Advocate: Obama & advisers have misjudged gay issues from day one. Now, activists are seething.

[Bluebear]

One of the largest gay publications in the US didn't get their pony either:

====

On LGBT and mainstream issues alike, the Obama administration finds progressives irritating. But they let their frustration insulate them from criticism at their own peril on marriage equality.

...In fact, I get the distinct feeling that the White House hopes it can simply duck the marriage question straight through 2012, and I’d also bet dollars to doughnuts it won’t be able to. What became clear to me while interviewing attendees of the August 6 meeting was that while the friendly audience may have cut the administration some slack on legislative items like the Employment Non-Discrimination Act and the Defense of Marriage Act, the one place advocates unapologetically stood their ground was on marriage equality.

...This is an issue that the president’s chief advisers have misjudged from day one. They underestimated how angry people were that candidate Barack Obama wasn’t more vocal in his opposition to Proposition 8; they dismissed the devastation felt by millions of queers who poured their hearts into electing Obama only to watch Prop. 8 proponent Rick Warren give the invocation at the inauguration; they remained silent in 2009 as gay Mainers fought to preserve their right to love, marry, and build a life with their partner; and then David Axelrod reassured the nation two weeks ago that the president still opposes granting the freedom to marry to all Americans.

When Gibbs lampooned the professional left it was code for, “Oh, it’s just those coastal big-city liberals pushing their intemperate views in the media again.”

But that couldn’t be further from the truth on the issue of marriage equality after the sting of bigotry tromped from Florida to Maine to California and nearly every state in between. The president and his advisers may hope to stay below the radar on the question of marriage straight through 2012, but they are flying blind if they can’t see that activists across the nation are already seething.

http://www.advocate.com/printArticle.aspx?id=137141

[QC]

1. Face it, he's just not that into you. n/t

[VMI Dem]

2. Obama could give a shit about gay issues.

[Francesca9]

5. He has ALWAYS opposed gay marriage

This is not news, he never wanted gay marriage and he still does not.

[Bluebear]

7. Obama1996: "I favor legalizing same-sex marriages and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages

Sorry, you are wrong.

[terrya]

26. You know what will happen...

after he leaves office, he'll give some interview and say, yes, he now supports marriage equality....like he did in 1996. Great and all that, but a little too late.

[RKP5637]

129. Obama tells people what they want to hear to get votes!!! n/t

[sgsmith]

31. how about a more complete response

News articles appear to disagree with your rememberence.

From 2008:
http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1598407/20081101/story...
"I think it's unnecessary," Obama told Sway, in response to a question sent in by Gangstagigz from San Leandro, California. "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage. But when you start playing around with constitutions, just to prohibit somebody who cares about another person, it just seems to me that's not what America's about. Usually, our constitutions expand liberties, they don't contract them."

From 2009:
http://www.sbcbaptistpress.org/BPnews.asp?ID=29702
A new ballot initiative could put Obama and fellow Democrats in a tough position on such a controversial social issue, particularly since the homosexual community is part of his base and he has agreed with them on other issues. Last year, Obama opposed Prop 8, calling it discriminatory, while simultaneously saying he opposed "gay marriage." But if he supports the new initiative, he would make history by becoming the first president publicly to back "gay marriage." A recently uncovered document revealed that Obama supported "gay marriage" when running for the Illinois state Senate in 1996. The Los Angeles Times editorial board, in its Jan. 21 edition, said Obama's "views on the issue are an embarrassing muddle."

http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/politics/2009/January/Obama-... -/
CBNNews.com - Newly released documents show that Barack Obama has taken a more conservative position on same-sex marriage since he first ran for the Illinois Senate in 1996.

While campaigning for President, Obama made it clear that he opposes gay marriage.

"I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman and I'm not in favor of gay marriage," he said.

What that means is less clear because Obama also opposes a federal marriage amendment. He also opposes California's marriage amendment, Prop 8.

Likewise, he supports civil unions and federal rights for gay couples.

[terrya]

34. Just one question.

President Obama says he supports full equality for us. But he frequently mentions his opposition to same-sex marriage. How can you say you're for our full equality and yet oppose marriage equality? And no, civil unions aren't the same thing.

