms, but only Obama has given a stage and paycheck
Edited on Sat Jan-12-08 04:30 PM by pnwmom
to a homophobic preacher Master of Ceremonies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ronnykmarshall Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 03:24 PM
Response to Original message
64. What?
I'm on acid right now and I didn't get that from his statement.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cloudythescribbler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 04:41 PM
Response to Original message
104. Contrast the RELATIVE acceptance of this UTTERLY TENDENTIOUS reading of an Obama quote w/ ...
the incredible WHINING about a perfectly reasonably interpreted quote from a column published yesterday at Huffington Post.

I notice that there are ENORMOUS threads for anti-Obama trolling, but anything accurate but edgy FOR Obama gets pilloried.....

Fortunately there ARE a lot of Obama supporters on DU, and I think that number is apt to increase ....

(Here's the thread about Huffpo to which I refer):
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4043443&mesg_id=4043443

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hulklogan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 04:56 PM
Response to Reply #104
110. Contrast a direct quote from the candidate with hearsay about unnamed "aides"
And you may understand the difference in reaction between the two.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 04:48 PM
Response to Original message
106. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Maven Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 04:51 PM
Response to Reply #106
107. You're an abnormality.
Fuck off.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clanfear Donating Member (260 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 04:56 PM
Response to Reply #107
111. I can understand your anger
But what I said is the truth. Medically and scientifically there is no disputing that.

And by that I am not trying to justify discrimination, just stating what is and what will be. Sometimes it is better to chop away at a problem piece by piece, rather than trying to get the whole enchilada.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maven Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 04:58 PM
Response to Reply #111
112. There is no "truth" to your statement, medically and scientifically,
other than your homophobia.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 05:03 PM
Response to Reply #112
117. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
hulklogan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 05:07 PM
Response to Reply #117
119. I deny it
The reason we are having this discussion is bigots like you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sapphocrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 05:50 PM
Response to Reply #117
141. Your mom called...
They miss you at home. Please contact: PO Box 9771, Fresno, CA 93794
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cboy4 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 07:09 PM
Response to Reply #117
151. Here's one thing I definitely don't deny:

YOU'RE A RAGING BIGOT

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NMMNG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 07:42 PM
Response to Reply #117
157. We know where they find those "facts"



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MollieBradford Donating Member (149 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 05:27 PM
Response to Reply #111
131. that's moronic
the AMA stated in the early 70s that homosexuality is not a mental illness. Now how is it abnormal medically? How is it scientifically abnormal? There are homosexual behaviors in most other animals besides human kind.What you just posted is bizarre to say the least.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cboy4 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 07:21 PM
Response to Reply #111
154. OMFG

YOU'RE A RAGING BIGOT

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hulklogan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 04:58 PM
Response to Reply #106
113. There is nothing abnormal about GLBT Americans.
Are left-handed people abnormal? Are blue-eyed people abnormal?

Damn.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clanfear Donating Member (260 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 05:10 PM
Response to Reply #113
121. You are incorrect.
Sexual attaction amongst the same gender of any species is considered an abnormality. That is scientific fact.

I do not want to get into an argument trying to label people. And I guess I should not have made the first comment, because people are unwilling to understand fact what goes along with that.

GLBT Americans are great people and our society is greatly enriched by their contributions. There is no denying that. We are a much better society because of what is brought to the table.

All I am saying is that expecting a normalcy in this society is not going to happen. The issue of discrimination goes far beyond what the law states or does not state. Ask any African-American or any person with a disability.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maven Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 05:12 PM
Response to Reply #121
123. Scientific fact?
Do you have a study you can point us to (other than one by Paul Cameron)? A peer-reviewed article? Someone from the APA willing to vouch that homosexuality is abnormal? Oh, right, you're just talking out of your bigoted ass while using words like "scientific" and "medical" to cover it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clanfear Donating Member (260 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 05:21 PM
Response to Reply #123
127. Sure.
After I get back from dinner, I will be glad to. During that time you might want to research on your own papers that suggest homosexuality is a normal behavior. You may see examples in different species, but it is never considered a normal behavior.

