Barack Obama on LGBT RIGHTS

[jenmito]

"Support Full Civil Unions and Federal Rights for LGBT Couples"

Barack Obama supports full civil unions that give same-sex couples equal legal rights and privileges as
married couples, including the right to assist their loved ones in times of emergency as well as equal
health insurance, employment benefits, and property and adoption rights. Obama also believes we need
to fully repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and enact legislation that would ensure that the 1,100+ federal legal rights and benefits currently provided on the basis of marital status are extended to same-sex couples in civil unions and other legally-recognized unions."

http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/lgbt.pdf

Until he states that he's AGAINST these positions, I will allow him to take office before calling him a "betrayer of gay rights" or claiming he doesn't care about the LGBT community anymore after he got their votes.

[Thrill]

1. I wonder when someone will propose this legislation? And who do you think it will be?

[Fearless]

239. Orrin Hatch? Next week?

[rug]

2. No more unreasonable than this.

"So far, then, as a conflict with the fourteenth amendment is concerned, the case reduces itself to the question whether the statute of Louisiana is a reasonable regulation, and with respect to this there must necessarily be a large discretion on the part of the legislature. In determining the question of reasonableness, it is at liberty to act with reference to the established usages, customs, and traditions of the people, and with a view to the promotion of their comfort, and the preservation of the public peace and good order. Gauged by this standard, we cannot say that a law which authorizes or even requires the separation of the two races in public conveyances <163 U.S. 537, 551> is unreasonable, or more obnoxious to the fourteenth amendment than the acts of congress requiring separate schools for colored children in the District of Columbia, the constitutionality of which does not seem to have been questioned, or the corresponding acts of state legislatures."

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=163&invol=537&friend=public

[sandspur]

273. Well, if limited to gays, sure, but if us hetros decide to go the civil union rout

It actually might work against the religious. It might be attractive for atheists, agnostics , couples of possibly for mixed religions. Wouldn't that be a kick in the pants, by "defending" marriage, have the institution of marriage actually weakened. You know, something I have not hared is what do you call the partners in a civil union, I see no reason that the terms husband or wife would have to be exclusively for marriage if there was a equal alternative. That would be the icing on the cake, to let the religious fight for the word marriage, then lose the words husband and wife In fact, that might make it very attractive to heterosexual couples that want to avoid the religious aspect of marriage. Just some thoughts on the subject and t.

[NYC_SKP]

3. Thank you, "betrayer of gay rights".

I saw that bullshit and called them on it, then later the thread was locked.

I told them to listen more carefully to the candidate next time.

Apparently, that translates into STFU. :eyes:

[jenmito]

10. Yeah...

I saw that, too. That thread (among comments on others) is why I started this thread.

[Political Tiger]

4. As a gay man

Obama has my full support. I believe he is going to have a positive impact on my life not just as a gay American but as an American. I also believe these changes are going to take time and I am willing to have patience because after 8 years of Bush tyranny there are no easy fixes.

[jenmito]

15. Thank you...

for your input! If he ever goes against his stated positions, I will go against him. :hi:

[Veruca Salt]

83. I fully support this sentiment!

Except I'm a gay woman. :hi:

Obama has a lot of work cut out for him considering the current mess the country is in, and it will take time. With his leadership I think we'll be alright.

[BoneDaddy]

183. Wow Thank you

someone who understands the way the world is. Thank you.

[Fearless]

240. Agreed on all counts.

[Bjorn Against]

5. Obama still opposes equal rights however.

Civil Unions are not the same as marriage, and as long as he continues to oppose equal rights on the marriage issue then he deserves all the criticism that is headed his way. There can be no compromise on equal rights.

[Political Tiger]

6. No he doesn't

"Barack Obama supports full civil unions that give same-sex couples equal legal rights and privileges as
married couples."

I don't think gay people have been fighting all these years just for a word, but for rights associated with that word. If we get the same rights, even though it's called "unions" instead of "marriage," then the difference is negligible IMO, Furthermore, if we get "civil unions" with full equal rights, it won't be too long before people are willing to call "unions" "marriage."

But in the end, it's the rights, not the word, that matters.

[Bjorn Against]

11. They always tell us that seperate but equal is equality, history has proven otherwise.

There is no reason that a separate institution needs to be created for gays, and under current law civil unions are not treated equally. Obama can say that under his vision they would be treated equally, but if that is the case why is there such a hesitancy to give them the exact same legal definition? Why do we need to have two separate terms if they are exactly the same thing? Language is important, and when you use different language there are implications for all the bills in which married couples are granted certain rights but civil unions are not mentioned. Simply by labeling them differently you are opening these laws to more interpretation which makes it easier for the courts to strike down gay rights.

I don't want separate but equal, I want equality for all.

[phleshdef]

17. Americans are still too bigoted to be ready for using the same terminology. Its sad but true...

So you might as well accept that we aren't going to get it all "OUR WAY" right now. Its just not going to happen. Obama would be committing political suicide if he pushed for gay marriage as a federal right. Many would not cooperate with him and the legislation probably wouldn't even get passed. There simply isn't enough support among average citizens or people in the house.

I don't know why you would stand in the way of letting Obama work around the current societal roadblocks to speed up the time it will take for LGBT people to catch a break because you want it to be called marriage and you want it right now. Thats stubborn, counter productive and is not helping the cause at all.

We are fortunate to have a president that wants to make any progress on this at all.

[Bjorn Against]

27. People were too bigoted to accept interracial marriage at one time as well.

I am sure glad that people stood up and demanded that interracial marriages start being recognized however.

[phleshdef]

50. And like it will with gay marriage, it took many baby steps to achieve any form of racial justice...

...in this country. It took compromise. It took a lot of fighting. But most of all, it took a massive change in the way our society overall viewed minorities and former slaves. Its simply not realistic to believe that we can have federally recognized gay marriage right at this moment. We should be able to but we can't because there are too many people in opposition who are unwilling to change their minds. However, thats less than what it was 10 years ago and it will be much better 10 years from now. If Obama has to tip toe around it in order to make any progress for LGBT rights at all, then so be it. Its better to shoot for what is realistically obtainable given the parameters of our society than to try and force something perceived as radical by the opposition. That will cause them to fight harder against it and increase the chances of failure.

[Solon]

272. What the hell are you talking about, in 1967, the Supreme Court ruled that...

laws forbidding interracial marriages were unconstitutional because they violated the 14th Amendment. Where the hell was the compromise then? Oh, and just to let you know, Most Americans were against interracial marriages all the way up till 1990, only after that year did it finally become a minority opinion.

[Political Tiger]

24. It's a word!

...and a start. Look, the majority of the American people do not support "gay marriage" but many more are willing to support "civil unions." Obama can't do this on his own. He's only the president, not a dictator. He'll need support for any changes he wants to make from the American public and from Congress.

Look what happened when Bill Clinton tried to end discrimination in the military based on sexual orientation! How'd that turn out? Not very well because Clinton didn't have the support of the public and of Congress.

I personally am not so concerned with what word they use to call it if the rights and benefits are equal!

It's equal RIGHTS we are fighting for, not equal WORDS.

[Sub Atomic]

262. Why does it keep getting labeled "gay" marriage?

Hetero's hooking up isn't referred to as "straight" marriage.

Why the inclusion of the term "gay" at all? Because it's used as a wedge.

It's only a word.

[janx]

14. I'm with you, man.

The second time I got married, we just went to a justice of the peace and got it over with for legal reasons. If people want to have a religious ceremony above and beyond that, they can have at it, but when it comes to rights, all couples should have the same. It's really very simple: civil unions deal with law; marriages are the purview of religion.

[Bjorn Against]

20. If marriages are the purview of religion then why does the state grant marriage licenses?

Furthermore why is it that if someone goes to a church that does allow gay marriage the state refuses to issue them a license for that marriage?

Marriage has never been purely about religion, if it were then there would be no atheists getting married and we all know that there are plenty of atheists who are married.

Marriage is not and never has been purely about religion, the state has always been involved in issuing marriage licenses. You can get married in a church, but without a license that marriage is not legally recognized. The license is required, religion is not.

[janx]

25. That's why everyone, regardless of orientation, should

get civil unions. If they desire to have some kind of religious ceremony above and beyond that, fine.

[JohnnieGordon]

29. That's never going to happen, it's theoretical bullshit

Straights will never give up their legal status as married, in exchange for civil unions.