[T Wolf]

83. I fully support counting black americans as citizens - as 3/5 of a citizen, actually.

There - I've covered all my bases.

...just in case - :sarcasm:

Yeah - in issues of human rights, there are no half-way measures. You either are with us or against us.

[Bluebear]

36. It is not "my remembrance'. In 1996 Obama supported gay marriage,

http://www.windycitytimes.com/gay/lesbian/news/ARTICLE.php?AID=20437

He supported gay marriage before he opposed it, and it is not "my remembrance".

[suffragette]

99. Here's a link that has the PDFs of the 1996 questionnaire

http://www.windycitymediagroup.com/gay/lesbian/news/ARTICLE.php?AID=20525

Go there, then click on thumbnails to view.

Thanks for making me aware of this.

I knew the info, but had not seen the questionnaire before.

Interesting seeing his stance on public funding for abortions in 1996 as well.

[defendandprotect]

104. Interesting ... public funding for abortions in '96, as well--!!!

I think before any $$$$$$$$$$ changes hand -- or any other kind of support

we need to get some candidate PLEDGES SIGNED ????

[suffragette]

116. Signed pledges would be a start

At least it did help in this instance to prove previous positions taken.

And to remind politicians of policy stances they've taken and how people rely on those in choosing to support candidates.

His positions as expressed in that questionnaire are strong and direct.

The article at that link is also interesting.

[defendandprotect]

119. Didn't actually get to the article ....

or the questionnaire -- but will try to double back --

thanks!

[suffragette]

121. Definitely worth reading both

Food for thought in there.

[jonnyblitz]

143. !!!

:kick:

[Starry Messenger]

38. Next time plug in the year mentioned.

When searching google it's best to provide parameters:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/13/obama-once-supported-same_n_157656.html

According to the Windy City Times, during the 1996 race for the Illinois State Senate, President-Elect Barack Obama gave statements that expressed an "unequivocal support for gay marriage."

From the WCT's press release:

President-elect Obama's answer to a 1996 Outlines newspaper question on marriage was: "I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages." There was no use of the phrase "civil unions".


This answer is among those included in this week's Windy City Times feature on Obama's evolving position on gay marriage. Windy City Times also includes his answers to the candidate questionnaire of IMPACT, at one time a gay political action committee in Illinois. In that survey he also stated his support of same-sex marriage.

During the final weeks of the presidential campaign last fall, several media outlets contacted Windy City Times because of an old internet story from the 1996 Illinois state Senate race. In that campaign, Outlines newspaper reported that 13th District candidate Barack Obama supported gay marriage. Reporters wanted to know what exactly Obama had said.

Outlines summarized the results in that 1996 article by Trudy Ring, but did not list exact answers to questions. In that article Outlines did note that Obama was a supporter of same-sex marriage and that article was never challenged or corrected by Obama. Just recently, the original Outlines and IMPACT surveys were found in the newspaper's archives.

[Bluebear]

44. Merci.

[Starry Messenger]

54. De rien!

;)

[defendandprotect]

97. Wow..!! Obama 1996 Senate race .... "unequivocal support for gay marriage."

Methinks that maybe we'd better get signed PLEDGES from candidates

from now on???!!!

I'm not homosexual, but strongly support human rights -- all homosexual issues,

including gay marriage -- and certainly would NOT support any candidate who was

opposed to any of those rights --

and, similarly, I trust that neither homosexuals nor AAs would support any anti-choice

candidate --

[defendandprotect]

96. Your CBN source seems to suggest....Obama had a more conservative postion on same sex marriage AFTER

he first ran for Illinois Senate in '96 --

They are obviously stating that he had a more LIBERAL view prior to that time --



CBNNews.com - Newly released documents show that Barack Obama has taken a more conservative position on same-sex marriage since he first ran for the Illinois Senate in 1996.

The full article doesn't come up with the link so I can't check further than that --

[defendandprotect]

93. Good reminder .... and that would suggest to me ... "someone getting to him.." ... eh...

could it be DLC-Rahma?

As long as the Democratic Party behaves as though they really, really fear the

right -- especially the religious bigotry of the right vs homosexuals --

then they are simply REINFORCING whatever the power that boogieman has!!