Recently, in lab situations scientists have been able to turn on and off homosexual tendencies in animals. It is a mental miscue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maven Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 05:23 PM
Response to Reply #127
128. You can turn lots of things on and off by manipulating neurons and genes
Edited on Sat Jan-12-08 05:29 PM by Harvey Korman
it doesn't mean that a naturally occurring phenomenon is a "mental miscue" because it can be manipulated in a lab. In fact, it shows exactly the opposite--that the condition is an outgrowth of biological functioning.

"Less prevalent" does not equal "abnormal" except for those who wish to use science to back a certain agenda.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hulklogan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 05:27 PM
Response to Reply #127
130. To me, this study concludes that heterosexuality can be turned on and off
At least in fruit flies

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,23001541-29277,00.html

Hetereosexuality must be a mental miscue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maven Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 05:30 PM
Response to Reply #130
134. Exactly.
:thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Duncan Grant Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 05:39 PM
Response to Reply #127
140. You're pathologizing homosexuality. That's unacceptable.
The argument isn't about homosexuality. It's about "normal" - normalcy, normality and/or questions about "what is natural?".

Please don't try to suggest otherwise. The only abnormal thing about homosexuality is the contempt which the dominant culture reserves for it. Pathologize that, readers of DU.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VarnettaTuckpocket Donating Member (559 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 05:57 PM
Response to Reply #140
145. It damn well should be unacceptable on DU
I alerted
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hulklogan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 05:58 PM
Response to Reply #145
147. I alerted almost an hour ago
The mods must be really busy today
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Duncan Grant Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 06:17 PM
Response to Reply #145
149. Thanks!
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sapphocrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 05:58 PM
Response to Reply #127
146. One thing you say is true...
It is possible to "turn on and off homosexual tendencies" -- as well as heterosexual tendencies. I'm sure you have personally turned off all sexual tendencies in others, countless times, by your insufferable personality alone.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cboy4 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 07:16 PM
Response to Reply #127
152. Jesus christ

HOMOPHOBE

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hulklogan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 05:18 PM
Response to Reply #121
124. You're obviously mentally abnormal. I'm guessing you're not a scientist.
Homosexuality in humans has always been a part of the species. Something that has always existed is normal. We didn't just magically appear in the 1960s, honey.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sapphocrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 05:53 PM
Response to Reply #121
143. Well, that's different.
"GLBT Americans are great people and our society is greatly enriched by their contributions."

What's next in your repertoire? "Stepin Fetchit was a credit to his race"?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tammywammy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 05:04 PM
Response to Reply #106
118. Sigh
Can I please wipe it from my memory that I actually read your post? :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bicentennial_baby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 05:25 PM
Response to Reply #106
129. Um, excuse me?
:wtf:

Damn, this primary season is really bringing out the 'phobes. You're not making your candidate look good, at all...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bishop Rook Donating Member (252 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 05:30 PM
Response to Reply #106
135. I tried to think of a polite and positive way to respond
But I couldn't think of any, so I won't bother, and will go ahead and try to forget I read your comment too. As well as forget seeing an Obama banner therein.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NMMNG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 05:35 PM
Response to Reply #106
137. Are you for real?
I mean, are you really for real?

You aren't even worth citing facts on you're so pathetic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cboy4 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 07:22 PM
Response to Reply #106
155. TROLL ALERT

YOU'RE A RAGING BIGOT

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
totodeinhere Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 05:03 PM
Response to Original message
116. He is being careful
I think his political advisers have suggested that he not be too up front on this issue, else the Repugs will demagogue it and turn this into a general election issue. That's the same reason why no major Democratic candidate supports full fledged gay marriage.

