Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Obama’s Gay Marriage Position Is a Disgrace

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 (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
t0dd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 02:48 AM
Original message
Obama’s Gay Marriage Position Is a Disgrace
In the fall of 1912, as his campaign for president entered its final stage, Woodrow Wilson was speaking in Brooklyn when he was asked for his opinion on women’s suffrage. The issue was very much in the political ether, but Wilson had declined to take a stand on it. According to John Milton Cooper’s excellent biography of the twenty-eighth president, he responded by insisting that it was “not a question that is dealt with by the national government at all.” The woman who had asked the question was apparently displeased by this blatant dodge. “I am speaking to you as an American, Mr. Wilson,” she retorted.

I am speaking to you as an American: It was a wonderful rebuke, one that anticipated the rhetoric of Martin Luther King and other civil rights leaders who would not rail against America but instead demand to be fully part of it. Wilson, however, was unmoved. And his slippery treatment of women’s suffrage—like his slippery approach on matters of race—did not end once he was in the White House. Running for reelection four years later, he was still playing the same exasperating game. That year, the Democrats did not endorse a constitutional amendment providing for women’s suffrage but, instead, called on the states to extend voting rights to women. Such a half-measure looks cowardly in retrospect, of course; but it also looked cowardly at the time. In November 1916, The New Republic excoriated Wilson for his weak stand on the issue. During his reelection campaign, TNR wrote, Wilson had told a group of suffragists that “e was with them,” even as “he confessed to a ‘little impatience’ as to their anxiety about method.” From this, the magazine concluded that the president had “at best a vague, benign feeling about , and no conviction whatever that woman suffrage was creating a national situation which called for thorough sincerity, nerve and will.”

An evasive stance on a controversial civil rights issue from a liberal president; an insistence that the issue is primarily local, rather than national, in character; a complete failure of sincerity, nerve, and will: If these things sound familiar in 2010, it is because Barack Obama is taking exactly the same approach on gay marriage.

...

Obama and those around him seem unaware that all of this is a problem; a look at some of the lessons from Wilson’s experience might help to clarify why they ought to reconsider. The first lesson is that history does not look kindly on this type of presidential conduct. Wilson is today remembered as a near-great president, but his indifference on questions of gender and race is more than a bit unflattering in retrospect. Second, like Wilson, Obama is running out of time to stay ahead of history. In 1912, women’s suffrage was hardly an outlandish cause; one of the three major presidential contenders that year, Teddy Roosevelt, came out in favor of it, even as Wilson remained mum. Similarly, on gay marriage, Obama is now to the right of Laura Bush, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and, according to a new CNN poll, 52 percent of the American people.

...

The final lesson from Wilson is that what a president says and does matters. The day after Wilson’s January 9 statement, the House endorsed women’s suffrage by two votes. Wilson, albeit years late to the cause, would go on to lobby senators and, eventually, the governor of Tennessee, which became the final state to ratify the nineteenth amendment. Obama, meanwhile, seems to have convinced himself that he can’t make a difference on gay marriage, so why wade into the issue? But, while he may not realize it, Obama is already leading on gay marriage; he is just leading in the wrong direction. Every time Obama or a surrogate reiterates his position, it reinforces the idea that gay marriage is a bit too scary for the political mainstream. Worse, Obama’s stance seems to be a way of conveying to the country that he knows a lot of people still aren’t completely comfortable admitting gays and lesbians as full participants in American life, and that this is OK because he isn’t either. It is about the most cynical gesture you can imagine from an allegedly liberal leader—and we deserve better. I am speaking to you as an American, Mr. Obama.

http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/77154/barack-obama-gay-marriage-disgrace
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Fumesucker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 02:49 AM
Response to Original message
1. K&R from a straight geezer..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Occulus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-26-10 03:53 PM
Response to Reply #1
201. I think I'm going to kick this thread
so everyone can see what GLBTs have to put up with from our straight "allies", even on a Democratic message board.

Some of the responses below are an excellent example of what should not be tolerated here. This sort of patronizing condescension needs to stop.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
katandmoon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 02:53 AM
Response to Original message
2. K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NanceGreggs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 02:57 AM
Response to Original message
3. Wow!
Another "Obama is a homophobe" thread - it's been hours since the last one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ken Burch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 03:03 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. Well Nancy, even YOU would have to admit that there's no longer any good reason
for Obama to keep trying to find a "middle ground" on this issue.

We all know that no "domestic partner" legislation will ever provide legal equality for LGBT couples.

We all know that there are no more anti-ssm people who still even vote or would even consider voting Democratic.

And we all know that the progressive tide is gaining ground and that a pro-ssm majority will appear in the polls soon.

So why the hell can't Obama just go where justice is on this and give up the useless triangulation?

He doesn't need to be to the right of history on this issue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 03:17 AM
Response to Reply #4
7. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Ken Burch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 03:29 AM
Response to Reply #7
8. I'm not part of any talking point.
Edited on Tue Aug-24-10 03:33 AM by Ken Burch
This is my own view and I've felt this way for awhile.

If I THOUGHT Obama was a homophobe, I wouldn't be bothering posting in this thread, because if he was a homophobe it would mean his mind was closed already. I think he's just been addicted to "trying to have it both ways".

There just isn't a middle ground on this, and Obama and the rest of the party need to admit it. This moment in terms of ssm and LGBT rights is comparable to 1963 or 1964 with civil rights and that was the moment where trying to split the difference on THAT didn't cut it anymore either. There isn't any possibility of dealing with this issue gradually, just as there wasn't any possibility of dealing with Jim Crow gradually by 1964.

So don't tie me in with any "group elsewhere" on this issue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skittles Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 03:50 AM
Response to Reply #8
16. they love clinging to the "talking point" thing
it helps them believe it's just a bunch of PUMAS and pouting Pony-wanters that are not satisfied with Obama
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NanceGreggs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 04:05 AM
Response to Reply #16
20. Well, you said it ...
... I didn't.

But you seem to have zeroed in on things - albeit inadvertently, I'm sure.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skittles Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 04:21 AM
Response to Reply #20
30. LOLOL
it wasn't me who pimped long and hard
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NanceGreggs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 04:34 AM
Response to Reply #30
36. But it was you ...
... who brought up "a bunch of PUMAS and pouting Pony-wanters that are not satisfied with Obama".

Nailed it, didn't you - meaning to or not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 05:06 PM
Original message
Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Mimosa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 05:20 PM
Response to Original message
133. ^ Almost same here ^
Edited on Tue Aug-24-10 05:22 PM by Mimosa
Nobody's right who disagrees with the President's shift to the right. ;)

BTW, the increasing attacks on gays here made me decide to come out as a member of the LGBT community on D.U.. I've been here since 2003 at least. I seldom posted in LGBT forums.

I can see there is more hostility to LGBTs here than there ever was. :(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Starry Messenger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 05:25 PM
Response to Original message
137. Ooh, you're in for it now.
Release the italics!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 05:40 PM
Response to Original message
143. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
MisterP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 10:41 PM
Response to Reply #16
171. I recall one loyalist saying that businesses weren't hiring because the "M$M" had downplayed the
economic situation so as to slander The One

it must be a terrifying world in there, especially since the center is moving closer every day to the teabaggers' capsule universe
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skittles Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 03:44 AM
Response to Reply #7
12. perhaps, it is just plain fucking TRUE
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jax Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 01:36 PM
Response to Reply #12
100. Thank you Skittles. Nailed it.
That poster....they got theirs.

In Canada.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eridani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 04:00 AM
Response to Reply #7
19. The OP didn't say that
The OP said that Obama is lacking in courage on the issue, which happens to be true.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fumesucker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 03:04 AM
Response to Reply #3
5. Actually from my point of view that is the more charitable option...
Because if Obama is not a homophobe then he is using the issue for pure political advantage which I find to be even more despicable.

YMMV of course.

It's particularly galling because of the fact that Obama himself is a member of a minority which suffered extreme discrimination within living memory, indeed blacks were legally blocked from marrying certain other races so the analogy is remarkably apt.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillParkinson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 03:05 AM
Response to Reply #3
6. Who said he was a homophobe?
They're saying he's on the wrong side. And he is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NanceGreggs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 03:29 AM
Response to Reply #6
9. Hmmm ...
Several threads posted tonight about "Obama's position" being "a disgrace".

No lock-stepping here - just a coincidence that the same words are being used.

I disagree vehemently with Obama's stance on same-sex marriage. What a shocker!!! I was SO sure that he would agree with EVERYTHING I believed - really!

I feel so betrayed ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 03:42 AM
Response to Reply #9
11. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 03:55 AM
Response to Reply #11
17. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 04:06 AM
Response to Reply #17
21. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
NanceGreggs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 04:19 AM
Response to Reply #21
27. HE IS THE ENEMY!
I knew his brother - some called him "Hangin' Chad" back in the day. As mean a cuss as you can imagine, and then some.

Legend has it that he still haunts the intertubes, but goes by a different name ...

:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Radical Activist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 03:44 AM
Response to Reply #9
13. They're all independent thinkers. That's why they post the exact same thing over and over.
Obama makes it very clear that he supports same-sex civil unions with all the full legal rights as marriage and people can call it whatever they want. I can understand why people object to having a different label on it than marriage, but it's not hard to figure out that once you have civil unions with the same rights that it won't be long before it's legally called marriage too. I don't see how that makes him the enemy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skittles Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 03:46 AM
Response to Reply #13
14. what a fucking bunch of crock
it's DISCRIMINATION, plain and simple that he supports - why must the marriages of gay folk be CALLED ANYTHING ELSE but MARRIAGE?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Radical Activist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 03:58 AM
Response to Reply #14
18. It sounds like Obama is fine with it being called marriage.
Edited on Tue Aug-24-10 03:59 AM by Radical Activist
I agree that it should be called marriage. And we both know, that if a civil unions bill that gives full equal rights becomes law then that's what people will call it: marriage. Obama has been pretty obvious that he considers civil unions the next step toward marriage.

"I would’ve supported and would continue to support a civil union that provides all the benefits that are available for a legally sanctioned marriage. And it is then, as I said, up to religious denominations to make a determination as to whether they want to recognize that as marriage or not." -Obama

Do you oppose a civil unions law with full legal rights equal to marriage? I know some people do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fumesucker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 04:08 AM
Response to Reply #18
22. You get a marriage license from the state..
Not a church.

It's not up to denominations whether gay marriage is called "marriage" or not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Radical Activist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 04:15 AM
Response to Reply #22
25. And you can't stop two people from saying they're married.
But let's get back to the point. It's obvious enough that Obama sees civil unions as the next step forward toward marriage. I fully expect marriage advocates to push him on that.

But... Do you oppose a civil unions law with full legal rights equal to marriage?

I have a hard time seeing someone with that position as the problem. That sounds more like an ally.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fumesucker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 04:20 AM
Response to Reply #25
28. I support the right of any two people who are legal adults to marry each other..
What I got from the state when I was married was literally called a "marriage license", the ceremony was performed in a Unitarian Church but could just have easily been performed by a JP with no religious involvement whatsoever and we would have been just as married.

Why should it be any different for anyone else?

What is the problem other than pure political calculation?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Radical Activist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 04:29 AM
Response to Reply #28
33. So do I.
But you dodged the question. It's pretty obvious that a civil unions law would be easier to pass, even if it gives the same legal rights as marriage. That's a political calculation that many GLBT lobbying groups have made.

Given that fact, do you oppose a civil unions law with full legal rights equal to marriage? Are you saying we should hold out for a marriage bill even if it means passing up on a civil unions law that provides with the same legal rights?

Is a name so important that you're willing to risk delaying the next step in progress? Or does a rose by any other name still smell as sweet?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fumesucker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 04:35 AM
Response to Reply #33
37. I lived through "separate but equal" when it was about race..
And I know just how much of a cruel joke it was.

If it ain't called "marriage" and is not *exactly* the same piece of paper it's not going to be the same and it's not going to provide the same legal rights.

A rose does indeed smell more sweet than a Titan Arum.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Radical Activist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 04:39 AM
Response to Reply #37
41. Then I would think you'd have the historical perspective
to realize that every bit of progress toward equality in American history was achieved one step at a time. I still have a hard time seeing a President who supports the next big step forward as the enemy on this issue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fumesucker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 04:47 AM
Response to Reply #41
46. It's past time for this struggle to end..
We have a black president, he certainly should have enough historical perspective to know that "separate but equal" is never actually equal.

Obama's own parents couldn't have been legally married in some states at the time of his birth, there's your historical perspective.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
laughingliberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 01:14 PM
Response to Reply #41
93. Yes. And after each little baby step civil rights activists threw a big party & took a break for a
few years.

:sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mimosa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 05:27 PM
Response to Reply #41
140. Yes, Fumesucker and I have 'historical perspective'
I happen to believe that President Obama is expecting the issue to be decided at Supreme Court level when Boies and Olson take a case there.

But anybody here has the right to give their opinion about the President's stand on any issue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 06:19 AM
Response to Reply #33
70. No it isn't
Look at Hawaii for instance. Civil Unions were vetoed by the governor there on the grounds that they were marriage only with a different name. In RI a bill that only gave gays funeral rights was vetoed as it would degrade marriage. The people who care about this issue on the anti side will no more accept civil unions and marriage. Plus each and every law that gives marriage a right would have to be changed meaning that there almost certainly would be exceptions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rasputin1952 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 08:09 AM
Response to Reply #70
77. I had not heard about the RI situation...
do you have a link, or a lead?

What a horrible thing reject Human Rights on...it is truly sad when a funeral for a loved one is treated so callously. It is terrible that Human Rights are denied during the life of the individual, and to add to the anguish over the death of an individual is incredible...:(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 09:16 AM
Response to Reply #77
78. link
http://www.365gay.com/news/r-i-gov-vetoes-gay-funeral-rights-bill/

Rhode Island legislators learned yesterday that Gov. Carcieri vetoed the gay funeral rights bill that passed in October.

The legislation, sponsored by Sen. Rhoda Perry and state Rep. David Segal, would have added “domestic partners” to the list of people legally authorized to make funeral, cremation or burial arrangements for their deceased partners. Heterosexual married couples already have these rights.

The Providence Journal reported that the bill was proposed after one man was unable to retrieve the body of his late partner from the state medical examiner for weeks because they weren’t married or next-of-kin.

Gov Carcieri’s veto message, said:

“This bill represents a disturbing trend over the past few years of the incremental erosion of the principles surrounding traditional marriage, which is not the preferred way to approach this issue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rasputin1952 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 01:20 PM
Response to Reply #78
97. Thank you...
Edited on Tue Aug-24-10 01:34 PM by rasputin1952
:hi:

This goes back to 09...I wonder if the lege overrode hos veto or if this has been placed back in the docket. In any case, he's a jerk.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CreekDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 05:24 PM
Response to Reply #97
135. The Hawaii governor *just* vetoed this
I think just weeks ago.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
laughingliberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 05:26 PM
Response to Reply #77
139. I saw this all the time when I was working as a home infusion nurse in the AIDs epidemic in Houston.
Some of the most heartbreaking situations you can imagine around 'families' keeping long time partners away from funerals. I put families in quotes as these were often parents and siblings who had not seen the deceased in years.

It is time for people to have the right to decide who their family is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rasputin1952 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 06:45 PM
Response to Reply #139
164. This is so sad...
Love is love, it should never be denigrated nor torn apart. Love should never be used as a wedge, and most certainly, it should never, ever be used as a bludgeon.

If someone in my family passed away, I could not see barring anyone from the services or the interment...who am I to judge?

Denying an individual a last chance to say goodbye is a sad way to live one's life...:(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillParkinson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 06:17 AM
Response to Reply #25
69. *I* have a problem with that...
Civil unions with full legal rights equal to marriage. Separate but equal.

Something I thought no Democrat would ever find acceptable.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spheric Donating Member (512 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 10:19 AM
Response to Reply #69
79. +7 Separate but equal has never been a stepping stone towards full equality.
Edited on Tue Aug-24-10 10:20 AM by Spheric
It has always been a way to attempt to withhold equality.

Equal rights is equal rights. You can't have something that is "equivalent" to equality. We are either equal or we are not.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Radical Activist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 11:13 AM
Response to Reply #69
82. That's perfectly understandable.
There are some people who take your view that equal rights with a different name are unacceptable. Then there are GLBT lobby groups who take Obama's position that civil unions are the next step forward. I agree that it should be called marriage. Yet, I think people like Obama and those GLBT groups pushing for civil unions are all working for progress on the same side.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillParkinson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 12:15 PM
Response to Reply #82
85. If a gay group wants to believe that separate but equal is the way to go...
That's their choice.

However I will not support them in their willingness to stay 2nd class citizens.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skittles Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 04:26 AM
Response to Reply #18
32. civil unions
you may get on the bus - just sit in the back please
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Radical Activist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 04:37 AM
Response to Reply #32
38. You're going back to slogans.
That's fine. I can't force you to have a discussion with me.

Personally, I think it's unlikely that a marriage bill will become law very soon. A civil unions bill that gives equal rights under the law is more likely to pass. I would support that as a step progressing toward same-sex marriage. I can understand those who oppose any progress at all short of marriage. GLBT lobbying groups struggle with this question all the time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fumesucker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 04:56 AM
Response to Reply #38
53. That wasn't a slogan so much as an analogy..
Albeit a rather sardonic one.

Although I think it was rather accurate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CreekDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 05:25 PM
Response to Reply #38
136. That isn't the Obama position --you support same sex marriage, Obama restated that he opposes it
in the aftermath of the court decision he did that.

:(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boston bean Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 06:27 PM
Response to Reply #38
159. The people who are being oppressed don't want some half assed compromise
Edited on Tue Aug-24-10 06:30 PM by boston bean
THEY WANT THEIR RIGHTS!

And fuck anyone who tell them they ought to be satisfied with half rights.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillParkinson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 06:08 AM
Response to Reply #13
66. Even though the courts have found that 'civil unions' are not the same thing?
You don't see how that makes him the enemy? Then you're not paying attention.

As the article stated, his position is accepted by many people. If he were to use his bully pulpit, like he claimed, and be the 'fierce advocate' that he promised we might not be having this discussion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillParkinson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 06:05 AM
Response to Reply #9
65. I posted one of those...
In the GLBT board.

His position IS a disgrace. He keeps talking about how his religion keeps him from gay marriage, but that's BS.

He is the President of the US. Not Gawd's Gift. He is here to serve the people, not his religion.

And it's funny how his position on gay marriage has 'devolved'.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mimosa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 05:31 PM
Response to Reply #65
141.  An elected official should act in a secular capacity.
Will, your post reminded me of Ted Kennedy

Ted Kennedy was Catholic but his religion did not prevent him from supporting abortion rights.

An elected official should act in a secular capacity.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nofurylike Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 04:20 AM
Response to Reply #3
29. hi Nance! i adore you and your courage inspires me!! again!! nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CreekDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 05:00 PM
Response to Reply #3
121. Nance, read the post again
because it didn't call Obama a homophobe.

and for what it's worth, i think FDR was a great president, but his record on civil rights wasn't defensible on every issue.

in other words, i don't know why anybody feels the need to defend Obama on this issue.

as for me, i'm not defending him any more than i defended Clinton for signing DOMA.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Radical Activist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 03:36 AM
Response to Original message
10. dupe
Edited on Tue Aug-24-10 03:38 AM by Radical Activist
It's like everyone woke up today and said, "let's post about Obama's stance on gay marriage today." Weird.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=9001854&mesg_id=9001854
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NanceGreggs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 03:48 AM
Response to Reply #10
15. Yeah, funny how that happens ...
Especially when the same verbatim comments come from people who are always talking about not being lock-steppers.

Like I said, amazing coincidence ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 04:10 AM
Response to Reply #15
23. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
NanceGreggs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 04:14 AM
Response to Reply #23
24. Oh, really ...
... I had absolutely NO idea!

:sarcasm:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nofurylike Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 04:38 AM
Response to Reply #23
39. GD doesn't require the title from the article in the subject line, but
if used as a subject line, it ought to have quotation marks, or it will be seen as the opinion of the OP.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jonnyblitz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 04:43 AM
Response to Reply #39
44. eh, Nance still carried on about "talking points from another
website" EVEN after it was pointed out to her it was the title of the article.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NanceGreggs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 05:32 AM
Response to Reply #44
60. Like I said upthread ...
... I had NO idea. :sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nofurylike Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 06:10 AM
Response to Reply #44
68. then, outside of LBN, it should be in quotation marks. why isn't it?
Edited on Tue Aug-24-10 06:14 AM by nofurylike
because people are using its existing as a title to say it themselves, in many places.
so, deal with the rebuttals.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillParkinson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 12:01 PM
Response to Reply #68
83. Because heaven forbid people should read the article...
Perhaps if they read it they'd see that it was not the words of the original poster, but a link and a few lines of an article written by someone else. Nowhere did the original poster claim it as their property and a link was given.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hekate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 04:48 AM
Response to Reply #15
47. This is the third or fourth OP on it. Only one is locked, so I guess they're not locked-steppers...
(yes, that is a pun, or play on words)

I agree this is an astonishing coinkydink -- a veritable outbreak of outrage sweeping all before it.

As I've said here many times before, we need a church/state separation on the issue of marriage.

Right now people are confused because ministers, priests, and rabbis can both perform marriages and sign the legal certificate. Perhaps we should do as other countries have done for centuries and have the civil and religious components separated -- let each couple register at City Hall or the County Hall of Records to make it a legally-recognized union, and then, if they are so inclined, have a religious blessing -- the "wedding."

Friends of mine married in Japan 40+ years ago. He was a Marine: he said they had to register at the local Prefecture office of records (required for legal marriage in Japan), have a Buddhist ceremony (that was #2), have a Shinto ceremony (that was #3), and finally the 4th "wedding" was courtesy of the Marines so that Uncle Sam could be satisfied that this Japanese woman had a good reason to immigrate to the US. There was a very clear distinction between what was religious and what was civilly required.

There are any number of denominations and sects that already will hold a sanctioned rite for same-sex couples. If you were raised Southern Baptist or Roman Catholic, they will refuse -- and that is and would continue to be their right under the church/state separation previously mentioned. However, Unitarian Universalists will certainly hold a wedding for a same-sex couple. Some Reform Rabbis have also blessed lesbian unions using an ancient "betrothal" ceremony that includes the words of Ruth to Naomi, very moving.

As Judge Walker said -- let marriage be the union of two committed adults.

Based on things Obama has said, I believe he is evolving in his personal beliefs. Based on his words and behavior, I believe he will have no difficulty with Judge Walker's ruling -- but what so many Americans fail to understand is that the Executive Branch is not the Legislative nor is it the Judiciary, and so some things will have to come to him for signature from the Leg branch and some things will have to come from the SCOTUS in their own sweet time. Americans also tend to live in the Now, not recognizing the historical truth of the incremental implementation of all new civil rights legislation, whether it be for women or the descendents of slaves. This incrementalism also applies to any major legislative changes.

Based on his behavior and hiring practices, I have a lot of faith in him. Not so much faith in the Senate, where bills from the House go to die. But I do have faith that Obama will see this through.

And if saying all that, including still having support for the president I voted for, makes me a flaming homophobe in some people's eyes -- eh. So be it. They don't know me and they don't know my life.

Hekate


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nofurylike Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 05:03 AM
Response to Reply #47
55. very well said, Hekate. clarifying! thank you! nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eridani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 04:24 AM
Response to Reply #10
31. Or maybe everyone who is on LGBT mailing lists found the article
--cited in the OP in their inbox.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nofurylike Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 04:18 AM
Response to Original message
26. i am so sick of straight 'liberals' muddying my struggle. now hear
Edited on Tue Aug-24-10 04:25 AM by nofurylike
this:

every single candidate but one had either the very same view as President Obama, or a more backwards one.
the only one who had the particular view so many here are demanding was not only unelectable at his best, but then showed some scary true sides of his own in stating that maybe he'd run with white-supremacist ron paul as his VP running-mate.

should we queers not have voted for anyone? left you all at the mercy of repukes, as so many of you now threaten to do to us.

a huge portion of this country is still stuck back in its own internal repressions. you gonna throw me to the repukes to punish them?


stop thinking you speak for queers as a block. there are as many differing views in us as there are in any population.

now, the president happens to have already done more for us than any other ever did. he will do more. be patient or throw us to those who would 'treat' us, or WORSE, for being queer.

(he has also accomplished a mind-boggling number of steps towards ideals. not enough for "professional leftists" - ie, revolutionary socialists, who condemn ALL governments not of their own design, as do wingnuts - but more than anyone else would have. and don't even imagine hillary 'the family' would have done as much or more. i personally adore her, but she is simply more right of president obama.)

vote democratic.


goodnight.

btw, i am a 41-year career activist and organizer, who put my life on the line for the rights that now exist for us; i know these issues completely.


*edit spelling
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NanceGreggs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 04:30 AM
Response to Reply #26
34. I think the conversation ends here ...
... sounds like nofurylike knows what they're talking about - and then some.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nofurylike Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 04:42 AM
Response to Reply #34
43. thank you, Nance! how i wish people could really care to hear.
besides, i wouldn't want any discussion to exclude you!
please, speak on!


please know that i say "straight 'liberals'" the way one would say "white 'liberals,'" and that i am aware that you are not that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Smashcut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 01:00 PM
Response to Reply #34
90. Actually no it doesn't and you're not the arbiter of where the conversation ends
Certainly not on my rights.

That person doesn't speak for me as a GLBT American and neither do you, Canada.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
laughingliberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 01:10 PM
Response to Reply #90
91. +1 nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mtnester Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 04:58 PM
Response to Reply #90
120. Indeed
:applause:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 03:46 PM
Response to Reply #34
103. Yeah, because no other GLBT opinion counts. So the conversation "ends". Whatever.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 04:24 PM
Response to Reply #103
116. The rest of you just don't know how good you have it.
Now shut up and eat your civil union gruel.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nofurylike Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 05:13 PM
Response to Reply #103
129. just don't claim to speak for lgbt....s. speak for yourself. maybe
you don't claim to, but many here do claim to speak for all of us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 04:19 PM
Response to Reply #34
114. Wow. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mimosa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 05:36 PM
Response to Reply #34
142. Oh thanks for telling us to end a topic.
No Fury I was a gay rights activist starting in my teenage years. I was working for gay rights in the early 70s.

BTW, I don't like the word 'queer' and won't use it. Too much like the N word to me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nofurylike Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 06:27 PM
Response to Reply #142
158. didn't. told straight 'liberals' to stop lending repukes support at
expense of lgbt....s they want to murder.

as a "gay rights activist," from the 70s, you would know, then, that putting others in danger for our own personal satisfaction, out of personal frustration, is absolutely not acceptable.

younger lgbt....s shouldn't have to live in eras like those we survived. we now have steady progress. more than ever.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nofurylike Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-26-10 05:51 AM
Response to Reply #142
198. forgot to get back to you on that. countless of us call ourselves
queer, and find it effective as a more all-encompassing word. and we're proud of it; possess and define it for ourselves.

if one could actually pronounce lgbttsciq, it would work.


peace
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-25-10 12:12 PM
Response to Reply #34
191. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Fumesucker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 04:31 AM
Response to Reply #26
35. If your group is as fractured as you say..
Then how can you claim to speak for them?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NanceGreggs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 04:42 AM
Response to Reply #35
42. You're right ...
People who belong to groups that are "fractured" have no right to speak.

Ergo, all Democrats should STFU from here on in - being "fractured" and all ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fumesucker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 04:53 AM
Response to Reply #42
50. So you're not a Democrat?
Since you're one of the louder voices on this board.

I speak for myself, what I want and what I think will be best for the country as a whole as well as myself and my loved ones.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Marr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 06:03 PM
Response to Reply #42
149. Not *for the group*, no.
Edited on Tue Aug-24-10 06:04 PM by Marr
This shouldn't be confusing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nofurylike Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 04:44 AM
Response to Reply #35
45. diverse does not equal "fractured." and i don't speak for all, i ask
others to stop claiming they do.


peace

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fumesucker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 04:50 AM
Response to Reply #45
48. I speak for myself..
And the country is certainly fractured, you pointed out that homosexuals are just like any other random group of Americans, that means that the word "fractured" is applicable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nofurylike Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 04:55 AM
Response to Reply #48
51. if you think diverse equals fractured, then "lock-step" seems an
appropriate description of what you expect of others.
as long as it's your view stepped.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fumesucker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 04:59 AM
Response to Reply #51
54. I just speak for myself..
And I'm not the one telling others what to say.

Do you disagree that America is a fractured nation?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nofurylike Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 06:33 AM
Response to Reply #54
73. then you're not who i'm asking not to speak for all of us.
and as for speaking for yourself, it's like other movements: beware who you will get killed by being self-servingly outspoken.

am i expected to be willing to be endangered for you to be belligerent about MY rights...? while you further empower repukes, to punish the president for not doing your bidding about my rights?

i live in massachusetts. we HAVE legal same-sex marriage. and we have it because we did the incredibly hard work it takes to do that. for decades. it took those decades. queers in every state are doing that hard work as we speak.

what, do others want daddy president to do it for them? when he, in fact, is not even in a position TO do it?

we are working on enlightening him on damage done to his perceptions of us. just like most of us have to do with our parents and siblings and best friends and teachers and bosses and landlords and so on and on and on..... they are not disgraces because they have had their insides twisted up. didn't you once? ever?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
theHandpuppet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 05:16 PM
Response to Reply #73
131. Well aren't you the self-righteous one
Congratulations on obtaining marriage rights in Massachusetts. Now ride your high horse down to Virginia and Mississippi and South Carolina, because you know the only reason other GLBTs don't share you're same rights is because they're shiftless and lazy and just want Daddy President to give them a pony.

True equality will only come by federal law. Obama promised to be a fierce advocate for GLBT Americans but I have found him to be a profound disappointment, to put it mildly. And frankly, I find some of the rationalizations here excusing his lack of leadership to be downright embarrasing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nofurylike Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 06:11 PM
Response to Reply #131
152. "queers in every state are doing that hard work as we speak." and
they will lose much MORE ground than they did in the last repuke domination, should repukes be given power again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jonnyblitz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 04:39 AM
Response to Reply #26
40. oh please!
Edited on Tue Aug-24-10 04:39 AM by jonnyblitz
:rofl: Not all of us are into licking the boot that kicks us!:crazy: I have nothing to say to your ilk just as I have nothing to say to the Log Cabin folk who told me how George Bush was good for the gay community.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nofurylike Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 04:52 AM
Response to Reply #40
49. you obviously can afford to put US on the line for your superior
view.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NanceGreggs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 05:12 AM
Response to Reply #40
57. Glad to know ...
... you have nothing to say to "your ilk".

Jesus Hussein Christ. Don't you gays and lesbians start putting your two cents in, when good-minded people are trying to defend your rights - uh, I mean the rights of "your ilk".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nofurylike Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 05:52 AM
Response to Reply #57
62. perfect! and THAT really is the crux of it! thank you, Nance!! nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillParkinson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 06:25 AM
Response to Reply #57
72. Trying to defend our rights?
Sorry, Ms. Greggs,

I'm tired of hearing what I should be satisfied with. I should be pleased that a man who once said he supported gay marriage and who claims to be a fierce advocate for gays and lesbians, takes a straddle the fence stand on gay marriage now. He won't campaign against it, but he certainly isn't campaigning for it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hekate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 04:55 AM
Response to Reply #26
52. I think I got what you said, nofurylike.
Thank you. Nice meeting you, and see you around.

Hekate
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nofurylike Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 05:10 AM
Response to Reply #52
56. thank you, Hekate. and thank you for reading to get what people
say. i've seen that you do that.

i am pleased to meet you.

see you 'round!


solidarity
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NanceGreggs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 05:26 AM
Response to Reply #56
58. Nofurylike ...
... please meet my friend, Hekate.

Hekate, this is my friend, nofurylike.

I have a feeling we all have much to discuss - amicably, and with the same goals in mind.

We shall all meet again, perhaps elsewhere - yes?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hekate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 05:51 AM
Response to Reply #58
61. Indeed
:donut: :donut: :donut:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NanceGreggs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 05:52 AM
Response to Reply #61
63. ...
:thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CreekDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 07:01 PM
Response to Reply #63
169. what about your first statement --I mean that's verifiably wrong
but not in a million years will you admit it.

you misrepresented the OP and the author of the column by saying they called Obama a homophobe.

totally unfair.

thank you for your time --now you can go back to blasting people for not treating Obama fairly.

:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nofurylike Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 05:57 AM
Response to Reply #58
64. i am deeply honored, Nance, and Hekate. thank you!!
yes, we must.


peace and solidarity, always!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Touchdown Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 06:20 PM
Response to Reply #64
156. Bravo!
Edited on Tue Aug-24-10 06:21 PM by Touchdown
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Touchdown Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 01:12 PM
Response to Reply #26
92. Wow. For somebody I never saw in any GLBT thread before
... you sure got addicted to this one!:toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nofurylike Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 03:48 PM
Response to Reply #92
106. um. hmmm. thank? you? "addicted"? your never having seen me
in one is simply because you have never seen me in one.

but it is true that, generally speaking, i am far too consumed out fighting ceaselessly for our rights than allows me time to wax on about them on boards.

"addicted"? hmmm....

:toast: you too!


peace
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LostinVA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 05:04 PM
Response to Reply #106
122. "i am far too consumed out fighting ceaselessly for our rights than allows me time to wax on"
:rofl:

As Efeerrai says, if you were a career activist, you would know better.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nofurylike Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 05:15 PM
Response to Reply #122
130. i am a career activist, and i do know better. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Touchdown Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 06:07 PM
Response to Reply #106
151. 7500 posts in DU and you are "consumed out fighting ceaselessly"
I never knew there was so much activism needed at tea rooms in downtoawn book stores and Interstate Rest Stops.:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nofurylike Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 06:17 PM
Response to Reply #151
155. wow, how cheap and low. getting under your skin much? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 06:23 PM
Response to Reply #155
157. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
nofurylike Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 06:36 PM
Response to Reply #157
161. people should read this whole thread. i am not familiar with the
phrase "tearoom activist."

will you please explain it?

as for "Interstate Rest Stops," aren't you getting a kick out of yourself?

point:
do not empower republicans. period.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 06:50 PM
Response to Reply #161
165. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 04:17 PM
Response to Reply #26
113. Were you a career activist and organizer, you'd know better
than to try to browbeat people into accepting less rather than fight for more.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nofurylike Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 05:21 PM
Response to Reply #113
134. "browbeat." being responsible to those most vulnerable is a
Edited on Tue Aug-24-10 05:23 PM by nofurylike
long-standing expectation of activism.

the browbeating is being done by those who claim that working in POSSIBLE-TO-ATTAIN-WITHOUT-GETTING-THE-MOST-VULNERABLE-MURDERED increments is lesser than the way they choose...

then claim to speak for an lgbt... movement or community or population.


*edit spelling
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-25-10 03:48 PM
Response to Reply #134
194. I think you need to reread your own posts. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nofurylike Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-26-10 02:51 AM
Response to Reply #194
195. wow. just... wow. i will. i think you should too. thanks. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nofurylike Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-26-10 03:08 AM
Response to Reply #113
196. i expect people to care about if we live through it, if they really
care as they claim to.

empower repukes, throw us to them? that's not caring if we live. it is not caring about us at all.

i have fought, and do "fight for more" every day of my life. for all lgbttsciqs. harder than any other person i have ever known. and i can pretty safely say more than pretty much anyone on this site.

we are being used by people who face far less risk in repukes regaining power.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Usrename Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 10:50 PM
Response to Reply #26
174. What has the president done for you?
You say: "the president happens to have already done more for us than any other ever did."

What are you talking about?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-25-10 02:06 AM
Response to Reply #174
182. :crickets:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HelenWheels Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 05:28 AM
Response to Original message
59. If you haven't seen it yet, watch "Iron Jawed Women"
It's a great, although disturbing, docudrama about Women's suffrage.

I agree about Obama's stance being wrong, it's frustrating but the whole mess is related to years of brain washing at the hands of religion with a healthy kicker of Dem's being generally stupid about who their voters are. I don't know anyone that voted for Obama that isn't supportive of marriage for gay couples, okay they're are a few that could "live with it" but most of my democratic friends are to the point that they don't understand why we are still discussing it as it's just the way it should be. (how's that for a run on sentence, it's too early in the day for me to try and fix it too.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LostinVA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 05:06 PM
Response to Reply #59
124. "Iron-Jawed Angels"
EXCELLENT movie!

:thumbsup:

Grassroot activists whose struggles shames a very, very sexist President (even for that time) into, essentially, shaming and prodding Congress into doing the right thing.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xchrom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 06:08 AM
Response to Original message
67. Recommend
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AndyA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 06:21 AM
Response to Original message
71. So I guess it's not a problem for Obama if people discriminate against him or his daughters
because they're black, right?

Discrimination is discrimination. If he views gay people as less than 100 percent, it should be acceptable to him to have others view him and his family the same way, right?

I remember during the 2004 elections, when the "protect the sanctity of marriage" bullshit was invading the country. A black female radio personality on the west coast was very anti-gay, it was wrong, they have no rights, etc. A caller to her show challenged her on that, and said she should know better as a black woman. They said she especially should realize that if she views gays in that manner, that she should have no problem with others viewing her as "less than equal" because she was a black woman.

She didn't get it. Not at all.

I don't remember where I heard this, but it made me so angry I had to turn off the TV. Huge disconnect with this woman, and it would appear to be the same with Obama. Obama had nothing to do with the color of his skin. Gay people had nothing to do with being gay, yet he endorses keeping them less than equal because of it. That's wrong, and it's what I call being a hypocrite.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nofurylike Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 06:56 AM
Response to Reply #71
74. not getting something is not a disgrace. NONE of the candidates
got it, except one (who did on marriage, at least), who then allied himself with a white-supremacist.

should we queers all leave the country? or should we keep on at what we've been doing to exhaustion all along: enlightening people, while we fight for our rights at the greatest haste possible?

POSSIBLE is an operative word there.

don't you see? for most, our own families don't get it. our wonderful, lovable, propagandized mothers, fathers, siblings.... ! they are not disgraceful. they are mixed up, and we are changing that, or hadn't you noticed the change (in an extremly short time, by the way!)?


peace
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillParkinson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 07:07 AM
Response to Reply #74
75. Not getting rights is not a disgrace?
Glad to hear that. Let's go back in time and tell that to women, people of ethnicity, etc.

I'm sure they'll be delighted to hear that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dragonfli Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 07:56 AM
Response to Reply #75
76. Some never feel they have the right to be equal, so they cling to the oppressors,
Edited on Tue Aug-24-10 08:02 AM by Dragonfli
make excuses for them, agree that the separate water fountain or lunch counter is a great gift from their "superiors".

I am reminded of that old man with the weird eye on "The Boondocks". He feels his people should know
'their place' and strive to please the majority that hold them in disdain, secretly wishing they were not born inferior.

It saddens me.



edited to add picture

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EOTE Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 12:43 PM
Response to Reply #76
89. That would be Uncle Ruckus.
But keep in mind that he's not black. He was born white and suffers from revitiligo. That's the opposite of what Michael Jackson had. So, he's not a self-hating black person, he's just a really racist white person.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nofurylike Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 03:58 PM
Response to Reply #76
111. some white liberals were taunting blacks, "are you just gonna TAKE
that?!" while activists were working night and day organizing how to fight for rights while getting the least possible number of innocents murdered.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LostinVA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 05:08 PM
Response to Reply #111
126. Wow, what a nasty thing to say about the many white Americans who fought for civil rights
Including those who lost friends, jobs, and even their lives.

Wow.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nofurylike Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 05:26 PM
Response to Reply #126
138. "some." were those you refer to trying to shame blacks who did
Edited on Tue Aug-24-10 05:29 PM by nofurylike
not act fast enough for THEIR white, privileged, comparatively safe satisfaction? if not, then....

if SO, then....

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nofurylike Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 03:24 PM
Response to Reply #75
101. not understanding, having been disinformed throughout history,
may be ignorance, may be personal repression, may be blindered, but it is not inherently a disgrace.

most people misunderstand us. didn't you at some time? honestly? even most of us did at some point in our emergence and consciousness awakening.

and every single candidate, but one, misunderstood, misunderstands us. should we not have voted at all? should we have just conceded to repuke?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Desertrose Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 01:18 PM
Response to Reply #74
95. About the white supremacist thing...never happened.
Never "aligned" himself with RP and never considered him as a "running mate".

More bullshit spread real thick by those who knew DK was onto something.

Please. Get your facts straight.



About that change...well, I noticed it, but I don't like the direction it is going.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nofurylike Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 03:53 PM
Response to Reply #95
109. i have a file of letters i wrote DK, who i volunteered for back then,
pleading with him to take back his, yes, doing exactly as i said.
sorry, but it is you who needs to check those facts.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluenorthwest Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 04:30 PM
Response to Reply #109
117. Hey you need to back that slander up this is a Democratic board
and Dennis is a current Democratic candidate, so if you are here to work against electing Democrats, you'd best offer up some proof. You are the alleged professional activist, taking money to 'serve the community'. Look here sonny boy, Larry Kramer kissed my ass, I was there for the deal, so this podium clutching is just you doing your job, and you do not speak for me, you and your organizations of the past speak for yourselves.
Show us proof of your slander of a Democratic candidate, bud.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nofurylike Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 05:47 PM
Response to Reply #117
146. ...
"I'm thinking about Ron Paul" as a running mate, Kucinich told a crowd of about 70 supporters at a house party here, one of numerous stops throughout New Hampshire over the Thanksgiving weekend. A Kucinich-Paul administration could bring people together "to balance the energies in this country," Kucinich said.

http://crooksandliars.com/2007/11/27/bipartisan-bedfellows


http://blog.cleveland.com/openers/2007/11/if_kucinich_wins_nomination_ro.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nofurylike Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 05:53 PM
Response to Reply #117
147. while i now realize that the meaning of the words "career
activist" have changed, almost diametrically, i did not mean to imply professional, as in "paid." i do not receive money for activism. the cost has been mine, and dear, dear, dear.

but then, that is what it takes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Desertrose Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 04:45 PM
Response to Reply #109
118. Oh bull. I worked on his campaign too.
Please by all means..share your replies from Dennis saying how he was going to have RP as a running mate...that those were his intentions. That he was allying himself with a white supremacist.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nofurylike Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 05:55 PM
Response to Reply #118
148. i did not say he replied. he didn't. it's history. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Desertrose Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 06:58 PM
Response to Reply #148
167. It was all bull about the "white supremacist" thing. Why even bring it up
in the first place?

Of course he didn't reply.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nofurylike Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-25-10 01:43 AM
Response to Reply #167
181. ron paul is white-supremacist. period. you defending him?
and, my being a kucinich volunteer expressing serious concern, of course he should have replied.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Desertrose Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-25-10 12:02 PM
Response to Reply #181
190. No - just calling you on your lies about DK.
Kucinich never *aligned* himself with Ron Paul. period.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LostinVA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 05:06 PM
Response to Reply #74
125. "not getting something is not a disgrace"
Oh fucking brother.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Prism Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 05:10 PM
Response to Reply #74
128. Opposing gay marriage is not a disgrace? How, uhm, interesting.
Activist, huh?

K.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nofurylike Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 06:07 PM
Response to Reply #128
150. expecting the states to decide it is not "opposing" it. do the work,
as we have done forever in massachusetts - and is why it is "Marriage" here.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Prism Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 06:13 PM
Response to Reply #150
154. Which part of "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman" is too vague for you?
Which part of the President reiterating that belief on the same day as a great LGBT victory isn't disgraceful to you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NorthCarolina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 03:32 PM
Response to Reply #71
102. Only if it's done at the "local level" apparently. eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Touchdown Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 10:37 AM
Response to Original message
80. Hmmm.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 11:13 AM
Response to Original message
81. K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sea Witch Donating Member (113 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 12:12 PM
Response to Original message
84. The snarky, condescending, patronizing remarks towards GBLT posters in this thread is astonishing.
Defending the right to equality is apparently trumped by the need to defend one man's personal bigotry. Bizarre.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
QC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 12:17 PM
Response to Reply #84
86. Astonishing? Not quite. Try "par for the course around here." n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sea Witch Donating Member (113 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 12:28 PM
Response to Reply #86
87. Yuck- Maybe I will avoid these threads then.
Those types just get my blood pressure going.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 03:47 PM
Response to Reply #87
105. It's OK. Sooner or later it will be locked as "unmanageable". nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
racaulk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 12:40 PM
Response to Reply #84
88. Unfortunately, it's an all-too-common occurence around here.
It has been that way around here since the "it's just one song" McClurkin fiasco of 2007, at least. Some posters can't find a way to defend the indefensible positions that Obama has on marriage equality, so they speak out in a patronizing manner to those that dare to bring up that inconvenient truth. You can see that level of condescension from several posters in this very thread.

Commonplace, fucked up, and disgusting? You bet. Astonishing? Hardly.

Welcome to DU, by the way!

:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chill_wind Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 01:16 PM
Response to Reply #84
94. The cult of personality
triumphs issues and principles again and again with some. Sad but true.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Desertrose Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 01:19 PM
Response to Reply #94
96. +1 nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ScreamingMeemie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 01:28 PM
Response to Reply #84
98. A year and a half ago they were astonishing...now they are a sad
truth. After the banning of more than a dozen LGBT posters and their supporters people got high and mighty.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jax Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 01:35 PM
Response to Reply #84
99. No it is typical slime from those same posters
snarky condescending patronizing is ALL they have.

Every time, never fails.

David Allen, THIS is why your forums have no soul anymore. Those replies are sick.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 03:46 PM
Response to Reply #84
104. No, it's not astonishing, it's quite typical unfortunately.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Touchdown Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 03:52 PM
Response to Reply #104
108. But I am always amazed that
some sensible and pragmatic gay person that has never been seen in a GLBT thread before comes to the defense of those who are losing the argument.

Mind boggling, isn't it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
QC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 03:58 PM
Response to Reply #108
110. A veritable gayus ex machina, one could say. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LostinVA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 05:10 PM
Response to Reply #110
127. I am so stealing that
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cherchez la Femme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-25-10 12:46 AM
Response to Reply #110
179. OK
THAT one necessitated the wiping down of my screen <---any shorter, sweeter way to say that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nofurylike Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 04:08 PM
Response to Reply #108
112. ah, yes, you're the one who thinks if you don't see someone, they
don't exist.

well, i do. out in the trenches fighting my ass off for rights some rather just talk about. or complain about not having immediately.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Touchdown Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 04:23 PM
Response to Reply #112
115. I never said you didn't exist.
... but it's interesting that you think I did.:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nofurylike Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 06:41 PM
Response to Reply #115
162. "that has never been seen in a GLBT thread before." goodnight.nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 06:57 PM
Response to Reply #162
166. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
jonnyblitz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-25-10 01:32 AM
Response to Reply #162
180. goodnight, TOM !!1
:loveya:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 07:02 PM
Response to Reply #112
170. 'or complain about not having immediately.' - Hello, talking point.
:(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jamastiene Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-25-10 12:43 AM
Response to Reply #112
178. What the hell kind of trench allows you to spend hours on the computer
complaining about and denigrating gay people on DU? Must not be a very effective fight you are putting up in your trench. Gay people still don't have equal rights and you telling us to STFU isn't doing a damn thing to change that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nofurylike Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-25-10 01:27 PM
Response to Reply #178
192. "straight 'liberals'" who talk about how much they care about
us - lgbt....s - WHILE walking away from the election and leaving us at the mercy of merciless repukes (which they have done over and over again), are those i spoke to.

yeah, sure, you all go ahead and let them use you them dump you to repukes.

i have worked too hard for the rights of every lgbt.... to stand back and watch so many fall into a trap that will set us all so far back.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mimosa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 05:43 PM
Response to Reply #108
144. ^ ROTFLMAO ^
Mindboggling.

And the straight 'gatekeeper' who is a D.U's authority figure has to weild the scepter and annoints that person.


Mindboggling.:lol
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VMI Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 03:48 PM
Response to Reply #84
107. Have to join in with the "not astonishing at all" crowd.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-26-10 03:51 PM
Response to Reply #107
200. +
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Starry Messenger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 04:47 PM
Response to Reply #84
119. I can only imagine what these people are like in real life.
I'd slap anyone who talked to me in person the way people get away with talking to GBLT people here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TexasObserver Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 05:45 PM
Response to Reply #84
145. The way some openly abuse gays here is appalling.
Edited on Tue Aug-24-10 05:48 PM by TexasObserver
If only there was a rule against that.

The president must be judged on his record. He's disappointed gays repeatedly. Would he have won in 2008 without gay votes? Probably not. Gays are pissed, and they should be. All who value equal rights should be.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CreekDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 05:05 PM
Response to Original message
123. I love how it's The New Republic that's criticizing him from the left of a Civil Rights issue
I hope that rankles, because it should! :D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CreekDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 05:17 PM
Response to Original message
132. Wow, judging from this thread, you're gonna pay if you criticize Obama's position on gay marriage
you'll get misrepresented.

you'll get yelled at.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Touchdown Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 06:29 PM
Response to Reply #132
160. Yeah, but you'll get yelled at by straight drama queens...
and Interstate rest stop gay activists.

That's always a bonus!:bounce:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
QC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 06:42 PM
Response to Reply #160
163. Rest stop??? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Touchdown Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 07:00 PM
Response to Reply #163
168. Well, she didn't deny it!
O8)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mdmc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 06:11 PM
Response to Original message
153. we know..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Unvanguard Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 10:47 PM
Response to Original message
172. There is one important difference.
Woman's suffrage was a federal issue: there was a constitutional amendment at issue. There is none at issue here (well, except the FMA, which Obama explicitly opposes.) Same-sex marriage is a state issue. (It's not a question of whether or not it should be, it just is, at least unless the Supreme Court decides to overturn all state same-sex marriage bans anytime soon.)

There is another difference also, less relevant to the woman's suffrage point specifically: Wilson's record on race was not "evasive." He was simply racist, deeply committed to white supremacy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Prism Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 10:49 PM
Response to Reply #172
173. The 14th Amendment is a federal issue
Immigration and social security are federal issues. Taxes are a federal issue.

The denial of marriage affects scores of things that can only be granted or mandated by the federal government.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Unvanguard Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 11:00 PM
Response to Reply #173
175. Congress can't enforce the Fourteenth Amendment beyond how the courts have interpreted it.
And there is no push in Congress to legislate same-sex marriage nationwide, anyway. All the support in the world from Obama would not make that pass.

DOMA, on the other hand--which is controlling law on the issues you mention--absolutely is an issue for Congress and the President, but Obama publicly opposes DOMA, so that has little to do with his unwillingness to publicly support same-sex marriage itself. People complain about his unwillingness to be a "fierce advocate" of repeal, which is perhaps fair (though I don't see a repeal passing Congress either, and the legal briefs the DOJ filed in defense of the law ended up being pretty half-hearted), but, as far as federal law goes, Obama is on the record as supporting full equality insofar as Congress is capable of providing it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Prism Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 11:06 PM
Response to Reply #175
176. What is support, though?
If you say you support something, but make no move to effect it, make no defense when it is under assault, or even set up roadblocks to slow its progress, can it really be said you are supportive?

The President may say he opposes DOMA, but his DOJ has been completely out of control about it in the courts. Congress won't touch DOMA? That's expected, and that doesn't surprise me nearly as much as the DOJ's constant, insulting fumbling, the fact ENDA is - where? - that DADT has been compromised beyond all reason or expectation from a Democratic President.

There are times when gay marriage is put on a ballot. Where is the President's influence when that happens? Where is the bully pulpit? Dual-mouthed triangulations aren't support. Trying to have it every which way is not bolstering equality.

What happens when Congress says "We want to repeal DADT" and the President scolds, obstructs, and delays them?

Is that support?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Unvanguard Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 11:25 PM
Response to Reply #176
177. My post was about same-sex marriage specifically.
Edited on Tue Aug-24-10 11:31 PM by Unvanguard
It was not a defense of every last thing Obama has done or not done on LGBT rights issues, but rather a comment on an aspect the article to me seemed to miss.

That said, I don't think your portrayal is particularly fair. For one--with the possible exception of the very first DOJ brief (and even that one stayed away from the usual justifications for anti-gay laws)--it is simply false to say that the DOJ has been "completely out of control about it in the courts." As Judge Tauro noted when he struck DOMA down, the government declined to defend DOMA on the grounds on which it was actually passed. The defense they actually mounted, that DOMA amounted to an incremental "wait-and-see" approach by Congress, notably avoided making any claims about alleged social harms of same-sex marriage, any inherent specialness of opposite-sex marriage, or anything else that would actually amount to a substantive defense of the law. You could argue that they shouldn't have defended it at all, and there is something to be said for that, but it does not indicate very much about the policy views of the Obama Administration on the question.

For another... the President very nearly dropped the ball on DADT, he accomplished the very important step of bringing the military leadership on board, but then sat out for several months while Congress tried to figure out what to do. He deserves to be criticized for this. But what many people miss when they talk about this are the political constraints on which he was operating. "Congress" is not Patrick Murphy and Carl Levin. The reason for the review, the reason for accommodating the military's absurd homophobia rather than overruling it, is and was the simple fact that several conservative Democratic senators would not have supported repeal without a nod from the military. Some, like Robert Byrd, held out for even more compromises before they would agree to it. This--unlike Obama's failure, until the last minute, to support Congressional action before rather than after the review's completion--is not the President's fault.

ENDA... well, the failure to pass ENDA is a disgrace upon the Democratic Congress, and insofar as President Obama could have made a difference by pushing harder (i.e. much of at all) for it, it is a disgrace upon his presidency as well. It's not clear that they have the votes... but it's not clear that they don't either, or that they could not get them. It is shameful.

Edit: As far as same-sex marriage ballot measures, I agree that we should have gotten something more than silence (or vague, quiet statements) from the White House. I think they have read the public wrong on same-sex marriage: while it is still opposed (and probably more opposed than some recent polls suggest), not enough of those opposed care deeply for it to make that much of a political difference.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Prism Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-25-10 06:16 AM
Response to Reply #177
188. Limiting it to DOMA and gay marriage only then
Here's what really drove a lot of people crazy with the President's stated opposition to marriage. Prop 8 proponents in California used the President's quotes during their campaign. They used his words and voice to make robo-calls and create an impression that the President wanted Prop 8 to pass.

http://www.camajorityreport.com/index.php?module=articles&func=display&aid=3837&ptid=9

Now, with his usual doublespeak, the President said he did not want Prop 8 to pass, but his insistence in opposing marriage allowed our opponents to enlist his voice and influence in their campaign of hatred. Given how close the vote on Prop 8 was, his anti-marriage attitude cannot be dismissed as no big deal.

The President's triangulation allows that to happen. It allows our opponents to seek succor and obfuscate to the point that it is plausible for them to claim the President is in sympathy with their views.

As far as the DOJ, they do not have to defend DOMA. No, they don't. The DoJ and White House have discretion. There is precedent for a President to declare he believes a law is blatantly unconstitutional and decline to defend it in court. Now, President Obama won't take this tack. He won't say he finds DOMA unconstitutional. He's not one to stick his neck out on LGBT issues, so his DOJ defends it. Furthermore, his DOJ is placed in a position of explaining why DOMA is such a reasonable, defensible law.

If the President was fierce advocating on these issues, he would not be put in these positions, this wouldn't be happening. It shouldn't be happening. They are the fruits of his cowardice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Unvanguard Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-25-10 02:16 PM
Response to Reply #188
193. As I said, we should have gotten more from him on same-sex marriage ballot measures.
Edited on Wed Aug-25-10 02:25 PM by Unvanguard
He was obviously going to win the presidency at that point; he could have easily afforded to speak more strongly against Prop. 8, even on a pessimistic assessment of the political backlash. But even Prop. 8 is not a federal issue, so it is not comparable to Wilson's position: whatever marginal influence Obama may have had on the outcome (unclear--campaigns use ads that don't work all the time, and the "No" side used his statements too) is massively less than the influence he has over the Congressional agenda.

You seem to be ascribing to me a position on DOMA that I did not actually take. I didn't say the DOJ is obliged to defend every single law on the books in every case there is. I actually said that it was perfectly fair to argue that he shouldn't have defended it at all. What I did say is that not too much should be made of it: the defense they mounted was the weak defense of an administration clearly not committed to DOMA's substantive point, not one actually dedicated to preserving DOMA but lying to LGBT voters about it. I will add here that whether or not the DOJ should defend DOMA is simply not as clear-cut as people seem to think; while there is some limited, narrow discretion in whether or not to defend laws, there is much more discretion about how to defend them, and that is discretion the White House actually used. The rule is not, "If the DOJ thinks the law is unconstitutional, the DOJ should not defend it"; the rule is, "Unless the DOJ can see no reasonable grounds to defend it, the DOJ should defend it." The grounds they ended up offering were silly, and, again, there is something to be said for a strong and principled stand of refusing to defend it at all, but it's important to separate this arguable legal question from the broader question of the Obama Administration's position on DOMA.

You're correct that these would not be issues if Obama were a fierce advocate. He is no fierce advocate. But he is not the enemy either, nor even the most important focus of attention. The most powerful limiting factor on federal LGBT rights movement since Obama took office is the Senate; particularly, its filibuster provision, combined with conservative Democratic senators whose lack of social liberalism makes up for the support of Collins and Snowe. Activists were smartest--and most successful--when they focused their efforts on lobbying the handful of those undecided senators whose vote would make a difference; that's what worked ultimately in the DADT case. Part of the reason ENDA is so disappointing is that the opportunity to make that attempt was never there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JonLP24 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-26-10 03:55 AM
Response to Reply #177
197. The Government wouldn't dare
Edited on Thu Aug-26-10 03:56 AM by JonLP24
The reasons were.

1)Encouraging responsible pro-creation and child-bearing
2)Defending and nurturing traditional heterosexual marriage
3)Defending traditional nations of morality
4)Preserving scarce resources

Then the judge acknowledges the government distanced itself from these arguments but also said their asserted reasons does not render them irrelevant to equal protection analysis. It also said the court can readily dispose of the notion that denying federal recognition to same sex marriages might encourage procreation, because the government concedes that this objective bears no rational relationship to DOMA.

Their argument was different as a you stated but didn't use homophobic arguments like they've have in past court cases, specifically defending DADT in the past. You can read the decision here which opens with the government's assertions after the background. http://metroweekly.com/poliglot/2010/07/08/2010-07-08-gill-district-court-decision.pdf

I don't have a problem at all with the government defending its federal laws, no matter how disgusting the law is. Plus they are required too. You want that as well. Imagine a FMLA case in court under a Bush-like administration. You'd want his justice department to defend that law as much as possible. I only grip if this administration is using homophobic arguments such as gays affecting the straight troops or whatever.

On edit-Along with what I was saying, the Obama administration does not have to appeal the ruling I'm referring to. I'm hoping he doesn't appeal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Unvanguard Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-26-10 10:53 AM
Response to Reply #197
199. To be clear, we are in agreement about this
except maybe that I am open to the suggestion that DOMA is so gratuitously irrational that the DOJ should just throw up its hands and refuse.

I agree with you about the importance of the duty of the executive to defend federal law, but it's really really hard to look at DOMA and not see it as Congress mindlessly stampeding to pander to bigots, even if you totally ignore the political context and just look at the law's content. They can't even make the standard arguments about how "redefining" marriage distances it from its procreative role, because it's not about how the institution of marriage is defined (which is under state control), but just about whether people in those marriages will be acknowledged as married by the federal government or not.

As for appealing the ruling, while initially I was hoping they wouldn't appeal it, I increasingly think they should; I am optimistic about its prospects in the federal appellate courts, and an appeal would broaden its extent if equality wins.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
McCamy Taylor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-25-10 03:04 AM
Response to Original message
183. Obama said he was against gay marriage during the primary. So, what has changed?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LAGC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-25-10 03:11 AM
Response to Reply #183
185. Problem is, he came out in support of gay marriage in 1996 when he was running for Illinois Senate..
So its understandable that there is a sense of outrage at his cowardice now that he's on the national stage and his polls tell him more people will vote for him if he comes out against it now. Just more of that triangulation that he seems to be good at these days.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
McCamy Taylor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-25-10 03:06 AM
Response to Original message
184. Am I the only person who was paying attention to what he said in the primary?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Touchdown Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-25-10 03:48 AM
Response to Reply #184
187. Not at all.
But there are some people who think that what he said during the primary is just fine for the rest of us, and that's that, so shut up and do something gay, like fix my mother's hair.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren DeMontague Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-25-10 03:16 AM
Response to Original message
186. He's wrong.
I'm a Democrat, I support the President, I will support the Party in November. But on this, he's wrong. Simply, purely, utterly wrong.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
terrya Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-25-10 06:29 AM
Response to Original message
189. It is a goddamned disgrace.
And so is Hillary Clinton's. And so is Joe Biden's. And so is any Democrat, any Republican who opposes marriage equality. There is zero excuse for opposing our LEGAL right to marriage. They obviously weren't listening, but Theodore Olson has expressed, quite well and eloquently, the basic idea that gay and lesbian couples should be entitled to marriage.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zhade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-26-10 04:35 PM
Response to Original message
202. It's bigotry, plain and simple.
Ironic, eh?

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 Wed Apr 24th 2024, 05:41 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) 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