[RKP5637]

138. The dems make the situation worse than it initially was by their fear and embracing

the religious bigotry of the right vs homosexuals -- They do similar to other things and the net/net of it all is they greatly REINFORCE the boogeyman's power. And it also gets prolonged and propped up by the MSM until it's totally blown out of proportion. Then comes a speech. It's a pattern of behavior to me that is not effective.

[DissedByBush]

94. You believed him? Haha!

What else did people believe?

-Allow five days of public comment before signing bills. Blew that one almost immediately.

-No family making less than $250,000 will see any form of tax increase. Taxes have been increased.

-Negotiate health care reform in televised public sessions. Most of it was closed-door.

-Introduce a comprehensive immigration bill in the first year. Where is it?

All lies, along with others.

[RKP5637]

131. Yep, he tells people what they want to hear IMO. All I hear in this area is

disappointment, and by strong democrats.

[Bluebear]

8. Hello?

[ScreamingMeemie]

17. Here there be crickets.

Back in the kitchen with you Bluebear.

[QC]

72. Bluebear never really loved him!

:cry:

[Bluebear]

123. I never got "The Bam"

[QC]

124. You are embittered and poniless.

:cry:

[The Straight Story]

3. Admin knows gays won't vote for anyone but dems anyway, so they don't need to work for that vote

Their goal is to keep middle of the road voters pulling the lever for them and not repubs. Partisans will vote for their party no matter what - what DU, gays, etc want is not their chief concern, staying in power is -- so they keep saying, keep the powder dry. They will say it again if Obama gets re-elected (we want to keep the white house after Obama's second term, if he goes further left it will hurt the chances of the next candidate)....

[WillParkinson]

6. It's true that most gays will vote Democrat...

But it's also true that many will just as likely stay home if they feel mistreated.

[liquid diamond]

95. So they would sit on their hands and let the republicans win?

Republicans who don't give one fuck about gay rights? That's so fucking stupid, stupid, stupid. How would that help their cause? All it takes for the bad guys to win is for the good guys to sit around and do nothing. I'm sick and tired of hearing this threat. Don't fuck up your own cause!

[defendandprotect]

100. GOP right wing advanced as they targeted their own liberals/moderates ... AND

Dem liberals moderates --

That's an idea for the homosexual community --

and women -- unless you also expect women to vote against their own issues

by voting for right wing Democrats????????

Do you??

[liquid diamond]

105. Do you believe Obama is a right-wing democrat?

[Capitalocracy]

110. Left-leaning Republican maybe?

Having fulfilled so many Republican campign promises... :shrug:

[defendandprotect]

122. Sadly so.. right out of the gate with Wall St and eloping with DLC-Rahm into WH...!!!

[defendandprotect]

120. I believe a stand against gay marriage is a "right wing" stand ....what do you think?

I'd suggest you get off of personalities --

Obama is a POLITICIAN like any other politician --

and unless you're personally related to him, it doesn't make much sense!

No one is anti-Obama -- we're anti many of the positions he has taken --

from first out of the gate in his move to the RIGHT!

[RKP5637]

134. Yep, I know democrats that REFUSE to vote for him again, they are so pissed

about many things. I think he is a one term president. And that is sad. The democrats had the majorities, the attention of the country and IMO wrecked the whole thing. IMO the WH is misreading much of the anger festering for many reasons. He can only talk his way out of so much, and then it's going to fall on death ears. This is NOT an Obama bash, I'm just saying what I see happening. IMO it's reality. I will vote democratic all the way as always, but I do have trepidation on what 2012 will bring...

[LWolf]

40. Until they won't vote for dems anyway.

At some point the perpetual disregard for multiple voting blocks is going to bring the party crashing down.

[defendandprotect]

101. Human rights for all, equality for all -- is but ONE ISSUE . . . .

I certainly am not going to vote against women's issue by supporting a right wing

Democrat --

Would you expect me to???

And, similarly, I won't vote for a candidate who does not support full human rights

for all homosexuals!

Nor full human rights for all minorities -- ethnic groups -- AAs -- !!

[LWolf]

109. *I* wouldn't expect you to.

I'm not all of the party, or of DU, obviously.

I think we enable the march to the right, and the disenfranchisement of all of us on the left, when we allow them to think that we have nowhere else to go with our votes.

[defendandprotect]

114. Some here evidently believe that Dems will vote for right wing Dems....

hard to fathom, actually --

We shouldn't see ourselves, either, as "multiple voting blocs" -- rather

that we are all for justice for all -- equality for all -- full human rights for all.

:)

[LWolf]

118. Yes.

I think that's how the marginalization begins. Instead of one block supporting justice, equality, and human rights for all, we are shaved off one section at a time. First they peel off the glbts, then the women, then the teachers, then....

The only way to change that is for all of us to stand for the rest, instead of waiting for them to come for us next.

[RKP5637]

136. Exactly!!! It's cumulative. Each voting block will eventually lose support and as you

say, will "bring the party crashing down." Frankly, I find the perception by the WH on what is happening quite vague and disappointing. Each bit of negativity will add up by disregard to voting blocks will lead to a potential loss in 2012. This is damn sad if it happens.

[defendandprotect]

98. Not really true ... especially if a group like homosexuals begin targeting

anti-human rights Dems -- like Obama -- and looking for new Dem candidate -- !!???

That's the way the GOP knocked out both Rep + Dem liberals and moderates!!

There's also the matter of $$$$$$$$$ - especially if Obama wants to try to make

corporate $$ dirty -- and full disclosure a norm --

And there's the matter of keeping the beehive going with drones during campaigns --

[Capitalocracy]

108. They'll do better to sway the middle with strong leadership

and standing by their principles, not by validating the right-wing narrative of how the world works by giving in to them all the time in the name of "bipartisanship".

People love strong leadership. All the polls show that. Even if they don't always agree, they want to see leadership, and for Dems, that would be a double plus for them because it would also noticeably help people's financial situation.

[defendandprotect]

115. Agree -- stand strongly against the right ....anything else merely enforces their power -- !!

[WillParkinson]

4. K & R back to zero...

Gee, someone in unreccing it. Go figure.

Honestly people, if you disagree at least have the guts to discuss your convictions, don't just do it anonymously.

[nashville_brook]

9. k n r back up to 3

[Bluebear]

10. Thank you.

:)

[nashville_brook]

15. anytime!

[Political Tiger]

11. "One of the largest gay publications in the US didn't get their pony either"

No, it's not The Advocate who "didn't get their pony," it's Kerry Eleveld who "didn't get their pony." Why you ask? Because she's the one who wrote that editorial. One person. One opinion.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Forkboy]

25. I'm sure The Advocate disagreed but published anyways.

Rock on with your solidarity!

[Duncan Grant]

27. The editor(s) of the Advocate included the piece. Eleveld didn't publish The Advocate this month.

Do you think The Advocate isn't standing behind the piece?

[QC]

43. The Advocate has no control over what is published in The Advocate. n/t

[Bluebear]

55. Kerry is the Washington Correspondent for The Advocate...she must buy editorial space from them

:silly:

[Duncan Grant]

56. Of course not -- silly me.

Who's got time to think around here when there are so many popularity contests to be won?

[QC]

59. Please try to do better in the future. n/t

[terrya]

32. Oh, no, no, no, no...

Oh, it isn't just one person. I see the same disillusionment on daily.kos, on the Huffington Post. I see it at Pam Spaulding's excellent blog. I see it on Facebook. Rachel Maddow has expressed this same disillusionment, this same impatience, on her show.

Believe me, this isn't just only one person. Not even close.

[Duncan Grant]

58. OT

HiYa, old friend. It's nice to see you around here again. :hi:

[terrya]

60. Good seeing you again, my friend

:-)

:hi:

[defendandprotect]

102. You've missed the latest one .... homosexuals are being "SELFISH" . . . . !!!

:)

[Catherina]

85. You're wrong. It's all about the pony. Silly children pouting over a pony.

:sarcasm: before anyone gets the wrong idea.

[defendandprotect]

103. Please see my misplaced msg #102, right above yours ...!!!

[Catherina]

128. Lol.

:hi:

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[readmoreoften]

50. Yeah because national magazines are in the habit of featuring articles they disagree with...

:eyes:

[unapatriciated]

13. they have also misjudged the many family and friends who support equality.

K&R for equality to all our citizens.

[Bluebear]

14. THANK YOU for your solidarity! nt

[readmoreoften]

51. Thank you!

[LostinVA]

64. Woo hoo -- kudos to our straight allies!!!

[Lorien]

89. Indeed. I have many Gay and Lesbian family members on one side of the family tree

if anyone thinks that I won't fight for their rights just because I'm hetero they've got another thing coming!

[RKP5637]

139. +1000 +++ n/t

[defendandprotect]

107. Exactly . . . I'm not homosexual, but support ALL HUMAN RIGHTS -- !!!

PS: Just as I trust and hope that homosexuals will always also support

women's human rights -- AA, etal -- Latinos -- Latin American -- whatever --

Not that in '96 Obama also supported public funding for abortions!!

[Poboy]

16. k&r

[Forkboy]

18. I care about gay rights, but (insert insult to OP here).

Just getting that out of the way for your fierce advocates. :)

[ScreamingMeemie]

21. I can one up you...some of my best friends are gay so I can say what

I want, no matter how hateful.

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[QC]

62. Don't forget the rainbow flag avatar.

That allows one to do things like compare gay people who hate homophobes to Nazis.

[ScreamingMeemie]

19. And, come campaign time, they will be scratching their heads, wondering

where their pavement pounders are.

[EFerrari]

20. Obama, conservadems are 'way behind the rest of the country on gay equality.

The fire is lit and it's sweeping all across this continent. And high time, too.

:loveya:

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[terrya]

23. When you specifically campaign on doing certain things...

people expect you to follow through on your promises.

Particularly when they are tired of delivering their votes, their financial contributions, and their work and time on polticial campaigns and then being ignored. People are tired of politicians promising to work for our equality and then...nothing. People are not going to settle for the fierce advocacy of...whenever.

I think Prop 8 changed things. Our community is sick and tired of this bullshit. Look at John Aravosis' campaign to ask the GLBT community not to contribute to the DNC, for instance. Look at GetEqual. Dan Choi's activism.

[Forkboy]

33. That's the kicker for me.

He could have ignored gay people, or mildly pandered to them at best, but instead he went all in and claimed he be a "fierce advocate", when he no intention of ever doing so. That's not to say he's entirely gay unfriendly, I don't think he is. He just bit of more than he ever intended to chew in an blatant attempt to garner votes.

I never trusted him on this issue (and said so here in the primaries), but it's one issue I would have loved to have been wrong on.

[terrya]

39. I hear you.

I remember a couple of months ago when Andrew Tobias, the gay man who's the Treasuer of the DNC, responded to John Aravosis's campaign to not to contribute to the DNC. Tobias listed all of these accomplishments the Obama Adminstration made for GLBT Americans. And...the list was the appointments of gay and lesbians to the Administration. Giving Harvey Milk a posthumous Presidential Medal of Freedom. Obama signing the Matthew Shepard Act into law. As if...what the hell, people? Be grateful for these things. Would a President McCain have done these things for you?

I don't know about you, but I've had it. 31 states have insultingly voted on our civil rights on marriage. One state cruelly voted to take away those rights. Gay men and lesbians who want to serve their country in the military want to do so openly. As 25 other countries allow them to do in their militaries. And....what we're seeing right now. The discharges go on and on, with the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States carrying on like some innocent bystander on a policy/law which he CAN have some positive influence. ENDA is stalled in Congress. Look...I'll call my Congresswoman and Senators. I'll call whomever Senator and lobby them. I'll sign the petitions. But I'm not the President of the United States. I don't have the clout of the White House behind me. I don't have the influence a "fierce advocate" who just happens to live at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue has. I still want him to succeed. I really do. But he does have some serious problems with GLBT Americans right now. That Advocate article is just saying the obvious.

[LostinVA]

67. As I said in a thread about the appointmnets the other day: Big Fucking Deal

I was attacked over that statement, but I stand by it, for the reason you stated. Big fucking deal. And, comparing our rights to how things were 20 years ago or in another country is BS.

[LostinVA]

65. I actually think he IS sincerely gay unfriendly

I used to think he was just an "enabler," but now I really do think he neither likes nor feels comfortable with Teh Gays.

[LostinVA]

66. I actually think he IS gay unfriendly

I used to think he was just an "enabler," but now I really do think he neither likes nor feels comfortable with Teh Gays.

[QC]

73. He reminds me of the Cool Straight Guy we all knew in college

who was always borrowing our notes but pretended not to see us when we ran into him out somewhere with his friends.

Remember that guy?

[LostinVA]

78. Yeah, or teh girl who would share a cigarette after class with you and be friendly

Unless she was with her friends.

[QC]

79. You knew her, too!

Wow! Either we went to school together or there are lots of people in the world who are privately friendly with us but pretend they never laid eyes on us when they're out in public.

[LostinVA]

80. I went to Mainly Hetero Girls Except When They Were Drunk U

[QC]

81. Oh yes, they were our sister school

back when I was at Fratboys Who Turn Bi When Drunk State College.

Our motto was, "I was so drunk last night I don't remember anything, and you don't either, right?"

[LostinVA]

82. Cool -- it's almost like we're related!

[RKP5637]

141. Yep, friendly when they wanted something, then ignored you... Same thing with Obama. A fair weather

friend.

[terrya]

76. I've seen other people comment on that.

That he's not that comfortable around gay people. Both him and Michelle.

Whatever. I don't necessarily want him to like us. I don't want to be his bestest buddy or anything. I want him to do as he promised. I want him to be a real advocate for us. He's getting some piss poor political advice on LGBT issues. He won't suffer politically for being out front on our issues.

[LostinVA]

77. Agreed, I just think it's easier for him to NOT do teh right thing

Because of how I think he feels.

Of course, LBJ probably was racist, because of his time and place, but he did alot for civil rights.

[Mimosa]

28. IMO The administration is waiting for Boies and Olson to win the issue at SCOTUS

I think the administration doesn't wish to spend what little political capital they have left. The big case will probably be settled at Supreme Court level.

[Touchdown]

30. And then te White House will jump in front and take credit for it!

It was us all along!!!!

[Duncan Grant]

57. You got that right. (nt)

[Morning Dew]

75. Nah, they'll issue a statement

That they're for equal rights for all Americans but that they're against "gay marriage".

Gotta placate the Pukes.

[Starry Messenger]

29. k & r

[flvegan]

41. I see you're gettin' all uppity again!

One of my biggest Obama disappointments. K&R.

[QC]

42. These whining pony-demanders just don't know their place anymore!

:sarcasm:

[Mimosa]

47. I've decided to come out on D.U.

And Obama's positions regarding the LGBT community were not at the top of my personal list. The larger issues to me have been the economy and health care reform. On both I have been disappointed. I have always understood that political and economic policies which help everybody will also help the gay community. I thought I understood that Obama would 'do the right thing' regarding LGBT issues. I still think so. My best pals and I have always thought equality for gay Americans will be decided in the Supreme Court. Boies and Olson have the right strategy. Obama had nominated 2 Supreme court justices who will make the right decision. The SCOTUS rulings will effect all state laws.

I worked HARD to get Obama elected. My financial contributions were seldom id ever through the DU links so what I contributed wouldn't be reflected here. In late 2007 through early 2008 my partner and I contributed just over 2,000 dollars. That's a lot for us. I don't want to reveal too much personal info here.I'd expected Obama to have been 'bolder' regarding DADT which was the first policy he really could have changed.

[LostinVA]

68. With respect, you have it backward: none of that will help the gay community

Not as couples, and not necessary as single people, either. Jobs, health care, immigration, etc. None of it really helps us until we have equal rights. Until then, we are the legal loophole.

[BlueIris]

45. But, but, the President is supporting LGBT voters "quietly"!

Jeeze, lighten up.

[Touchdown]

48. Very quietly. Like on the down low quiet.

;)

[terrya]

61. This is super secret, hush hush support

VERY stealth, don't you know?

Really, he won't suffer politically if he is more vocal for our support. The National Organization for Marriage had their national "Marriage" tour, which was a BIG epic fail. Support for marriage equality is on an irreversible upward trend. A huge majority of voters supports DADT repeal. Not only will he not suffer politically, he'll be helped by more vocally, more forcefully supporting LGBT voters.

[LostinVA]

70. Ninja-like

[Lorien]

87. Agreed. I'm hetero and I'd say that among my 500 or so friends, family members and

coworkers only 7-9 of them DON'T support marriage equity or repealing DADT. Even most of the conservatives I know may not actively support marriage equity, but they don't oppose it either. Painting these issues as some sort of damaging political hot potato is disingenuous at best. The DLCers are once again actively courting the far right minority while ignoring the will of the majority who put them in office.

[LostinVA]

69. Yeah, that article really pissed me off

We aren't stupid, but they want to think we are both fools and amnesiacs.

[Touchdown]

46. I'd give you a response, but you already know what I'll say

... and besides, it might get deleted because it would cause concern among the genuflecting.

Sorry. :hug:

[LAGC]

49. We need to pressure Obama on this every day!

Keep writing him letters, make your voice heard! My only hope is that he'll come around during his second term, IF he gets re-elected.

[defendandprotect]

111. Agree -- especially because on DADT we need a stand up to the MIC .....

which, imo, will betray him as quickly as they betrayed Ike, JFK and Carter --

I'm not gay, but not only is this a pro-homosexual issue it's an anti-right wing/hawk

issue, imo --

Allowing these right wing military creeps in the military to continue to chase gays

out -- costing taxpayers a huge loss -- is insane, just for one point.

But I'd also like to see them lose some control within the military --

they're sick people!!

[mitchtv]

52. K&R

good take on it

[mitchtv]

53. K&R

good take on it

[LostinVA]

63. And the DOJ brief travesty

As bad as any of the issues mentioned.

k&r

[sendero]

Obama and his "advisers"

.... have misjudged just about everything. The economy, the war, the bankers, the generals - why should gay issues be any different?

[defendandprotect]

112. Or maybe it isn't "misjudgment" ... maybe it's more about whose side they're really on?

[sendero]

125. There is..

... that possibility :)

[sendero]

71. Obama and his "advisers"

.... have misjudged just about everything. The economy, the war, the bankers, the generals - why should gay issues be any different?

[Stinky The Clown]

74. Reading some of the replies to this thread is .... uh .... affirming.

K&R for the OP, though.

[Safetykitten]

84. It's the inability to connect things that gets me. The Warren thing.

The inauguration. How we tried to tell them that this was an appalling choice. One of the first decisions...a hate filled freak show/scumbag is chosen.

But...that's ok.

[defendandprotect]

113. It was an "appalling choice" not only for homosexuals ... but women, everyone -- !!

IMO, it was a slap in the face to anyone who supported justice or equality

for all !!

[QC]

142. But it wasn't really unexpected for those who had been paying attention. n/t

[Scottybeamer70]

86. When he chose Warren........

to give the invocation at the inauguration, that pretty much let me know where he stood on the issue of the LGBT community. I quite frankly don't think he gives a damn. He is so afraid of losing a vote that he is not about to rock the boat. It's all about the "election", and to hell with everything else.
I am so pleased though to see so many gay activists on this site. I just recently discovered this site, and it is a comfort to me to
come here many times a day to see what is going on. I enjoy reading all the different viewpoints on so many different threads.
I will send a donation next month as soon as I get my little social security check. I've learned to do without a lot of things that I
used to think were necessary, but this site has become a necessity.......:)........If I were younger, I would probably be marching
in the streets!!!

[Lorien]

88. Welcome to DU Scottybeamer70!

:hi:

It is all about the election to Obama-but he seems to think that the only votes that matter all belong to the far right fringe. The majority supports LGBT rights...and single payer, and public schools, and ending both wars, and green energy technology...it's just that President Obama does not support the things that candidate Obama and the majority of Americans do.

[Scottybeamer70]

92. Thank you!

:)

[QC]

126. Welcome!

[RKP5637]

140. Welcome to DU!!! Glad you're here!!!

:toast: :hi:

[kiva]

90. K&R

And hope that the deleted disruptors don't get this thread closed.

Edit: sorry, too late for the R, but at least kicked

[Orsino]

91. I would say that the fact that they continue to get away with it...

...means that they haven't misjudged these issues at all. They are playing them rather expertly, IMO, deliberately walking the fine line between tolerance and persecution.

It's only that the Administration's positions are so fundamentally unjust and stupid that makes any of it look accidental.

[defendandprotect]

106. Late K&R .... we need a LONGER PERIOD of time to REC threads .....

The UN-recs are evidently succeeding in dropping threads that should be of

interest to all of us --

like this one, for instance!!

This is an important thread -- but obviously another one which gets the right

wing's panties here in a twist!!

[suffragette]

117. I was just about to post my late kick as well.

agree with needing a longer period to rec.

[Odin2005]

127. It's quite siimple, Obama is a bigot who would be banned if he posted here.

[RKP5637]

130. Yeah, Obama, Fearless Advocate... n/t

[Catherina]

132. See there you go making stuff up! He never promised to be fearless

:sarcasm:

You never loved him RKP5637 :cry:

"I'm a fierce advocate for gay and lesbian Americans, It's something I've been consistent on." - Candidate Obama, June 2009

[RKP5637]

137. Gosh, that sounded just like Ronald Reagan! LOL

:hi:

[Unvanguard]

133. This article is based on a fundamental misunderstanding.

I don't think the Obama Administration particularly cares about activists "seething" at it. To be sure, it would rather have them happy than unhappy, but when it comes to how the public will take its policy stances, the reaction of liberal activists--when it comes to same-sex marriage, and when it comes to everything else--is very far from the priority.

The reason is twofold. First, the Obama Administration knows it has and retains very strong support among liberals. Second, the Obama Administration knows that it cannot win, either in Congress or in the court of public opinion, by adhering to the policy preferences of liberal activists: all national politicians must appeal fundamentally to moderate independents.

If the Obama Administration has misjudged something on this issue, what they have misjudged is not the anger directed toward them from gay-rights activists, but the attitude of public option more broadly toward same-sex marriage issues. They are operating on an out-of-date 2004 script that was never all that accurate even in 2004: the idea that same-sex marriage is utterly toxic for the Democrats and will seriously weaken their electoral chances. The reality is that most people simply don't care, and the truly fervent opponents are voting Republican anyway. But, then, the other side of that calculation is that public support for same-sex marriage from Obama--with the possible exception of special circumstances like the Maine ballot measure--would make little to no difference to the actual success of that effort.

[Major Hogwash]

135. Yeah, it looks like he didn't have the political will to fight for equal rights.

Would have cost him some political capital.
Would have been risky.
Might have cost him his job.

Like, how many fucking excuses can one person make before you stop beleiveing the shit coming out of their mouth?

I'm not even gay, but for once in the last 34 years, I thought we had someone in the White House who would act upon what he said he would do about giving gays equal rights.

We can't do it this year because we have other work to do first.
We can't do it this year because, an election year, mid-terms, must keep control of Congress.
We can't do it this year because we have a lot of other work to do first.
We can't do it this year because, an election year, presidential race, must keep White House.
We can't do it this year because we have so much other work to do first.
We can't do it this year because, an election year, mid-terms, must keep control of Congress.
It's like listening to a broken record with the needle stuck in the same groove, saying the same thing over and over and over again.

For 4 fucking decades!!!
Un-fucking-real!!

We know the Republicans will never give gays their rights, but now we know the Democrats won't either!!!

We don't have the votes.
We can't do it this year because we have too much other work to do first.
We can't get it out of the House subcommittee.
We can't do it this year because we have important work to do first.
We can't get it out of the Senate committee.
We can't do it this year because we have more important work to do first.
We can't get the House to decide on which version to pass.
We can't do it this year because we have very important work to do first.
We can't get the Senate to decide which version of the bill to discuss.
We can't do it this year because we have extremely important work to do first.
We can't the House to accept the Senate's version of the bill.
We can't do it this year because we have tremendously important work to do first.

We won't do it.


Why didn't you say that in the first place?
We'll start voting for people who will keep their campaign promises!!

Holy Shit - that'll be a change!!!!

Yes, we can!!!!!