[janx]

40. They wouldn't have to.

They could have the religious church wedding, should they care to do so, the same as anyone. Sexual orientation should have nothing to do with it. I don't see this as theoretical bullshit. It sounds perfectly practical to me. The problem, as I see it now, is the overlap of church and state when it comes to the way marriage is defined.

Separate them. It is what this country was founded on, after all...?

And by the way, I'm het, and I was "married" by a justice of the peace. That was essentially a civil union. It worked for me at the time. :shrug:

[JohnnieGordon]

48. You're still legally defined as "married"

It wasn't essentially like a civil union at all, it was nothing like a civil union. And just because you'd be willing to give up the legal status as marriage, doesn't mean most straights would, not by a long shot. Just because it sounds like a nifty solution, doesn't make it practical.

[janx]

62. How wasn't it?

It was a ceremony performed by the state, at a county courthouse. It was a legal procedure. People should have the same right regardless of sexual orientation, period. The church aspect (some churches) gets in the way.

Separation of church and state!

You're mistaken about "most straights." That's a huge generalization.
Human beings, for the most part, want to be good people. Many of them have been trained to be "morally superior" via their religious indoctrinations. So Roman Catholics think that their version of Christianity is superior; religious Jews think that their religion is; Baptists (all kinds of Baptists and now fundamentalist Presbyterians, etc.) think that their brands are superior, etc.

They want to be good people, but they have been trained to feel that they are morally superior...which is not so good. ;-) For a few years, I taught a population of college undergraduates who were by and large rural and religious. I still run into one or two students like that from time to time. I respect them. Most of the time, I avoid the subject of sexual orientation and rights because 1.), that's not why I'm there; and 2.), I'd be labeled as the typical "librul" professor. One semester, however, I chose to have students write on the subject. Some of the first drafts included the expected "Adam and Eve vs. Adam and Steve" responses, but when I started asking real questions about gay marriage, I found that most of the fundamentalist Christian students DIDN'T MIND THE IDEA OF CIVIL UNIONS, but they didn't want LGBTs getting married in THEIR church.

Why? Because that way, these students could remain morally superior.

To these young fundamentalists, the religious factor was all important. Even after reading Andrew Sullivan's list of the civil rights involved, they still honed in on the church aspect.

[JohnnieGordon]

102. In Fantasy Land, there would be no uproar about straight marriages being redefined..

as civil unions. Unfortunately we live in the real world where the idea of straights being asked to give up being legally defined as "married" to accommodate gays (which IS how it'd be largely viewed) would be laughed off as unthinkable. And then social conservatives could even legitimately claim gays were trying to redefine their marriages, even if it's only about the word. And even if it's only the legal term for straight marriages, that would be changed to civil unions. I understand that they would still be able to say they're married, but the legal term for their marriages would be changed to civil unions. And according to you, the same people who want to make sure gays don't get to use the term marriage, aren't going to mind giving up the legal term "marriage" for themselves. That's just ridiculous.

I found that most of the fundamentalist Christian students DIDN'T MIND THE IDEA OF CIVIL UNIONS"

That's not even the issue, so I don't know why you're bringing it up. The issue isn't whether there's widespread support for civil unions for gays, but whether straight people would be willing to give up being legally defined as married. Remember this is a "civil unions for all" discussion here, you mentioned nothing about what your fundie students think about giving up the legal term "marriage" for themselves. I understand that they can still have a religious ceremony and call themselves married, but they're still not going to be willing to give up being legally defined as "married." The older fundies would be even less willing, and they vote as well.

but they didn't want LGBTs getting married in THEIR church."

Just for clarification, you do realize legalizing gay marriage would never force any individual church to marry gays? Churches can already refuse to marry anyone they want, including straight couples. So that's not an issue as it pertains to gay marriage.

"It was a legal procedure. People should have the same right regardless of sexual orientation, period. The church aspect (some churches) gets in the way.

Separation of church and state!"

There is already separation of church and state with marriages, marriage is already a legal procedure, and therefore marriage is both a legal and religious term. Theoretically it might be nice to go further and remove the word "marriage" as a legal term, but the American public would never go for that. It might seem unreasonable, but the American public is unreasonable about a lot of things. And it's what they would actually do, not what they should do, that's at issue here.

[janx]

254. I disagree.

There is no separation of church and state when it comes to marriage as long as the term marriage is a legal term that is affiliated with churches. Yes, it might be nice to remove the word marriage as a legal term, and I think that the American public WOULD go for that. I guess I'm not as cynical as you are (and yes, I'm pretty cynical). ;-)

So let the religious people undertake civil unions and then get their marriages in church. What's wrong with that?

[AntiFascist]

261. The California Supreme Court (and likely many others) disagree with you...

In deliberating the California Marriage Ruling, they concluded that there were only two options: extending true marriage rights to everyone, or eliminating them for all. They felt that the first option would be much more acceptable to the people than the second. Also, marriage as it is recognized by the state is only a civil contract to begin with, and churches are not required to be involved. No matter how much you may try to validate Obama's position on this, your post above is simply WRONG.

[Bjorn Against]

33. So are you supporting the repeal all laws that mention marriage?

If you are going to say we are only going to have civil unions from now on then I think you are going to have a lot of married couples very upset with you for redefining their marriage as a civil union. They know that civil unions are not recognized as the equivalent of marriage, and they would forcefully oppose the changes in law that you are advocating. What you are proposing would be far more controversial than simply giving people equal marriage rights under the law.

[janx]

42. Non sequitur. n/t

[Bjorn Against]

47. Well if you aren't going to repeal all the marriage laws and replace them with civil unions...

Then what you said earlier doesn't make much sense. Right now the legal term for heterosexual couples is marriage not civil unions, that isn't going to change easily. I know my response to you sounded ridiculous, but it only points out how ridiculous such a proposal really is.

[janx]

53. You didn't say all marriage laws.

You said all laws that mention marriage.

[Bjorn Against]

220. All laws that mention marriage would be effected, as marriage would no longer exist.

You are correct though, I probably should have used the word "ammend" rather than "repeal". Still that simple change in language is not quite so simple when you look at all the laws it would effect.

[janx]

253. People could still get "married," if they wanted to, above

and beyond a civil union. All of 'em.

[Political Tiger]

32. That's the point

If the word is the most important thing to you, then you can find a church that will "marry" you. There, you have your word!

But if it's the rights, and not the word, that you care about, then you may, at least for the time being, have to settle for it legally being recognized as a civil union.

Life is funny that way. Sometimes we don't always get everything we want.

[Bjorn Against]

34. Why shouldn't people get everything they want when all they want is equality?

[Political Tiger]

43. I'm talking about equality.

You are the one hung up on the word.

In Europe, for instance, many countries have "civil unions." They may not be perfect and they may not be called "marriage," but at least they are making progress. Here, in the US, we have nothing because some people want all or nothing. I'm not willing to settle for nothing, especially because people can't agree on which word to use!

[Bjorn Against]

214. That "one word" I am hung up on already exists in many laws.

The words "civil unions" do not usually exist in those same laws. That has serious legal ramifications as a judge could easily say that the law only requires them to provide benefits to married couples and not to civil unions. Language has a great deal of meaning, and this is especially true in matters of law.

[janx]

257. You are using circular logic.

What Obamavision and I are trying to get across is that the laws should be changed. When the law is changed, the language is changed. "Civil union" becomes law. "Marriage" becomes religion. This should have been done a long time ago.

There are a lot of people hurting because they don't have the rights that religiously "married" people do--to automatically give property or money to their loved ones, to visit them in a hospital during final days..it goes on and on. These things are more important than the labels of language.

[Baby Snooks]

221. The better way...

The European way is the better way. And the civil union is the legal union. Not the religious "marriage." And it has been that way for some time. Long before anyone considered the possibility that two men or two women might want to be joined in unholy civil union. Which is what the Catholic Church considers it. And woe be to those who have children and aren't married in the eyes of the Church. The word bastard is still very much a part of the Catholic Church in Europe.

But of course "civil union" is how quite a few European countries took care of the problem of "separation of church and state."

Conveying the protections and rights to civil unions here might have also addressed the problem of DOMA which is a problem.

Unfortunately it's a little late to start the "Million for Civil Unions" campaign. Maybe next time. After the Supreme Court tosses whatever state law is taken to the Supreme Court.

[Luminous Animal]

264. Perpetuating a myth...

Take France, for example. Marriage is secular and a couple must be civilly married in order for that union to be recognized by the state. Civil unions were codified in order to accommodate gay and lesbian unions. This was later modified to recognized same-sex unions. But make no mistake, the institutions are different. The rights and privileges granted are different between a French marriage and a French civil union.

[janx]

45. Thank you.

That WAS my point. ;-)

[complain jane]

251. But it's a word nonetheless.

I'm fine with civil unions, to be honest- and I'm a lesbian.

But let's cut the bullshit. It's not the same as 'marriage' for more reasons than I have time or patience to list here.

[Brentwood]

267. Civil Unions - Legal only in state where issued

I agree, civil unions are not the same as marriages. One of the things that bothers me about civil unions is they are only legal in the state where it was issued. Once you cross a border into another state, it is not recognized. I think that equal rights will happen eventually, but I am just wondering why it is taking so long. Bigotry, I guess. As our country grows more progressive and educated, things will change, IMO. I am straight and have dear friends who are gay and lesbian.

[merh]

7. I've posted it other places and I will repeat the thought for you here.

Obama is a lawyer who knows the constitution, he taught con law to law students. He is no stranger to what it provides, what it once allowed, how it is changed and what it means today.

When Obama was asked about a marriage amendment he said he was not in favor of the same because marriage is not defined in the constitution. He is correct and that is a huge distinction, a very important consideration.

The 13th and 14th amendments had to be passed because slavery was provided for and protected by our US Constitution. Slaves were legally less than the whites. That is what folks do not understand, as a constitutional lawyer he knows the constitution and the importance of abiding by it.

He may personally be against same sex marriage because of his religious views but as a lawyer and as the leader of this nation, he knows what the constitution provides and that is equality under the law for all.

And if folks have some suspicion about whether distinctions can be made please keep in mind that there are catholic and mormon and other religious men serving as judges that grant divorces. Their religions may not approve of divorce but they took an oath to follow the law and their state laws do afford citizens the right to get divorced.

Defense lawyers defend criminals knowing they are guilty. They don't defend them to get them off, they defend them to ensure that their rights are protected, so that everyone's rights are protected.

Good lawyers do not allow their personal feelings to get in the way of their jobs, of doing what is their duty under the law. Good leaders do not let their religious views interfere with their role as guardians of the constitution. I believe Obama is a good man and a educated lawyer that will be a very good leader.

[AntiFascist]

56. That would be fine if he chose to keep his religious views to himself...

unfortunately he chose not to.

[merh]

I don't think there should be any prayers at the inauguration and

my hat is off to the atheist who are actually doing more than complaining on the internets, they are actually doing something about their discontent. They have gone to court. Bravo for them for their active participation in the process. Warren disgusts me and I have done what I can do to let Obama know it. And a prayer at the inauguration impacts policy even less than all those gay appointments to non-cabinet posts do.

[phleshdef]

8. Wrong. He wants to repeal DOMA. That would pave the way for civil unions to provide the same rights.

Its a touchy thing because a lot of people are still against gay marriage. This country has more growing up to do. If they have to use a different term and spend some time undoing laws that stand in the way of true equal rights, then so be it. The fact of the matter is, you will actually accomplish the ultimate goal if you put up with compromises along the way. Its better than bitching and moaning and being all purist about it whilst getting absolutely nothing at all accomplished for LGBT rights. At the end of the day, you have nothing to show for all the high and mighty grandstanding.

[Bjorn Against]

16. Equal rights can not be compromised.

Once you compromise on equal rights those rights are no longer equal, and I am not about to pretend a "compromise" that puts a group of people at an unequal status is acceptable. A lot of people opposed interracial marriage as well, but I am glad the courts decided to grant full marriage rights to interracial couples because I would not like to see a world in which we only had interracial civil unions but not marriage.

[phleshdef]

19. Your stubborness to realize that you can't have everything you want today...

...is nothing but a road block to getting anything that you want tomorrow, or the day after that, or the day after that.

See my post #17. It sais anything else I would say here.

[Bjorn Against]

41. So you think people are stubborn for wanting equal rights? Well I am proud to be stubborn then.

[U4ikLefty]

72. Those petulant children...wanting equal rights!!!

Why can't they wait until I am ready to accept this?

[Still Sensible]

13. Given how Obama's stated position is worded,

I am not sure what rights you believe would not be equal. Not trying to be argumentative, just genuinely curious.

[Bjorn Against]

21. The problem is that when things are worded differently there are legal ramifications.

There are already thousands of laws on the books that deal with marriage, most of these laws don't mention civil unions. By labeling them differently it doesn't matter what Obama's stated position is, because that different terminology opens all these other laws up for legal interpretation and makes it easier for the courts to claim those rights do not apply to civil unions. If a marriage is a marriage then those laws are less open to interpretation.

[Still Sensible]

46. Thanks for the explanation

Now I get it. I suspect, however that the Civil Unions interim step may be politically necessary on the way to full marriage equality. I know that pragmatism is not what many in the GLBT community want to hear, but right now the courts are loaded with Bush appointees. Maybe the Civil Union supporters feel it is a quicker way to make legitimate significant progress en route to the complete victory.

[janx]

55. Vermont and Howard Dean certainly thought so,

almost ten years ago:

http://www.vermontcivilunion.com/

[jenmito]

22. He hasn't betrayed gay people nor change his position on anything...

and unless/until he DOES, the claims that he HAS are unfounded.

[Bjorn Against]

35. I never claimed he changed his position, he has always been wrong on this issue.

[jenmito]

44. Then my OP doesn't apply to you since I said:

"Until he states that he's AGAINST these positions, I will allow him to take office before calling him a "betrayer of gay rights" or claiming he doesn't care about the LGBT community anymore after he got their votes."

[Blarch]

258. It's the same fucking thing.

Knock it off already.

[Skittles]

9. LOL

you really are naive

[phleshdef]

12. Wow, such an astoundingly intelligent and thoughtful response...

You really should be quiet. Adults are talking.

[Ioo]

18. I do not have HOPE when it comes to my rights.

I think I will fair better than under Bush, but Obama will not spend a single ounce of political capitol on G&L Issues... he will not stop them, but he will not help them...

NOW, that said, I (unlike so many on this forum) know that Obama is no longer in the legislative branch, he is in the executive branch... and the executive branch DOES NOT MAKE LAWS. He can only ask... it is Pilosi and Reid that will stand in the way of the advancement of G&L Americans.

So in conclusion... Congress can suck me! Obama will do nothing to ask them to move my rights forward... and it will be the courts that give me rights... that, for the record is the cowards way out, to hope the NON ELECTED branch of government does the right thing.

[jenmito]

30. Wow...

what an ATTITUDE you have. You have no proof that Obama will do nothing to ask congress to move your rights forward or that nobody in congress will move to do anything about gay rights.

[sniffa]

23. Pretty words

[jenmito]

31. Better than UGLY words.

[sniffa]

37. And even betterer than EVIL words.

And even more betterer than HORRIBLE words.

[jenmito]

49. He has his positions stated on his site. Unless/until he acts contrary to his

stated positions, he should get the benefit of the doubt.

[sniffa]

51. I gave this OP a compliment

Pretty words indeed.

[jenmito]

57. Whether you realize it or not...

I recognize sarcasm when I see it.

[sniffa]

58. You people can't help looking a gift horse in the mouth

:eyes:

[jenmito]

84. "I see what you're doing there."

:eyes:

[AntiFascist]

61. The sarcasm is well-deserved...

as a constitutional expert, Obama should be made well aware of the constitutional principles behind the California Marriage Ruling. Your OP is a mockery of them. Pretty words do not make up for principles that should remain paramount.

[jenmito]

86. You mean Prop 8 which he was against? n/t

[AntiFascist]

88. NO, I mean the CA Marriage Ruling, which could very well get Prop 8 overturned...

the CA Supremes made it very clear that a separate designation, equivalent to marriage, could and often would be viewed as a second class or lower class designation. For them there were only 2 alternatives, extend marriage rights to all, or eliminate marriage rights for everyone.

[jenmito]

91. He wants to extend marriage rights to all. n/t

[AntiFascist]

94. with a separate designation called a civil union...

sorry, but you still don't seem to get it.

:banghead:

[jenmito]

96. He holds the same position now that he ALWAYS has...

and that's what my OP is about.

[AntiFascist]

103. Which now contradicts my state's supreme court decision...

that's what my point is about.


I will give Obama credit for stating that individual states should retain the right to decide marriage equality for themselves, and I will hold him to that. What I don't appreciate is him preaching from his pulpit about the "sacredness" of my own marriage. That is basically none of his business and it should be none of the Federal Government's business.

[jenmito]

105. Which is consistent with the views he has always expressed...

including the one you give him credit for. I will hold him to that as well.

[AntiFascist]

110. Ok fine, and if he can repeal DOMA that would be mighty fine as well...

and if he can stay the fuck out of California politics, all the better!

[jenmito]

112. Which he said he will do. And if he doesn't, I'll hold that against him. n/t

[AntiFascist]

155. Actually he wants to extend "civil union" rights to all...

Obama: the enemy of marriage...I can just imagine what the right-wing would do with this.

[jenmito]

160. His position is not a change from what it was before he got elected:

Barack Obama supports full civil unions that give same-sex couples equal legal rights and privileges as
married couples, including the right to assist their loved ones in times of emergency as well as equal
health insurance, employment benefits, and property and adoption rights. Obama also believes we need
to fully repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and enact legislation that would ensure that the 1,100+ federal legal rights and benefits currently provided on the basis of marital status are extended to same-sex couples in civil unions and other legally-recognized unions."

That's not "the enemy of marriage." It's a step in the right direction. Not far enough, but not "the enemy."

[AntiFascist]

167. I was speaking from the point of view of the right-wing...

once they catch on to the gist of the CA Marriage Ruling.

Actually ensuring that the 1,100+ federal legal rights and benefits to "other legally-recognized unions" is quite cool. Why wasn't this in your OP ?!

[jenmito]

170. If you read my OP again...

you'd see it IS in there.

[AntiFascist]

184. ok I see that now...

but as I've stated elsewhere in this thread, he has already betrayed gay and lesbian rights in California.

[janx]

64. If it's any consolation,

I got it, Sniffa. ;-)

[Critters2]

59. Inviting Warren IS acting contrary to his stated positions. nt

[jenmito]

90. No it's not. Inviting someone he disagrees with on some issues to give his invocation

is very much in line with his stated philosophy of bringing in people he disagrees with to find common ground.

[Critters2]

92. Inviting someone who actively opposes gay rights is NOT in keeping with

his position on gay rights.

[jenmito]

95. It has nothing to DO with his position on gay rights. It has to do with their

common ground on poverty, AIDS, and other issues.

[Critters2]

100. It has EVERYTHING to do with gay rights!

It is deeply trouble to say you'll overlook one's rabid hatred of gays (or blacks, Latinos, women, etc) because you like their position on something else. Progressives MUST NOT tolerate hate!

[jenmito]

104. No it doesn't. He chose Warren because of their common ground.

If you've been listening to him at ALL during the last two years, you'd know that's how he rolls, and if you voted for him even knowing his position of bringing people together who he doesn't agree with on every issue, you shouldn't be surprised about Warren being his choice for the invocation.

[Critters2]

114. I voted for him because no progressives survived the primary process.

There are a lot of people who fight AIDS and poverty and DON'T hate gays. Yet, he chose one who does. That speaks volumes.

[jenmito]

119. So then you voted for him with your eyes wide open.

Is Warren going to talk about his position on gay rights during the invocation? If he did and Obama allowed it, THAT would speak volumes.

[Critters2]

120. And what could Obama do?

"Umm...Rick, you need to stop now. If I'd known you were going to stand up and say what you really believe, I wouldn't have invited you"...? He can say whatever he wants that day. By havaing hom there, Obama is endorsing him. And his hate speech.

Someday, we'll have a progressive President.

[jenmito]

123. Get real...

if he DID get up there and start spouting off against gay rights, I seriously doubt Obama would stay silent after he did that. You don't think his invocation will be vetted before he gives it? And that Warren would DARE go off script? :eyes:

[Critters2]

138. I deal with guys like Warren all the time. An ego that big will do whatever

the hell he wants to do. That's the funny thing about knowing God is speaking through you.

[jenmito]

141. If he does, and Obama doesn't give a HUGE apology, I will no longer support him.

[Critters2]

144. He could give an apology now and have done with it. nt

[jenmito]

149. I don't think Obama would ever allow him to spout off that day in first place. Not gonna happen.

[Critters2]

150. Obama doesn't control Rick Warren. If that debate was any indicator,

quite the opposite is true.

[jenmito]

154. Then let's both bookmark this thread and one of us will say, "I told you so." n/t

[Critters2]

161. Why don't we just accept that Obama inviting a bigot to a public position

at his inauguration is offensive enough?

[jenmito]

162. Are you now backing off your opinion that he'll start spouting off againt gay rights during the

invocation? Because you said he would in about 4 posts already.

[Critters2]

164. There's nothing to keep him from doing it. That's my point. Will he? Won't he?

I don't know, and neither do you. What I do know is that Obama has sent him a clear message that bigotry is acceptable to the Obama administration.

[jenmito]

165. And MY point is that he WON'T because he KNOWS Obama disagrees with him on that issue and

he's not there because Obama thinks bigotry is acceptable. And since you said he WILL spout off against gay rights for about 4 posts now, saying he will because...(all the different reasons you gave)...I'd like you to come back and admit you were wrong when he doesn't.

[Critters2]

174. He's a bigot. He's a bigot no matter what he says that day,

and your defending Obama's choice of him doesn't make him any less of a bigot.

You'd like me come back and admit I'm wrong?! First of all, who the hell are you?! Secondly, I'D LIKE OBAMA TO ADMIT HE'S WRONG TO HONOR HIS FRIENDSHIP WITH THIS BIGOT!!!

[jenmito]

178. So you ARE backing of your continued claim that he's going to get on the stage and start spouting

off his bigoted views on gay people. Good. No need to come back then. AGAIN-he's there to speak about things he and Obama AGREE on. Period.

[Critters2]

181. Again, he'll talk about whatever the fuck he wants. His big ol' fucking ego

will want to continue to access he apparently has now to the White House, so he MIGHT make nice. But he won't agree to anything. He'll insist he has to speak "prophetically". Maybe you don't get that he hates gays because he thinks God does. So, he's not going to stop saying he hates gays.

[jenmito]

185. Again, no he won't. If you don't think Obama knows EXACTLY what he's gonna say

and what he's NOT gonna say then you are delusional. That's why if I'M wrong, I pledge to no longer support him. I'll even actively protest against him. But if YOU'RE wrong, the least you can do is apologize for your continued posts about how he will do it. He will NOT be talking about how he hates gay people at ALL that night. Bet on it.

[Critters2]

188. Obama has no control over what Warren says that day. None whatsoever.

The only power he has is Warren's fear of not being invited to the White House again. With Warren's huge ego, that's quite a bit of power for Obama. But, Warren's right wing constituency would love it if he publicly declared himself powerful by saying something Obama might not find politic. So, the issue is which temptation is stronger for ol' Rick--that of having ongoing access to the White House, or being a hero to the fundie set. No one but the fat man himself knows which pull is greater.

[jenmito]

192. I'm glad to see you backing off your original claim. He wasn't chosen to speak about gay rights

since they disagree strongly on that issue and he WON'T speak about gay rights. He was chosen DESPITE his stance on the issue they disagree on. Warren does NOT represent Obama on this issue and he won't speak on it in the invocation.

[Critters2]

197. They don't disagree strongly. They both oppose marriage equality.

Warren and Obama agree on that issue.

[jenmito]

202. They disagree strongly! Read the OP and tell me anything they agree on

besides the term "marriage." Yes, it's wrong of Obama not to give gay couples the word "marriage" which is a big deal, but that's where the similarities end.

[Critters2]

207. They agree that marriage is 1 man and 1 woman. What part of that do you not get?

They both oppose marriage equality.

[jenmito]

208. That's where their agreement ends. Warren believes homosexuality is a choice.

Obama doesn't. Warren disagrees with all of these positions:

"Support Full Civil Unions and Federal Rights for LGBT Couples"

Barack Obama supports full civil unions that give same-sex couples equal legal rights and privileges as
married couples, including the right to assist their loved ones in times of emergency as well as equal
health insurance, employment benefits, and property and adoption rights. Obama also believes we need
to fully repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and enact legislation that would ensure that the 1,100+ federal legal rights and benefits currently provided on the basis of marital status are extended to same-sex couples in civil unions and other legally-recognized unions."

[AntiFascist]

224. Obama seems to believe that homosexual unions are less sacred than heterosexual ones...

this may sound somewhat innocent on the surface, but it could also imply that an element of evil is a part of the homosexual relationship. This is a very precarious position for our leader to be taking, because it could ultimately be argued that homosexuals are in a position of being "saved" by the Christian community. As I've stated elsewhere, Obama needs to stay out of the religion business altogether and focus his efforts in other areas. Whatever common ground he may have with Warren is not something that should be pursued.

[jenmito]

230. "...but it could also imply that an element of evil is a part of the homosexual relationship."

That's where you're wrong judging by EVERYTHING Obama says. It's dangerous to infer things you THINK people are implying. Obama is not against letting states decide to have gay marriage. If he thought there was an element of evil in gay marriage, like WARREN clearly does, I doubt he'd be for letting the states allow it. I personally think he's NOT against gay marriage but he thinks the country isn't ready for that term yet, and he's being a political coward by not allowing it.

[Critters2]

248. He says he's against. So now you think he's lying? nt

[Political Tiger]

222. That's right.

The man is going to say a prayer and be done with it. He won't be giving a sermon or a policy speech.

He won't even be in "prime time."

He'll probably say something like 'God bless Obama and help him to protect the country, blah, blah, blah...' Then he'll go sit down or head back to his church or whatever, and be forgotten.

This is how it is going to go down:

The inauguration begins with a musical selection by the United States Marine Band and the San Francisco Boys Chorus and the San Francisco Girls Chorus.

Then Dianne Feinstein makes some remarks and calls the inauguration to order.

Then Rick Warren says his prayer.

Then Aretha Franklin sings.

Then Joe Biden is sworn in.

Then more music by John Williams, Itzhak Perlman, Yo-Yo Ma, Gabriela Montero and Anthony McGill.

Then Barack Obama is sworn in.

Then Barack Obama gives his speech.

Then Elizabeth Alexander reads a poem.

Then Joseph E. Lowery says a prayer.

Then the National Anthem is played.

The end.

The way some people are acting you would think the entire day is going to revolve around Rick Warren and nobody is going to pay any attention to anybody but Warren...not Aretha Franklin, not John Williams, not Joe Biden, not Barack Obama, not Rev Lowery....only Rick warren.

People are acting as if after Warren says his prayer suddenly the whole of America is going to turn its back on gay Americans and that people who support gay rights are suddenly going to turn into raging homophobic bigots.

Frankly, nobody gives a damn what Warren, Feinstein, Alexander or Lowery has to say. The star of the show is Barack Obama, and it's Barack Obama who people will be watching and listening to.

[jenmito]

225. Thanks, ObamaVision....

Great post. It's a shame that people keep projecting Warren's views onto Obama as if they're one in the same. And if anyone points out that they're NOT the same and don't hold the same views, you're automatically insensitive, uncaring, ignorant, bigoted, put on ignore, and on and on and on. It's good to have your input (which agrees with mine). :) Thanks again! :hi:

[Political Tiger]

233. Thanks to you, Jenmito!

I'm glad you see the big picture too! Some people are intent on believing the world comes to an end as soon as Warren steps up and says his little prayer. I'm willing to bet the world will still be revolving after he's done, and I'm also willing to bet it will be the words of Barack Obama, not Rick Warren, that people will remember on 1/21/09 and thereafter!
:fistbump:

[jenmito]

238. What I really hate...

is that we're all on the same side (at least the vast majority of us, from what I see) yet some people seem hell-bent on making it seem that we're not. I hate arguing with people that are supposed to be my liberal brothers and sisters. Just because I'm straight it seems I'm not allowed to have a say or an interest in the subject. I do. We're on the same side. Thanks for understanding what my argument is.
:fistbump:

[AntiFascist]

266. Uh, sorry but we're not all on the same side concerning civil unions as a complete substitute...

for marriage, and that's very much the sticking point for me. As I've stated, Obama has already 'betrayed' gay marriage in California by voicing his religious beliefs before the Prop 8 election. I would be arguing with you about this no matter what your sexual orientation, in fact I have also argued with self-identified gay and lesbian DUers about this as well. The Obama supporters seem hell-bent on making the GLBT community compromise in certain ways and I'm going to speak out against it, no matter what your sexual orientation.

[jenmito]

268. Uh, sorry, but as I've said many times (as did others), I AGREE with you and anyone

else who feels you should be able to be MARRIED with the word "marriage." What I'M arguing, when I'm arguing, is that Obama never changed his position on the subject. HE believes (and always SAID he believes) in civil unions having "all the rights as married couples" but HE believes "marriage is between a man and a woman."

[janx]

256. It's fucked up logic. n/t

[Bluebear]

232. Rick Warren is being given legitimacy. You are buying into this "two minute prayer" bullshit.

He has been on news show after news show "explaining" himself. He is being given a platform. He is being called a legitimate fighter of AIDS/HIV while his true actions cause death and destruction for gay people in Africa. You are being sold a bill of goods and perpetuating the situation.

[tbyg52]

246. You betcha. (Sorry! But as I explained a few days ago

I was saying that before I knew Sarah Palin existed.)

It's a symbol. Symbols have meaning and power.

I hope a lot of people do something meaningful and powerful when Warren is speaking. And I hope it gets reported.

I had no desire to go to the Inauguration per se (I'm not into crowds), but I wish I could do something to help speak against what Warren has said he stands for.

[ruggerson]

67. but not better than

dancing words

[sniffa]

73. That's cute

:rofl:

Thanks.

[mitchtv]

26. talk is cheap and

ACTIONS SPEAK LOUDER THAN WORDS. Donnie mc Clurkin , Ricky Warren, Timmy Kaine. I am paying attention and I don't believe a word the politician says until he actually does something. I will give him time' but he must earn my support. So far it's been patting oneself on the back for mentioning gays, which was fine in the primaries. His decisons regarding LGBT's have been hurtful and mean. So , I wait (wallet is slammed shut)

[jenmito]

38. Why don't you give him credit for any of the openly gay people he chose

to be in his administration? Tim Kaine was obviously chosen to expand the party, not to make any statement about HIS position on gay rights or anything ELSE.

[janx]

52. He hasn't made any decisions yet regarding LGBTs.

He hasn't even been inaugurated yet.

I understand your revulsion regarding the people you mention in your post, but marginalizing people like that isn't going to help. It'll only make the problem worse. It doesn't mean that you have to agree with them about everything. You can disagree vehemently, but a respectful exchange of ideas is important. Our popular and political culture has been missing that for a long time, and all it leads to is more ignorance and a stagnation of any meaningful political process. :shrug:

[Creideiki]

69. Actually, he has

He chose to give credence to the ex-gay movement with McClurkin.

He chose to never get around to getting the Illinois ENDA to a vote--someone else had to do that after Obama left for the US Senate.

He chose to make statements like LGBT couples deserving some basic subset of rights that he enjoys as a straight person.

He chose to stay publicly silent while LGBT got punished in CA, FL, AZ, and AR by their peers.

He chose to put off fighting for DADT repeal for 2 years, hurting LGBT service members.

And that's not the full list.

[janx]

74. Let's look at these individually.

1. Guilt by association.
2. He was gone.
3. Good, but not good enough?
4. What could he have done?
5. I admit ignorance re this one, but I'll look into it. From what I've read today, it appears he wants to repeal DADT.

Let's see what happens after he is inaugurated. He can't wave the magic wand and make all things better, but let's see what he does in concert with Congress, yeah?

[AntiFascist]

76. Correction, he did not stay silent while Prop 8 was going down...

his words were something to the effect that he supported marriage between a man and a woman, that heterosexual marriage was sacred, and that God is in the mix. His words were used in Yes on 8 ads and robocalls. He was very clever with the marketing of his messages, however, turning around and telling the liberals that he opposed Prop 8 right before the election.

[janx]

78. Sources? Please?

I'd like to know.

[AntiFascist]

81. From the Saddleback debate, here's the LA Times....

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-na-saddleback17-2008aug17,0,3145888.story

Though the candidates came down on opposite sides of the California initiative that would ban gay marriage, both stressed that they opposed same-sex marriage. Obama called marriage "a sacred union," drawing applause when he added, "God is in the mix."

[janx]

87. How did the candidates come down on opposite sides of the

California initiative that would ban gay marriage?

[AntiFascist]

108. because Obama is speaking out of both sides of his mouth...

on the one hand, he opposed Prop 8 on constitutional grounds. On the other hand, he opposes gay marriage on religious grounds. The Yes on 8 folks ran with his religous statement and used it to their great advantage.

[AtomicKitten]

28. Obama will advance the cause of LGBT issues. It also seems likely

that if people can get gay marriage on ballots in states and get off their asses and work for it, Obama will support the states' rights to individually decide this issue. It's not nirvana, it's not a federal guarantee, but it is most definitely doable. I base this belief on the fact that he came out against Prop 8 during the GE. Not with fireworks, but it was a public statement while he was running against the social sphincter police.

Thanks for posting this, Jen. Eating our own on this is counterproductive. Kvetching is for wussies. We have to learn to make the best of the opportunities we are afforded. And the LGBT community has many reasons to be hopeful even if some don't see it right now.

Cheers. :hi:

[phleshdef]

36. Exactly. Obama's stance sets the stage for realistically getting full rights in the long term....

And, to me, that is better than bitching about the unrealistic fantasy of making this happen in the short term. Americans are still not ready for it. Thats dissapointing and I wish it weren't the case, but sadly enough it is. We need to make progress with the society we have because its the only way we will get even close to having the society that we want.

[AtomicKitten]

60. I think disappointment has been so pervasive, judgment is made preemptively in self-defense.

Action will convince people that being hopeful isn't as lame as they think.

[janx]

65. Agreed. n/t

[AntiFascist]

145. No, no, no...

just because your state may be less evolved than California doesn't excuse Obama's behavior. Obama really needs to focus on economic issues, don't ya think?

[AtomicKitten]

156. My state IS California. SF, in fact, the epicenter of much of the activism. ;)

[AntiFascist]

182. So let's back up a minute...

the "unrealistic fantasy of making this happen in the short term"? I also live in California and I'm already gay married. How is this an "unrealistic fantasy"? Many, if not most, Californians are already for it.

[AtomicKitten]

186. I didn't make that statement.

That came from another poster upthread. I simply advised I'm in SF and not from Podunk, Egypt (actually the poster's bio says they are from Ohio :)) as you were chiding the person who actually did make that statement.

[AntiFascist]

193. ...

SORRY! (Podunk, Egypt :rofl:)

On edit: Podunk, Egypt was funny though.

[AtomicKitten]

194. *

I think it's one of those rectangular corn-fed states in the middle of the country.

:hi:

[AntiFascist]

191. No, no, no...

just because your state may be less evolved than California doesn't excuse Obama's behavior. Obama really needs to focus on economic issues, don't ya think?

(apologies to AtomicKitten)

[jenmito]

99. Exactly...

Thank YOU for getting it! I agree with everything you said. :hi:

[AtomicKitten]

173. You are a brave woman indeed. Kudos.

:hi:

[jenmito]

199. Thanks, AK...

People like you help me to keep going. :hi:

[AntiFascist]

129. For those who may not understand...

'kvetch' means "To complain persistently and whiningly".

To continue to argue rationally and for the purpose of advancing the discussion is a different matter altogether.

[AtomicKitten]

168. What do you call being so closed off you can't discern friend from foe?

[AntiFascist]

206. I am willing to make concessions...

please look upthread to post, err, #174.

Part of the battle is getting other GLBTIQ people to understand ALL of the issues. That's why I've been posting so vociferously on Prop 8, if you would care to look at my journal.

The simple fact is that Obama sold the GLBT community short when he spoke out on his RELIGIOUS views, at Rick Warren's church during the Saddleback debate, concerning marriage. This statement was then used by the Yes on 8 people to help Prop 8 succeed. Very few people seem to get that! Then he further rubs salt in the wound by honoring Rick Warren at his inauguration. This is like a signal to the Religious Right that: I'm really on your side.

[AtomicKitten]

210. You are right.

Those f*ckers did use that statement in that especially insidious of all political smooth moves - the robocall. I completely agree that that is precisely the message it sent.

I also think many sat on the once huge lead against Prop 8 in the polls while the Mormons were sneaking in the back door infusing cash into moving public opinion.

I find the "religion" thing weak mostly because the wingnuts pick and choose from the Bible and use it as a cudgel. IMO Obama is "including" Warren to shame him into not being such an aggressive dick on his neanderthal belief system. Obama has defused much of the mano y mano resistance toward Democrats so pervasive during the 1990s that resulted in the LGBT community losing ground (DADT, DOMA, etc.). Obama may end up sweet-talking their asses into emulating Christ a la the New Testament (love, acceptance) as opposed to the fire and brimstone ugly Old Testament.

I believe full civil rights for the LGBT community is the next frontier. Have faith that day will come, hopefully much, much sooner than later.

Cheers.

* edited for spelling

[AntiFascist]

219. Then again I have to address the same point as the poster from Ohio...

shouldn't Obama be focusing on economic and other issues instead of dealing with religious ones? I find this very discomforting and feel that he is treading on dangerous ground. LGBT issues will be lower priority and we all have to deal with that, but what else is it about the right-wing Southern Baptist community that Obama feels that he must deal with and reach out to them on? He needs to open up more and tell us about this, otherwise others may begin to wonder about his messianic agenda.

[AtomicKitten]

223. I would highly recommend reading Obama's books for some insight into this.

It's worth your time if you are so inclined. It reveals a Constitutional scholar with a heart for social justice. The religion thing is quicksand to be sure, but something not widely known is that Obama has gone into black churches and spoken out against homophobia on numerous occasions.

"If we are honest with ourselves, we'll acknowledge that our own community has not always been true to King's vision of a beloved community."

"We have scorned our gay brothers and sisters instead of embracing them."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/deadlineusa/2008/jan/24/obamatakesontheblackcommu

He intends to move a nation, and I honestly believe at a gut level that the LGBT community has reason to be hopeful. I hope you are open to it.

Have a great weekend. Peace out.

* edited by popular demand :D

[AntiFascist]

226. "Obama has gone into black churches and preached"...

I don't care if he has preached on my behalf (in this instance) or not, I DON'T WANT A PREACHER FOR A PRESIDENT!

PEACE OUT!

[AtomicKitten]

227. Your hostility ---> religion is a stumbling block to getting that majority for the change you seek.

It's how democracy works. Especially in those red states that aren't nearly as progressive as blue states. That's how change is going to come.

Just a thought.

Oh, I edited the offending word in my prior post just for you. :D

[AntiFascist]

235. Well, thank you for that....

:)

Another thought, it is possible for all us to reach out and establish common ground with much of the religious and right-wing communities where it comes to other economic and social issues in general (health care, social security, medicare,...just to name a few) Just a thought.

[AntiFascist]

133. It is "most likely doable" only in blue states....

other states will likely have to wait for some sort of Federal decision. That may depend on future Federal Supreme Court appointees.

[AtomicKitten]

158. As my backpacking friend used to tell me when I was exhausted, one foot in front of the other ;)

[The Doctor.]

39. "Would a rose by any other name...."

How funny it is that no one has realized what Obama is doing here.

[jenmito]

101. Has he misrepresented himself? Or has he been consistent in his position?

You know he has been consistent.

[The Doctor.]

124. Yes, and...?

The S/L speaks for itself.

Depending on how you interpret the quote... which I'm sure needs no attribution here.

[jenmito]

132. I'm glad you agree with my OP.

My comment at the end of it explains why I posted it.

[The Doctor.]

176. Then apparently we interpret Shakespeare similarly.

[AntiFascist]

54. Unfortunately this betrays the CA Supreme Court (promoting separate but equal)....

and his words on marriage helped shoot down gay marriage. Quite a pony to sacrifice if you ask me.

[LaydeeBug]

63. actions speak louder than words. Those are words. Inviting Rick Warren is an ACTION. nt

[Political Tiger]

66. Rick Warren! Rick Warren! Rick Warren!

Every time I see someone bitching about Rick Warren I am reminded of Jan on the Brady Bunch bellyaching about Marcia...Marcia! Marcia! Marcia!

[janx]

68. Oh,

:rofl:

[AntiFascist]

70. eek! ok, time for some SwampRat, where is he? n/t

[janx]

71. We need him NOW!

:rofl:

[Boomerang Diddle]

75. Maybe we need some words of wisdom from Mike Brady! lol

n/t

[EFerrari]

85. Or maybe we need to explain it to ObamaVision in Brady episodes. n/t

[LaydeeBug]

196. and everytime I see people marginalizing gay rights, I see a cross burning on a front yard

assholery is assholery all around.

[mitchtv]

228. tough shit

and don't forget the protest when he speaks( RICK WARREN that is )at the Ebenezer Baptist church in ATL

[Political Tiger]

234. Sorry to disappoint

but my life does not revolve around Rick Warren.

He only has power over your life if you let him have that power, and I refuse to let him have one iota of power over my life.

[mitchtv]

236. the voice of privilege

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=221x113220

[Bluebear]

77. Jenmito - I didn't know you were a lesbian!

>I will allow him to take office before calling him a "betrayer of gay rights"<

[janx]

79. ???? n/t

[Bluebear]

80. "I will allow him to take office before calling him a betrayer"

That sounded very personal, surely she must have a stake in this? Maybe I'm confused.

[janx]

89. We all have a stake in this. n/t

[Bluebear]

93. Yes, but I wouldn't give the benefit of the doubt for a group I wasn't part of.

The way it was written, I just assumed she was GLBT.

[janx]

98. Bluebear, that's fucked up logic.

You wouldn't give the benefit of a doubt for a group you weren't part of? Or you assume s/he wouldn't?

C'mon...You can't be that ignorant.

[EFerrari]

115. Do you feel entitled to give up other people's rights or aspirations?

I think that's what Bluebear is getting at.

[janx]

159. I'm not entitled to do anything.

But the logic is fucked up.

[EFerrari]

163. The logic is respectful of the interested parties making their own decisions. n/t

[Bluebear]

203. Indeed. Example: I wouldn't say "I am happy with how Hurricane Katrina was handled"

...living in the safety of my New Hampshire abode. :)

[janx]

255. But could you say that you are unhappy with how Hurricane Katrina

as handled...living in the safety of your New Hampshire abode?

My point is that you don't have to put people into groups, and you don't have to belong to a group of people to respect them and care about them.

[Bluebear]

201. Thanks for your input.

[jenmito]

106. I'm not. That doesn't mean I can't make the statement you quoted.

:eyes:

[Bluebear]

205. Roll your eyes all you want, that's the impression I was left with.

[jenmito]

211. I don't CARE if you think I'm a lesbian. I have the right to make the statement I made whether

I'm gay or straight. I happen to be straight.

[Bluebear]

212. You don't CARE about a lot of things. Why are you being so nasty?

[jenmito]

215. What did I say that's nasty? I care so much that you apparently thought I was a lesbian.

You're the one being so nasty with the exchange you had with the poster above.

[Bluebear]

216. They said MY logic was "fucked up". THAT is nasty. Adieu.

[jenmito]

218. That was after you tried their patience. Again-how am I being nasty? "Adieu"?

I guess you know you lost this argument. :hi:

[Bluebear]

229. LOL - I tried their patience so that gives them a right to be an asshole.

Jenmito's world.

[jenmito]

231. Still no example of how I was being nasty. I have no responsibility for your

conversations with others.

[janx]

252. No, it's not nasty. I am disagreeing with your logic.

That's all.

[EFerrari]

82. That doesn't say much for Barack Obama or for you. n/t

[jenmito]

111. You always knew Obama's position on the subject, didn't you? As did I. And even though I

disagree with him on it, thinking he SHOULD be for MARRIAGE for gay couples, I'm not SUPRISED by it since that's ALWAYS been his position.

[EFerrari]

113. What does "surprise" have to do with your OP which implicitly

priases his positions?

[jenmito]

122. My OP states Obama's long-held positions. People on other threads

called him a "betrayer of gay rights" and said he doesn't care about the LGBT community anymore after he got their votes as if he CHANGED his positions.

[EFerrari]

169. Now I get it. Well, Obama is behind the curve in the first place.

His positions are nothing to write home about If he only follows through, he will still be supporting discrimination. Most people knew that already.

[jenmito]

172. As were ALL the major Dem. candidates.

At least you get it now, though.

[EFerrari]

175. Edit: I now understand what you meant. Obama's positions are no surprise.

Just because both Clinton and Obama hold a position doesn't make that position right. It just means the bar is low.

[jenmito]

179. I agree. But again, that wasn't the point of my OP. n/t

[IndianaJones]

97. as a biracial individual, I'm so glad people like you didn't make the decisions in the 60's. nt.

[jenmito]

107. What a ridiculous comment. My entire family is biracial.

[IndianaJones]

125. many of those that have rights take them for granted...like you.

when separate but equal is an acceptable stance, something went wrong.

[jenmito]

134. Who said it's an acceptable stance? Comprehension is imperative. I simply

stated his long-held positions for those claiming he CHANGED them.

[Neshanic]

109. I can still be fired for being gay. No explaination required. But if Obama tied that tidbit

to be repealed/stopped by states slobbering over highway mega bucks to come, then we would be in a completely different world.

But one can dream of change, right?

[jenmito]

116. It's in his platform to stop that:

"Fight Workplace Discrimination and Promote Rights
Obama believes the Employment Non-Discrimination Act should be expanded to include sexual orientation
and gender identity. Obama sponsored legislation in the Illinois State Senate that would ban employment
discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation."

[Neshanic]

117. Then attach it to the highways funds that the feds use like a hammer.

[jenmito]

126. I'll get right on that.

[Neshanic]

118. Dupe

[Creideiki]

135. Once again--the Illinois ENDA

Obama "sponsored" it, but it didn't come up for a vote or pass until after Obama left the Senate.

The reality is there was a lot of legislation that the Majority Leader took from the previous sponsors and handed to Obama to sign as "sponsor".

[zulchzulu]

121. I fully expect domestic partnerships/civil unions to be recognized and legal in 8 years

Whether we get over the hurdle of gay and/or same sex marriage is another thing.

Instead of complaining about how Obama may not be fully for GLBT rights in all forms, let's work together to make domestic partnerships/civil unions available and legal first. Waiting for homophobes and some generational elements to die off is not how it should be done. Let's get organized or join those who are already organized and get the first phases of full equal rights done.

[jenmito]

127. So do I...

and I'll do all I can to help hold him to his platform.

[Balderdash]

195. No! Stop defining how I'll get equal rights and when

8 years is to long to wait for separate but equal let alone
full equal rights. You're not offering anything that I want.

[zulchzulu]

244. Well gee whiz...

So instead of at least getting civil unions and domestic partnerships as an interim to full equal rights, let's just not get anything done. I get it. All or not a goddamn thing.

Meanwhile, many couples who could at least have the benefits of civil unions and domestic partnerships have to wait until about 10 million people who will always mobilize against gay marriage or die off. Great solution!

:puke:

[Balderdash]

259. Why do you want to limit us?

You "seem" to be all about standing with us but you are always, every time
I read you on this subject are advocating limiting us. What the fuck is up
with that? We're supposed to be all excited that in maybe 8 or 10 years
we might get separate but equal!?

[Creideiki]

260. I sort of agree

I won't be waiting on people to die off to get things done.

I'm going to be counting on the defining characteristics of an Illinois politician. He's going to be more likely to sign things given him by Congress.

[sniffa]

128. I'm really sick and tired of the GLBT community not knowing how good they have it

It makes me fucking sick and even outraged they haven't come around to seeing it from outside perspectives.

What the fuck is wrong with them?

:puke:

[jenmito]

130. Is that what you got from my OP? Maybe you need a refresher course in

reading comprehension. Glad I could help. :hi:

[sniffa]

137. Again you people looking a gift horse in the mouth

[Critters2]

139. Yep, that's what it says.

I think your reading comprehension is just fine! :hi:

[AntiFascist]

140. Did I get a gift horse or did I lose my pony?

I'm so confused!

[Critters2]

142. You looked your gift pony in the mouth!

Ingrate. :eyes:

[AntiFascist]

148. I want a horse not a pony!

sorry, a little gay humor.

:rofl:

[Jamastiene]

242. I want a unicorn, or at least an equine who looks good with

a fake unicorn horn on its head. I hope the seams don't show. :o

[jenmito]

146. You, as an individual, are ignorant, misrepresenting my post. So are the other people chiming in.

[sniffa]

153. Fine, I'm taking the gift horse back

And just so you know it's teeth were in perfected order.

[Neshanic]

131. Ingrates! All of them.

[AntiFascist]

136. Are you kidding?

they should stick to the back of the bus and wait their turn!

[Vanje]

200. Uppity

Uppity homosexuals.
They want ponies.

They dont appreciate their "friends" working so SO VERY hard for their civil rights....
....
.......
...
.........
...
Except for that "marriage" thing ....Thats a No Go , Homos.

....and that being fired at will problem ....Patience!

The talk is thick and sweet.
Also the talk is cheap.

Those uppity Mos just dont see the goodness of that jowly bigot preacher who will usher in our President. He loves the sinner! Cant you see! He's helping cure AIDs......in heterosexuals in Africa, by teaching ABSTINENCE and Jesus, and getting a big huge tax exemption.

Gays have trouble recognizing our friends?
A lot of people here at DU are NOT our friends.

[Critters2]

204. Shhh....the people in the front of the bus are trying to sing "Kum Ba Yah". nt

[ZombieHorde]

143. K&R, but how long does he have to attemt to implament these ideas?

Four years?

[Creideiki]

147. How would it look if I said that

I support full civil unions and federal rights for Catholic couples provided their state will allow them to form a civil union or other legally-recognized union.

OR

I support full civil unions and federal rights for interracial couples provided their state will allow them to form a civil union or other legally-recognized union.

Or...or...or...or...

It's easy to start rattling down the list of minorities in the country that are allowed to join into legal marriages recognized by their state who then get full legal rights from the federal government. The biggest flaws here are that Obama doesn't think states should be compelled to recognize even civil unions or any other type of legal relationship and that Obama doesn't put any timeline onto pushing for this. DADT is already pushed back until 2010; how long will Obama push back asking for repeal of DOMA and recognition of those lucky same-sex couples that happen to live in states that will allow some form of recognition?

That's the problem with Obama's statement. There's a deeper and deeper pattern of betrayal from Obama and the half-hearted "friends" of those who would form same-sex couples.

[jenmito]

152. Are the positions listed in the OP a surprise to you? Because my point is that they shouldn't be.

That's all.

[Creideiki]

166. They're not a surprise because they're, well, the same half-truths we've gotten before

If Obama believed that same-sex couples should have all the rights of straight couples, even if he was a heterosexist asshole and supported the anti-gay amendments in FL, AZ, and CA, he should have been out front arguing for the same-sex couples that lost the right to adopt in Arkansas. Then again, I'm sure he had other things to do.

What surprises me is the people who believe that Obama will actually move on anything. Instead, we get treated to the ex-gay cornucopia and half-assed statements and "sponsoring" legislation that never gets to the floor. Wow. How "fierce". Grrr. Rawr.

I will grant that I think the real quality that will define Obama is his cowardice. If we can pressure the Congressional Democrats to pass pro-gay legislation, I'm sure Obama will sign it and then back behind the desk and hide behind, "But they passed it!" You know, the Presidential equivalent of voting "Present".

Already, the act that has the most public support, repealing DADT, is being pushed back 2 years (oh, noes! not in an election year! we'll lose the congress if we're not hateful enough toward the gays!). What type of timeline is being proposed for supporting a repeal of DOMA?

[Critters2]

177. I hope you're wearing asbestos. The worshipers are not going to like this one little bit!

:popcorn:

[Creideiki]

187. Who needs asbestos?

I've already got all the advantages.

[Jamastiene]

241. Ruh roh!

You told the truth.

Now, they are going to descend on you like rabid hooty owls. :yoiks:

Best of luck to ya battling the pods.

:hug:

[donco6]

250. They're busy now posting love poems:

"But you can see it in his eyes...

And in the way he holds his shoulders...

The way he strides down the halls of power...

The way he answers the questions of reporters who aren't used to having them answered seriously...

The way he watches those around him, never missing a thing, never seeming to be off-guard...


The People's Business awaits him, and he knows it...


He is ready."


Excuse me . . . :puke:

[donco6]

249. Bravo.

That's exactly right.

[janx]

157. That's some fucked up logic. n/t

[Creideiki]

213. Sorry. Cognitive dissonance hurts.

Don't worry. It gets easier.

[Bluebear]

217. Don't worry, they said my logic was "fucked up" upthread. Intelligent conversation, no?

[Name removed]

151. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bluedawg12]

171. As citizens we have a right to petition for our right. n/t

[IndianaGreen]

180. The same coalition that opposes marriage equality, also opposes civil unions

because they see them as gay marriage lite. We might as well go for the whole enchilada. Obama should be reminded of the reasoning behind Brown v. Board of Education, which outlawed "Separate But Equal," in that separate treatment is inherently unfair treatment.

[jenmito]

190. My point is that he's been consistent.

He hasn't changed his position after he "got the votes of the LGBT community."

[mitchtv]

265. and ... what ? STFU and accept the crumbs

be patient? what the F to you expect us to do. I am not suprised by his policies that are unacceptable, but I hope you don't expect support, for such Crap. I was however suprised by Warren. I didn't expect to be Obama's "Sista Soulja" moment so soon ( although I did Predict it a while Back). No he hasn't changed his base opinion but that warren shit was a public slap across our Gay faces and a humiliation . I have no respect for him any longer . McClurkin was supposed to be a one time thing, an error, Sure.Yes , I would accept CU's for an interim step. But I am married in Calif already , so I want that back. I also want swift action on DADT, EDNA, and DOMA I don't want to be demeaned and insulted one more time

[jenmito]

269. No. AGAIN-that was NOT the point of my post. It was just to say

that Obama did NOT change his position after he got people's votes nor did he betray people who THOUGHT he supported something that he did not.

And I don't know how I missed this from your previous post: "The same coalition that opposes marriage equality, also opposes civil unions because they see them as gay marriage lite.' THAT is BULL. You cannot seriously believe that Obama opposed civil unions. You can read, can't you? Read the OP again. He wants civil unions to have ALL of the rights as marriages (except for the WORD "marriage," which I think is wrong but he thinks it's ok to leave it up to the states to decide.

[mitchtv]

270. I won't argue since i didn't post that

that's why you missed that. My entire point is that I resent being used. I;m sure he's for CUs with a package of rights, although I doubt he plans to do anything about it,. . anyway that's how you missed it I read it too .Look, I realize the man has to get elected , but he doesn't have to pal around with homophobes. He is no leader on Gay rights and I am losing hope that his judicial appointments will be of any value to US. His long list of current appts has some real scary players.I await action on ENDA< DADT, DOMA

[jenmito]

271. Oops...

sorry 'bout that. On YOUR post, I do NOT think you are being used at all. He's having Warrren give the invocation-NOT to talk about gay rights. They disagree on gay rights and you should know that. He hasn't even become president yet. He has appointed at least two openly gay people in his administration and he constantly talks about gay people and atheists, two groups no politician EVER talks about (unless it's a Repub..) He hasn't broken any word yet. Give him a chance.

[zulchzulu]

247. Polls have shown that civil unions/domestic partnerships is more acceptable...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8078400

[flvegan]

189. Guess I'll ask. What's Obama's stance on gay marriage?

I know the answer, but someone has to throw this out there.

[Critters2]

198. Something about 1 man and 1 woman, as I recall. Or is that Rick Warren's position?

Oh, yeah, that's right. It's both of their positions.

[Creideiki]

209. That's their common ground.

Let's them open a dialogue on how to keep those uppity queers down.

[Jamastiene]

243. With straight marriage, God is in the mix.

With gay marriage, nope. He also mumbled something about being against Prop 8, but then ever so charismatically, clearly, and loudly gave them that lovely sound (and video) bite about believing marriage is "between a man and a woman."

In other words, whoever is in the room at the time, he nods in agreement.

[Boomerang Diddle]

237. Is Rick Warren the most powerful man in the world?

The way some are obsessed with him, one might get that impression.

[Jamastiene]

245. History shows us he will be for the next 4 years minimum.

Anytime some homophobe comes out and runs their mouth, then gets the spotlight on national television for it, they end up being the next Falwell and Robertson...and Dobson...the list is endless. Yes, right now, he is, because the chess pieces are being set by Mr. Obama, himself. Rick Warren is one of them. The GLBT community are the pawns.

[AntiFascist]

263. It's the way the media portrays him which is most disturbing...

he has been called "The Pastor of America" and the successor to Billy Graham who will be the next spiritual guide for the Whitehouse. This alone should be plenty disturbing to the GLBT community.