But if Obama gets in office look for him to be a great supporter of gay rights.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NMMNG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 06:20 PM
Response to Reply #116
150. I don't think so
He'll do just what he has been doing. He wouldn't want to mess up his chances for re-election, after all. Praise Jebus and screw the GLBTs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MethuenProgressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 05:29 PM
Response to Original message
133. "Black people should live their lives in a way that doesn't cause discrimination."
"Giving them a set of basic rights would allow them to experience their relationship and live their lives in a way that doesn't cause discrimination," Obama said. "I think it is the right balance to strike in this society."

:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bishop Rook Donating Member (252 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 05:37 PM
Response to Reply #133
138. Sigh...
Put parentheses here and here:

"Giving them a set of basic rights would allow them (to experience their relationship and live their lives) in a way that doesn't cause discrimination."

Now ellipsis that out.

"Giving them a set of basic rights would allow them ... in a way that doesn't cause discrimination."

There could have been some better word choices, sure. "Expanding marriage-equivalent rights to GLBT citizens would allow them in a way that isn't discriminatory to live their lives and experience their relationship" for instance. I'm assuming this comment was off the cuff.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cboy4 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 07:18 PM
Response to Original message
153. Should be: locking
Edited on Sat Jan-12-08 07:25 PM by cboy4
Beyond homophobic
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 09:52 PM
Response to Reply #153
159. Sorry, cboy4. That certainly wasn't my intent. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 10:05 PM
Response to Original message
162. So, let's be outraged by a sentence without context that we will feign to believe is antigay.
Because, as we all know, Obama is known for his very anti-gay record.:sarcasm:

Coming from somebody supporting a proDOMA, proDontAskDontTell candidate, yep, this is as fun as it is. I understand how some people can think Clinton is a racist. They follow the same low standard you do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 10:43 PM
Response to Reply #162
165. I'm not a Clinton supporter. I've joined the Obama DU group when it began,
but Iately I've been on the fence.

I will, however, support whoever turns out to the the eventual nominee.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dionysus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 10:40 PM
Response to Original message
164. you're picking apart THAT?!?!?! come the fuck ON!
WEAKKKKK
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 10:46 PM
Response to Reply #164
166. I wasn't picking it apart, I was reading it. Some people here, you apparently,
think it doesn't mean what it says on its face, and they base their conclusion on other things that Obama has said.

That's fine, but I don't think his overall record is that clear. Hiring McClurkin to fundraise for him, and then refusing to apologize for that, isn't consistent with Obama's paper positions of supporting gay rights.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hulklogan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 10:50 PM
Response to Reply #164
168. Weak? Throughout this thread I have yet to read an alternate interpretation of his statement
Edited on Sat Jan-12-08 10:51 PM by hulklogan
that makes sense. For weeks now, people who think Senator Obama is out of touch with GLBT Americans have been accused of making up quotes that put him in a bad light.

He actually said this. So now we're just supposed to be hypnotized like the Obamanauts and believe he meant the complete opposite of what he actually said?

I have no doubt that Senator Obama at least halfway believes that GLBT Americans deserve some measure of equality. What I don't get is the meaning behind this statement if it isn't to be interpreted literally.

/edited to correct my grammar issues
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-14-08 05:46 AM
Response to Reply #164
176. weakkkkk?
That's what your girlfriend calls you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dionysus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-14-08 05:18 PM
Response to Reply #176
177. ah lil 23%, you poor lil cracker you.
"hyuh hyuh ah fucked yer girlfriend hyuck" is the best you can come up with? never did make it to the cleaners did you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Alexander Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-14-08 08:48 PM
Response to Reply #176
178. That's what your "constituents" called you.
Weak sauce.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-13-08 02:21 AM
Response to Original message
170. "GIVING" us a set of rights?
Well thanks, ever so. :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NMMNG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-13-08 02:22 AM
Response to Reply #170
171. Come on, man
You should be grateful. Now take your treats like a good little puppy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-13-08 02:24 AM
Response to Reply #171
173. Arf.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Oct 31st 2024, 06:25 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC