Unless the President I VOTED for renounces ANY and ALL policies that discriminate against ANY

[cherokeeprogressive]

and EVERY group, I will not support his re-election.

Get that?

Unless the "fierce advocacy" I voted for results in TANGIBLE gains for the LGBT community, he DOES NOT GET my vote.

If DADT is still in place in 2012, HE WILL NOT GET MY VOTE.

If DOMA is still in place in 2012, HE WILL NOT GET MY VOTE.

I would qualify that by saying that should he stand up and renounce statements he's made in the past like "Marriage is between a MAN and a WOMAN", I'm willing to negotiate.

Otherwise? I'm either abstaining or voting for a primary challenger even if I have to write a name on the ballot.

[pnwmom]

1. Go ahead and vote for a primary challenger. But when that person loses,

you'd be crazy not to vote for Obama in the general. Unless you really want a Rethug appointing another couple Justices instead of Obama. Unless you think a Rethug will be stronger on gay rights than Obama. Or women's issues. Or the economy. Or the environment.

[NanceGreggs]

2. I take you to mean ...

... HE WILL NOT GET YOUR VOTE!!!!!!!!!!!

Quite frankly, Scarlett - I don't think anybody gives a damn.

:hi:

[Mimosa]

3. LGBT give a damn. n/t

[Dr.Phool]

17. As do people with LGBT friends.

Only people with their heads stuck in a dark place don't.

[a la izquierda]

24. +1000

[Bluenorthwest]

39. Very correct and right on

Like Obama, those who defend him when he is bigoted and deeply wrong love to try to have it both ways, cake and eat it too, they claim to be for us, but also against equal rights for all, and they all puke forth a religion not one of them follows to rationalize their personal prejudices.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

53. My sentiments exactly.

:applause:

[kiva]

184. But how many people can that possibly be?

I mean, a few GLBT folk, their families, their friends, their co-workers, anyone who is concerned about civil rights in this country...oh, yeah, might be a problem.

[flyarm]

188. + 1 million!! I give a damn!! eom

[golfguru]

213. As do parents, grand parents, cousins, aunt & uncles of LGBT

[Bunny]

6. Arrogrant and dismissive.

That's working out so well, isn't it? :eyes:

[Kahuna]

8. Mote, meet Beam. nt

[Bobbie Jo]

136. +1000

Pot/Kettle - Glass Houses/Rocks, etc.....

[LostinVA]

11. But not a surprise

[MissDeeds]

20. +1000

Being arrogant and dismissive won't win elections. Let's see how the tone changes come election time when every vote is needed.

[LostinVA]

10. I give a damn, and you should too

Good for the OP for realizing that their daughter is more important than a stranger.

:thumbsup:

[VMI Dem]

30. But the avatar makes it all ok. Its like an immunity badge.

[QC]

66. Protective coloration. n/t

[Kahuna]

160. The issue may be about his daughter for the OP, but for most of the respondents

to this thread it's about the country. Most of us really do feel for the OP and his family, but just speaking for myself, I care more about the country as a whole.

[ruggerson]

230. Last I checked

the country as a whole has a sizable gay population.

And equal rights should be near the top of the heap of priorities for all of us. It's not just about one group. We're all in this together.

Beyond which, our leadership is capable of multi-tasking. Or at least I thought they were.

[VMI Dem]

29. This supporter of civil rights gives a damn. Nice flag by the way.

That makes it all ok I guess.


:hi:

[bigwillq]

35. I give a DAMN!

And many others do, too.

[Bluenorthwest]

44. You sure gave a damn during the last Primary

Tell me what actual work you are doing in this cycle. Are you canvassing neighborhoods, doing phone banking? Which candidates are you working hardest for? Which issues? Tell us what you DO, not what you shout about wanting others to do. What is it that you do that others should be doing?
Tell us how many volunteer hours you have so far, and give us an idea of some of your better motivating phrases for getting out the vote in your personal district and State.
If you do anything at all, tell us about it. Give us your shiny example, not your snark. I understand you are made up mostly of snark, and that is understandable, but snark only goes so far. Snark never got one single Democrat elected to office, for example.
I'm sure you are a major volunteer. Enlighten us.

[NanceGreggs]

103. The irony of your comment ...

... is incredibly entertaining. Thanks for the yuks!!!

[superduperfarleft]

62. Your using that avatar is fucking disgusting.

Just another "fierce advocate." :eyes:

[Name removed]

113. Deleted message

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

[NanceGreggs]

126. I am never dismissive of equal rights for all ...

What I am dismissive of is people who think that not voting for Obama in 2012 advances that cause one iota.

"Fuck your snark. You don't know shit." Is today Post Something Totally Ironic Day on DU?

[cherokeeprogressive]

132. Did you read my whole post?

"I would qualify that by saying that should he stand up and renounce statements he's made in the past like "Marriage is between a MAN and a WOMAN", I'm willing to negotiate."

What do you take THAT to mean?

Maybe we should be thanking YOU for the yuks, darlin'.

[NanceGreggs]

152. So you're ...

... willing to negotiate with people who do exactly as you demand they do. How incredibly magnanimous of you.

[babylonsister]

240. Crickets, Nance? You get to the heart of the matter, darling.

:loveya:

[unapatriciated]

164. Mothers and Families of LBGT's give a damn.

[NanceGreggs]

165. I think all kinds of people give a damn ...

... about LBGT rights - as do I, my friends, my family members.

My initial comment about "giving a damn" was aimed at the OP's diatribe - NOT the issue of equal rights. And I really don't think Obama - or the world at large - gives a damn whether he is going to withhold his vote or not.

[unapatriciated]

169. Your response was lacking in compassion.

Yes it is personal for many of us and to have our President (through his spokesman) once again state his opinion on gay marriage hurt. It's a bigoted view no matter how you try to dress it up.
Post 112 shows how you could have responded to a parent who is hurting because their child is denied equal rights. Our children have endured great pain because of these views.

[NanceGreggs]

171. The issue calls for compassion ...

... the OP's message doesn't.

The fact remains that withholding one's vote accomplishes absolutely nothing - except, of course, giving the Republicans a shot at being elected. And THAT is a shot - no matter how small or far-fetched in the great scheme of things - anyone who wants to see equal rights for the GBLT community knows is counter-productive in the extreme.

I can certainly understand how many feel that the Dems have moved too slowly, and without enough real force, on this issue. However, any gains in this area will be as the result of Democrats in office, NOT Republicans.

NOT voting - on the basis of Obama's (or anyone else's) personal feelings about same-sex marriage - may give one a sense of self-righteous "Well, I guess I told HIM" satisfaction. But it doesn't advance the rights of gays/lesbians one iota.

If you knew my personal family situation, you would understand that this issue hits home for me. I don't fault you for not knowing - I don't post about the personal lives of my immediate family on message boards, just as they don't disclose my personal life on the websites they frequent. (And that is not a dig at the OP - I am confident that his daughter is aware of his discussing her here, and she's fine with it. I'm sure he would not do so otherwise.)

The fight for REAL equality for gays/lesbians has been a long struggle, and will continue to be for some time to come. I realize that many people are tired of waiting for what should be obvious under the Constitution - that ALL citizens have the right to be equally protected, and equally recognized as full citizens on every level.

However, withholding one's vote, or rallying others to consider doing so is completely bereft of the compassion of which you speak. It is rather, IMHO, a demonstration of a lack thereof - because the citizens who need and deserve the support of those willing to fight this battle are instead being left to the mercy of the very people who would diminish their rights, rather than uphold them.

[Subdivisions]

192. So the idea is to campaign and canvass in order to not give a damn about someone's vote?

I'm comfused.

[bvar22]

195. I give a damn.

Your post stinks.
Take a bath.

[NanceGreggs]

198. Just the level of maturity ...

... I have come to expect.

[bvar22]

201. OK. Let me rephrase it.

You post is an embarrassing public display of self absorption, covert bigotry and denial.
Instead of lashing out at those who are trying to help you,
perhaps a quiet time out spent in inward reflection would be beneficial.

[NanceGreggs]

205. Again it seems to be "Ironic Post" day on DU.

The OP posted to declare that he will withhold his vote until all of his demands are met. Why he felt such a declaration was important for all and sundry to be privy to strikes me as the height of self-absorption.

Covert bigotry about what? Denial of what? I don't deny that I have no respect for people who withhold their vote, or encourage others to jump on that bandwagon.
And my explanation for why I hold that opinion is at Post #171 on this thread.

My writings on this website, and others, have demonstrated my support of gay/lesbian rights for years. And if you read my post at #171, you will see that this is not just a political position, but one that affects my family on a very personal level.

As for lashing out at "those who are trying to help me", if you consider calling me a bigot (all evidence to the contrary), or trying to convince me, or anyone else, that the rights of gays/lesbians are better protected or advanced by NOT voting, I don't consider that as "helpful" in any way.

Perhaps inward reflection is something you might consider - or just a few minutes of actually reading what someone has said, as opposed to insisting they've said otherwise.

[unapatriciated]

217. Votes are earned.

civil rights is something we all should demand. The President's statement on gay marriage is the same as those on the right. You can dress it up but it is what it is. If you support civil rights for all than their should never be a question of compromise.

[NanceGreggs]

219. Actually, no, it's not ...

But that isn't really the issue.

The issue is: Do you fold and slink away when anyone (president or otherwise) doesn't agree with your stance on gay/lesbian rights? Or do you stand your ground and VOTE accordingly?

If you want to talk about those "on the right", that's fine. But does sitting out a vote benefit THEM, or the people you allegedly stand up for?

[unapatriciated]

221. so you are really saying we have no power.

since our votes are not earned. We are not slinking away we are demanding equal rights for all. My "stance" is simple equal rights for all and those that oppose it will not have earned my vote. I thank you for enlightening me on how I should vote according to my beliefs.
I love how you tried to demean my support and belief in equal rights with your little snark of "allegedly". You keep telling us how much you support these rights yet you are not willing to stand up and demand them. Women stood up and demanded voting rights, labor stood up and demanded rights and many of us stood up and demanded civil rights in the 60's. Nothing was given freely by voting "accordingly", we fought for those rights and used our votes to be heard.
I may hold my nose but I will not acknowledge that the smell is sweet just cause it is my guy who dealt it. To once again on the very day Prop 8 is overturned, through his spokesman he stated again his belief of One Man and One Woman. That is the argument of the religious right, he is willing to give them second class citizenship but not equality. Marriage did not originate in religion, hell they refused to recognize it until it was needed to grow their flock (much like they did in creating their religious holidays).


http://www.mediaite.com/tv/david-axelrod-defends-obamas-opposition-to-gay-marriage-on-daily-rundown/


a little light reading for those who use religion to suppress equal rights:

The consecration and recognition of its first gay bishop threatens to split the Anglican communion down the middle. There has not been such ferment in the Church of England since the decision to ordain women to the priesthood. There is similar uproar in the United States, where an openly gay priest has been elected Episcopalian bishop of New Hampshire, even though many American Christians regard a rejection of homosexuality as the benchmark of orthodoxy.

Issues of sexuality and gender have long been the Achilles' heel of western Christianity. Indeed, in the earliest days of the church, Christians had a jaundiced view of heterosexual marriage, and saw celibacy as the prime Christian vocation. Jesus had urged his followers to leave their wives and children (Luke 14:25-26). St Paul, the earliest Christian writer, believed that because Jesus was about to return and inaugurate the Kingdom of God, where there would be no marriage or giving in marriage, it was simply not worth saddling yourself with a wife or husband. This, Paul was careful to emphasise, was simply his own opinion, not a divine ruling. It was perfectly acceptable for Christians to marry if they wished, but in view of the imminent second coming, Paul personally recommended celibacy.

The fathers of the church often used these New Testament remarks to revile marriage, with the same intensity as those Christians who condemn homosexual partnerships today. The fathers accepted - albeit grudgingly - that marriage was part of God's plan. St Augustine taught that originally in the Garden of Eden, married sex had been rational and good. But after the fall, sexuality became a sign of humanity's chronic sinfulness, a raging and ungovernable force, a mindless, bestial enjoyment of the creature that held us back from the contemplation of God. Augustine's doctrine of original sin fused sexuality and sin indissolubly in the imagination of the Christian west.

For centuries this tainted the institution of matrimony. Augustine saw his conversion to Christianity as a vocation of celibacy. "We ought not to condemn wedlock because of the evil of lust," he explained, "but nor must we praise lust because of the good of wedlock." His teacher, St Ambrose of Milan, believed that "virginity is the one thing that keeps us from the beasts". The north African theologian Tertullian equated marriage with fornication. "It is not disparaging wedlock to prefer virginity," wrote St Jerome. "No one can compare two things if one is good and the other evil." When one of his women disciples contemplated a second marriage, Jerome turned on her in disgust: "The dog has turned to his own vomit again and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire."

In England during the middle ages, couples were married in the church porch and not in the sanctuary - a practice that eloquently revealed the liminal status of matrimony in the Christian worldview: Chaucer's Wife of Bath married five husbands "at the church door". Even Luther, who left his monastery to marry, inherited Augustine's bleak view of sex. "No matter what praise is given to marriage," he wrote, "I will not concede that it is no sin." Matrimony was a "hospital for sick people". It merely covered the shameful act with a veneer of respectability, so that "God winks at it".

Calvin was the first western theologian to praise marriage unreservedly, and thereafter Christians began to speak of "holy matrimony". The present enthusiasm for "family values" is, therefore, relatively recent. In the Roman Catholic church, however, priests are still required to be celibate, and whatever the official teaching about the sanctity of marriage, the ban on artificial contraception implies that sex is only legitimate when there is a possibility of procreation. For most of its history, Christianity has had a more negative view of heterosexual love than almost any other major faith.

The current attempt to recognize homosexual partnerships is thus the latest development in a long struggle to bring sexuality into the ambit of the sacred. In principle, Christianity should have a special reverence for the physical, because it teaches that in some sense God took a human body and used it to redeem the world. But the evangelicals who oppose gay priests would argue that because the Bible condemns the sin of Sodom, the recognition of homosexuality is a step too far.

But in fact everybody reads the Bible selectively. If people followed every single biblical ruling to the letter, the world would be full of Christians who love their enemies and refuse to judge other people, which is plainly not the case. Christians would also be obliged to eat kosher meat (Acts 15:20) and stone their disobedient sons to death (Deuteronomy 21:18-21). The world has changed and practices that were acceptable 2,000 years ago have become abhorrent. We also have a more complex understanding of sexuality than the biblical writers.

Yet the Bible has to be read with care. The story of Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis 19 condemns homosexual rape and the violation of the sacred rules of hospitality rather than homosexuality per se. It has nothing to say about the open, stable gay relationships that are essentially a feature of modern western society, and did not exist in their current form in the biblical world.

Again, the rules against sodomy in Leviticus 18 and 20 are not legislating for ordinary human affairs. Throughout, the authors of Leviticus are chiefly concerned with temple ritual. The practices forbidden in these chapters featured prominently in the idolatrous religions of the near east, which, as we know from the Bible, the people of Israel found extremely alluring: ritual bestiality (as practiced in Egypt), child sacrifice, and the cultic use of menstrual blood in sorcery. The verses against sodomy (Leviticus 18:22; 20:13) forbid temple prostitution: in the late seventh century, there had been a house of sacred male prostitutes in God's temple in Jerusalem (2 Kings 23:7) It is this kind of worship, which defiles the land, that concerns Leviticus.

In the same spirit, St Paul's condemnation of the "unnatural practices" of the Graeco-Roman world springs from a visceral disgust with idolatry, the root cause of all the disorders in Paul's long list (Romans 1:20-31). The Bible is not a holy encyclopedia, giving clear and unequivocal information; nor is it a legal code that can be applied indiscriminately to our very different society. Lifting isolated texts out of their literary and cultural context can only distort its message. Instead, we should look at the underlying principles of biblical religion, and apply these creatively to our own situation.

Modern readers frequently misunderstand Leviticus. Throughout the Pentateuch, the priestly writers insist on God's compassionate care for his creatures: all are pronounced good, exactly as he made them. Even those animals declared "unclean" in the cult must be left in peace and their integrity respected. In the New Testament, Jesus goes out of his way to consort with those whose sexual lives were condemned by the self-righteous establishment. According to Jesus, nobody has the right to cast the first stone in these matters.

For centuries Christians failed to live up to this inclusive mandate, and found it difficult to accept their sexuality. Eventually, however, they learned to overcome their prejudice in favour of celibacy, and realised that heterosexual marriage could bring them to God. They should now be ready for the next step.

Karen Armstrong is the author of A History of God

[cheapdate]

238. You are greatly appreciated by many people. n/t

[Fire1]

199. +1000 for what Nance said! n/t

[girl gone mad]

223. Speak for yourself.

I do give a damn about equal rights.

[Hansel]

226. I know I don't. nt

[Divine Discontent]

227. Unfortunately, there's a lot more people who give a damn than you think. Because,

if 1/2 of GLBT folks and even 1/10th of their Straight friends who would have normally voted, refuse to vote, or vote for someone else - then this administration will not win re-election.


There's much disgust in the GLBT community over this admin., and combined with the environmentalists and educators who are disheartened, I wouldn't be especially confident if I were him, especially if the Idiot Party puts up someone that can 'relate' to people like Dubya did. This is a very troubling time in America, and sadly, the opposition party (okay, the NO Party) is quite energized to take back Congress and the Presidency. That is a terrifying thought - however, I fully understand where cherokeeprogressive is coming from.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

228. I give a damn

You are just hoping no one gives a damn, but you would be wrong. Let Obama and his supporters continue to alienate an entire sub-section of people (who mostly all vote Democratic) and see where that gets us. But continue to be the "fierce advocate" that you are with your cute rainbow flag and all.

[impik]

4. That is a truly scary threat. Especially the CAPS

[NanceGreggs]

5. NO, LIKE ...

... REALLY.

ALL CAPS 'N ALL ...

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

18. Amateurs

IT HAS TO BE IN BOLD ITALICS!

[Subdivisions]

193. Is there something wrong with adding emphasis? n/t

[Yeahyeah]

241. Could give the photo a rest.It's brutal.

[Kahuna]

7. Good for you. I hope you will fare better with the repukes in control.

I doubt it though. The last time they were in control they wanted to have the constitution changed to make gays permanent second class citizens. Maybe you will get lucky the next time.

[Exilednight]

12. You're argument is a strawman with a dash of fearful hyperbole.......

Rethugs aren't going to change DOMA, or DADT. Shrub didn't do it, and neitherwill any other rethug President.

Second, the SC is already conservative. No President will change the actual make-up of the SC and tilt power one way or another. Justices retired depending on which party is in power.

[jefferson_dem]

16. The threat of a hostile to GLBT rights Republican administration is a straw man?

And the SCOTUS can't get more conservative over a four years Republican term? Please get real.

[vaberella]

19. They'll do much worse---since LGBT will not be the only people they'll be after.

They'll just get rid of majority of immigrants, eliminate rights for women even more than they have---since the new argument as stated on Rachel's show is to eliminate this "excuse" that abortion should be had in case of rape or incest----rape or incest babies it's okay.

[William769]

36. But if it's only the LGBT thats ok?

Talk about sticking your foot in your mouth! But it's not been the first time for is it?

Justice for all!!!! No ifs ands or buts about it.

[vaberella]

75. Did I say shit so stupid?! Don't fuckin' make up words to suit your agenda.

My discussion is on Democrats in relation to Republicans----Republicans hate any person who's obviously non-white/non-gay individual. And that is my point. I'm not about to sit there and not use my vote when it might count against those freaks taking power unlike the OP. The Democrats are slow and I never denied they weren't in regards to the LGBT community. However, they have made some headway---while Republicans want to stifle everything.

I don't fuckin' appreciate nor like the implication you made your utterly stupid post.

[MadMaddie]

168. Don't forget they are toying with the 14th Amendment

That Amendment impacts Black Americans.

<snip>
Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment formally defines citizenship and protects a person's civil and political rights from being abridged or denied by any state. This represented the Congress's overruling of the Dred Scott decision to the extent that decision held black people were not, and could not become, citizens of the United States or enjoy any of the privileges and immunities of citizenship.<1> The Civil Rights Act of 1866 had already granted U.S. citizenship to all persons born in the United States; the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment added this principle into the Constitution to prevent the Supreme Court from ruling the Civil Rights Act of 1866 to be unconstitutional for lack of congressional authority to enact such a law or a future Congress from altering it by a mere majority vote.

**************************This is the important explanation**********
This section was also in response to the Black Codes which southern states had passed in the wake of the Thirteenth Amendment, which ended slavery in the United States.<2> Those laws attempted to return freed slaves to something like their former condition by, among other things, restricting their movement, forcing them to enter into year-long labor contracts, and by preventing them from suing or testifying in court.<3>

They say they want to change it because of illegals I say that they have additional people in mind.

[vaberella]

172. I didn't even realize that impact.

I happen to be of Afro-Caribbean descent, so I already knew that I was going to be kicked out---but it's even more interesting the impact on Black Americans---now imagine what gay Black Americans. Goddamn these Republicans.

[MadMaddie]

215. Exactly! That's why we have to pay attention to what they are

saying and the additional impacts that could occur.

I think they are evil..pure evil.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

22. Justices retire depending on which party is in power....

William Rehnquist

[Kahuna]

27. STRAWMAN! STRAWMAN!

:sarcasm:

[Exilednight]

146. Rehnquist was appointed by Reagan. His death was ............

an anomaly, but it didn't change the make-up of the court.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

161. Some anomoly....

Thirty-three Supreme Court Justices have died in office.

Four of the current Justices are over the age of seventy, and the health of Chief Justice Roberts has been the source on considerable speculation for years.

[Exilednight]

162. It's anomoly. Only two Supreme Court Justices have died while serving in the 60 years..............

Since 1955 only two supreme court justices have died while serving on the bench. Before that the rate was much higher.

As far as Robert's health, the only thing people speculate on is whether or not has epilepsy. Epilepsy is rarely fatal, and there are medications that can help prevent him from having seizures. On top of that, it isn't likely that the man does not have someone nearby 24 hours a day. Justices, like many high ranking federal officials, are now guarded 24 hours a day. Either by Supreme Court Police (yes, the SCOTUS has its own police force) or federal marshals.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

177. It's three since 1950....

And in the previous 60 years, there were 14 who died in office, so you might say that we're due.

And by the time 2016 rolls around, Justices Scalia and Kennedy will both be 80 years old and Justice Ginsberg will be 83.

If I were a betting man, I'd say that Ginsberg and Scalia won't make it another six years.

[Exilednight]

178. Yes, but most major advances in medicine have been made within ............

past 50 years. And to think that Scalia, Kennedy and Ginsberg will not survive beyond their early 80s is almost laughable. They, unlike many Americans, get the best health care in the world. Most former Presidents, the most stressful job in the world, are now living well into their 80s.

George HW Bush is 86, Reagan was 89, Nixon was 81, Ford was 93, Carter is 85.

The political leanings of this court is not going to change any time soon.

Honestly, I think Ginsberg will retire before the end of Obama's current term. Scalia and Kennedy will kick around until a republican takes back the White House. Kennedy may retire before that, but that's because he knows that repugs will not allow Obama to put a truly liberal judge on the bench, thus he will take the safe road and nominate another moderate.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

181. Scalia = Overweight, sedentary male with a high-stress job

He's at high risk for a heart attack. Thomas is as well.

[Kahuna]

23. I really do think that's what you're counting on, that the repukes really

won't do what they say they will do. Do you REALLY want to count on that? Really? :crazy:

[CakeGrrl]

81. No it isn't. It's FACT.

Either a Dem or a Repub is going to occupy the WH in 2012. Are you saying that's not a near certainty?

Some people think things aren't moving fast enough on this front.

But apparently they'd rather risk putting the party back in control that will not only bring any action on DOMA/DADT to a dead stop, but may very well reverse them. If you think that's a better option, then go for it.

[Ignis]

85. It's say it's more an argumentum ad consequentiam/metum...

But you're definitely on the right track. :thumbsup:

[Hekate]

153. Justices also die while still serving, unable to get a stay of execution from mortality.

[Exilednight]

157. I am in my 40s, and that has only happened once in my lifetime .............

the reality is that many SC Justices retire. Rhenquist was the exception. Justices are appointed at a younger age and advances in health care have helped bring that number down considerably.

In fact, you would have to go all the way back FDR's appointments to see multiple justices nominated under the same President who died while serving.

Since 1955 only two justices have died while serving. I am not saying it can't happen, but the chances are very very slim. You might see it once or twice in a lifetime.

[Hekate]

166. How much longer do you think Justice Bader-Ginsberg can hold on?

The job is probably giving her a reason for continuing to live, but if some people's fantasies come true and Obama doesn't get a second term, do you think she can make it through another 8 Republican years? She's 77 and battling cancer.

The others are tough, but Scalia is 75, Kennedy is 74, and Breyer is 72. Even tough can't last forever.

Hekate

[Exilednight]

175. Considering the health care they receive, I bet they could go well into their 90s. n/t

[LostinVA]

14. Like the OP, I am tired of this political blackmail

"President Palin" garbage.

Good on the OP for being a supportive parent who stands next to their daughter and everyone else in this country who has second-class citizenship at best.

[Kahuna]

26. I'm tired of it too, but for reasons different than yours.

:hi:

[polmaven]

95. President Palin

is, granted, a long shot, but a Preisdent Romney, or his equivalent, is not.

[LoZoccolo]

101. Who's doing the blackmailing? n/t

[ingac70]

9. I'm sure Pres. Palin will make it all happen for ya. n/t

[Exilednight]

13. Riddle me this ............

If we know that Palin won't do it, and it looks as if Obama can't do it, who can?

[Bradical79]

102. Maybe the next candidate.

They only get two four year terms at the most. Long term, if pissing off enough equal rights supporters costs a democrat the election, the next time around they're unlikely to make the same mistake. On the other hand, if the issue doesn't appear important enough, they may always be second class citizens regardless of who is in power. It's better to make as much noise now and put a lot of pressure on the president and lawmakers, than to just roll over out of fear of a Republican administration.

[Vicar In A Tutu]

127. If Obama loses in 2012, the next Democratic President will veer considerably further to the right.

That's inevitable. To deny that is to deny political logic and the thought process of the major party politician.

The Republicans are great at getting their message out. They've made a lot of people believe Obama is a "SOCIALIST!", people who don't know the meaning of the word other than in the twisted form offered by the GOP and their complicit business machine and media.

Reagan changed America. Bush warped it to an extreme which was, frankly, the right-wing's wet dream. The goalposts have moved and the machine perpetually convinces the uninformed to vote against their own interests. They twist, bend and morph terminology to fit their agenda and they are masterful at doing so. I said when Obama got elected that it would take maybe 12 straight years of a Democratic President before the GOP construct would begin to crumble and the lies and fearmongering would be shown up for what they are.

There's no question that EVERY law-abiding citizen deserves the right to live a peaceful life as they choose. No doubt whatsoever, and that goes for marriage, adoption and so on. Frankly, the best thing to do would be to aim for civil unions in EVERY state, a nationwide right. To provide equality in all but the name of the ceremony. It still isn't fair, but it provides an indelible and unbreakable bond which cannot reasonably be argued against. It would be a nightmare for the GOP. Marriage, on the other hand, brings out their core. They manage to get Proposition 8 passed in one of the most liberal states of all in the year of a Democratic landslide. To crush such myopia, such lynch-mob thinking, such fear takes time. That's why I'm of the opinion that, long term, the official, nationwide introduction of the right to legally binding civil partnerships for homosexuals would be the quickest route to the introduction of marriage. It's a simple question of equality without the religio-porn aspect which is so embraced by the right. It would then be a handful of years before civil union became marriage because the fear would dissipate, the GOP unable to use it as the malign red-hot issue they presently do.

[Exilednight]

147. If Obama loses in 2012, the next Democratic nominee will ..........

be determined on why Obama lost. Obama is a centrist, not a progressive. He picked up right where Clinton left off with triangulation politics.

If the liberal base is the reason for the loss, then the next Democratic that is hopeful to get the seat will have to move further left.

[handmade34]

110. it is the people, ultimately

who will... not a politician

[Exilednight]

148. and how do you suppose "the people" will do it, and which "people" are you ...........

speaking of?

[Name removed]

67. Deleted message

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

[jefferson_dem]

15. I feel your frustration...

Seriously, I do.

However, I also refuse to do a single thing that would help enable the teabagging republican scoundrels that will be the alternative. You make your choice. I've made mine, regardless of a few serious disappointments.

[vaberella]

21. This is one of my most important issues---but not my only issue.

That being said, I'm not about to take the risk of millions of other people under Repub rule---especially minorities and women; which is exactly what Repubs want to do. Minorities need to be shoved out of the country in any way possible---proposals of retroactively eliminating natural born citizen if they are children of immigrants has just been publicly announced and removing the clause of women who are impregnating through rape or incest---is another. The rights of the LGBT community is fundamental but I have a hundred more as pressing issues---with those rights (if they can even be called that) under threat and could pass---just like Arizona passed theirs. And these are Repubs who want to do it. I see great strides in changes for the LGBT community since Obama took office and although it's ridiculously slower than I would like---it's getting done while a Repub wouldn't do shit--and a threat of them in power terrifies me.

But to each his or her own and if this is how you feel---it's whatever to me.

[RichGirl]

25. Oh how I wish I lived in your pie in the sky world.

Great idea...let's show Obama how he has disappointed us!! Then we'll get a president much like Napolean Dynamite...someone who will make all our wildest dreams come true!

WE ONLY HAVE TWO CHOICES!!! What is it with you people that you can't remember that. We have a good but not perfect choice and we have a crazy lunatic choice! We don't have equality for all, but we are as close as we have ever been. Now is not the time to stamp your feet like spoiled children. Now is the time to be patient and support our best choices.

The lunatic party is now talking about taking away citizenship from anyone who wasn't born in this country. Why don't you compare that to a president who doesn't always say what you want him to.

[vduhr]

48. Correction....

The Republicans want to changed the Constitution to take away citizenship from anyone who WAS born in this country but whose parents were not here legally. How many people would that effect? Would you or I than not be citizens if we cannot prove our parents were legal citizens? The Republican's hatred of everyone and everything they disagree with will ruin this country. Regardless of whether I disagree with some things Obama has done, I absolutely will not give my vote to Republicans, whether it be directly or indirectly (by voting for a third party candidate that most likely will not win, and thus taking votes from the Democrats).

[Amimnoch]

28. Totally with you on this.

For 21 years now I have actively supported the Democratic Party.
I've walked and handed out flyers,
stood outside of polling stations,
cold called potential voters on election days til my finger tips were black and blue,
donated til it hurt, especially for the '08 election year.. one of the happiest years of my politically active life followed by such great disappointment

I watched as we were passed over during the short period that President Clinton had both the House and Senate majorities with disappointment, but resolved understanding (after all, it really only lasted effectively 1 year.

This time though, no more free passes. Until I see SOMETHING real done to finally make my partner and I something more than second class citizens, I may vote for another Democrat that expresses support, but other than that I'm done. No more money, no more flyers, no more spending my precious little off time going to conferences, and support rallies, no more phone banking, and not another DIME to a Democrat cause, or to a candidate.

The bullshit about "there's more important issues"? Well, fuck, they can STILL address those issues while FINALLY giving one of the Democrats most fanatically loyal and supportive base groups SOMETHING to finally make us less than 2nd class.

Give us SOMETHING, or forget getting a fucking thing next time the emails or calls for financial, or other support comes my way.

[VMI Dem]

31. Rec. I admire your stand on this.

I have come to the same conclusion. No votes for bigotry...be it racism or homophobia.

[JohnnyLib2]

32. I don't agree with message, but see no reason to shoot messenger!

Stand strong, Cherokee. You have powerful reasons to do so and should be heard.

[mkultra]

33. Dont let the door hit you on the way out

I think ill stop signing petitions and sending money to groups the support your cause then. Sound fair? does to me.

[unapatriciated]

218. sounds more like you don't really care about civil rights

It's your choice. Civil Rights is not a "cause" that one statement of frustration and pain should lead you to dismiss it and threaten to pull your support.
We will not stfu no matter how many times or different ways you phrase it.

[WI_DEM]

34. Do what you want--nobody's going to stop you.

[SoxFan]

37. I'll alert the media

[BklnDem75]

38. Let me get this straight...

You have a choice between 'not moving fast enough' and 'open hatred' and you're threatening to abstain? Good luck with that. I'm positive conservatives will work their hardest to get rid of DADT, so they can resume seeking out and discharging service members like before. If you actually thought about what you're advocating, you'd see you're only paving the way for the same people who brought you DOMA in the first place.

[Bluenorthwest]

41. Opposition to equality IS open hatred, deal with it.

I have no idea how you quantify such things, as you seem to do, but a person who announces that God thinks I am unworthy of equal civil rights is a person engaged in open hate speech, using the authority of a religion that is not universally bigoted as the man himself is. I have many Christian and devout family who are not bigoted against gay people.
Hate is hate, equal is equal, and the faith excuse used by Obama and Palin and Dobson and Kaine is nothing but a mask and affectation. The Obamas no more live by the rules of St Paul than does Lady GaGa or Mick Jagger. They are hypocrites. And that is what it is.

[BklnDem75]

42. Please show me the opposition

Having a belief and pushing your beliefs are two different things.

[mkultra]

45. There is none. Its complete drama

[Name removed]

58. Deleted message

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

[mkultra]

74. oh...crap. sorry

Pony.

[Bluenorthwest]

50. He announces that God thinks we are not worthy of equality

He offends my Christian family when he claims his own bigotry is an expression of Christ, for none of them are bigoted.
He promised in detailed terms that he would use his position as President to fiercely advocate for equality, and instead he keeps using that Bully Pulpit to announce his opposition to equality.
His job is made of words. He lied when he said he would advocate for us, because in fact, he advocates against equality by saying he and God do not approve of equality.
This statement from Axelrod is the very definition of pushing his personal beliefs. The court rule, Barack felt the need to make sure America knows he does not agree with equal rights. Pushing his personal and petty prejudices, repeating them.
He's against my family's rights, and he keeps saying so. He promised to fight against DOMA, not to keep announcing his opposition to equal rights.
A person can have a belief. The minute they promote it they are pushing it. The difference between having and pushing is in the announcing of that belief. Why should we even know that he is bigoted against gay people? If he had not pushed that dogma, we would not know what he belived, and then it would be as you say, a personal belief. He made it into political fodder. He did that. By choice.

[BklnDem75]

55. Post a link to any of the things you stated

Thanks in advance

[Bluenorthwest]

61. Use a serach engine

I am not here to play teacher to you. He has said many times "I'm a Christian, so blah, blah, one man, one woman." He says straight couples are 'sanctified' by God.
Frankly, if you are not aware of what he has said, you should not be taking a position at all. Uninformed belief is the core problem here, faith based thinking. Lazy methods.
If you want to call me a liar, feel free. But anyone with the Google can find exactly what Obama has said. Anyone, apparently, but you.

[BklnDem75]

63. There's no link, that's why

What you posted was pure crap, but I was, at least, trying to give you a chance to back it up. You have zero quotes to back up your claims. He gave his position on gay marriage and nothing more. He never pushed against nor stated opposition. You should really stick to facts.

[Ignis]

86. "He never pushed against nor stated opposition." Ah, fierce advocacy indeed!

:eyes:

[BklnDem75]

88. Sorry you don't like his position

He was pretty clear before he was elected.

[dsc]

89. so which isn't

is the OP wrong because s/he refuses to vote for Obama in 12 or was the OP wrong to have voted for him in 08.

[BklnDem75]

93. Wrong for voting based on a person's beliefs in the first place

When Obama actively works against you, then perhaps you'll have an argument.

[bvar22]

196. "When Obama actively works against you"

Like when he actively campaigns FOR virulently Anti-LABOR, Anti-Public Option conservatives in Democratic Primaries?
THAT qualifies as Actively Working Again Me.

I also believe that the Homophobic Spectacle at the innaguration also qualifies as Actively Working Against.

The BIGGER point is that this is NOT a GBLT Issue.
It IS a Civil Rights Issue.
There is no gray area.
Civil Rights and Equal Protections for EVERYONE!...NO exceptions.

[BklnDem75]

206. Are you referring to Obama's support of incumbents?

It's too bad you don't understand why it needed to be done. If Obama would have done as you wished, nothing would have passed since the primaries. It's really not that hard to understand that he HAS to work with incumbents for the rest of the year.

As for the rest of what you said, simply because you personally feel slighted doesn't mean he's working against you. Sorry. Considering only DOMA and DADT was mentioned in the OP, it is a GLBT issue.

[bvar22]

208. Not a good excuse for the guy who promised...

... to "CHANGE" the way things are done in Washington.

Actively supporting Anti-LABOR, Anti-Working Class, Anti-Health Care, Anti-Reform politicians IS Anti-LABOR,
Anti-Working Class,
Anti-Health Care,
Anti-Reform protection of the Status Quo no matter HOW you try to rationalize it.

Chump Change

[BklnDem75]

210. He doesn't need an excuse

I applaud his actions.

[Ignis]

107. I like actions, not positions. Talk is cheap.

Talk of being a "fierce advocate" is especially cheap when it's not matched by fierce action.

[BklnDem75]

118. That's awesome

I prefer getting things done rather than talking fierce and getting nothing done. Guess that's why things are moving forward, rather than backwards.

[Ignis]

119. Things are moving forward because you prefer getting things done?

Sorry, I'm not sure I follow the logic there. :shrug: Care to elaborate?

[BklnDem75]

125. Sorry I wasn't clear

Things are moving forward, despite the lack of the kind of action you want.

[Ignis]

128. OK...and what kind of action do you imagine I want?

I believe I said "action, not words," rather than "this action, not that action."

[BklnDem75]

137. Does it matter?

Whatever 'that' action is apparently isn't good enough for you.

[Ignis]

141. That's bullshit. Now you're just pretending you can read minds.

I'd like action that aligns with the President's self-description as a "fierce advocate."

Now, I didn't pick that term, but I certainly will measure the distance between what is said and what is done.

Every responsible citizen should do the same with every politician, IMHO. YMMV.

[BklnDem75]

149. Stick to those slogans

I prefer to deal with real time where bills are being passed and progress is being made. It's plain silly to see things happening but complain about not being 'fierce.'

[Ignis]

155. Oh, that's rich. Let me guess:

I'm sloganeering but you're making a reasonable, rational, pragmatic argument supported by facts, right?

:eyes:

If you really believe that delusion, you should probably stop making shit up and putting words in my mouth.
...But that would require an intellectually honest approach, so hopes aren't high. :dunce:

Let me know when our "fierce advocate" uses the bully pulpit and all the weight of his political muscle to work for the overturn of DOMA and DADT. I'll be right here, pulling that (D) lever every single fucking time, like the sucker I am.

[Kahuna]

90. That's not the way the rules go. The person that attributes the remarks has to

provide the proof. Not the other way around. I think you know that though.

[dsc]

91. so you seriously deny that Obama has repeatedly said

that his religious beliefs mean that he thinks marriage is only between a man and a woman. You seriously deny that?

[Kahuna]

131. No I do not. But the poster I responded to, accredited much more to him

than that. And you know it.

[dsc]

143. No it isn't

That is exactly what Obama and anyone else who thinks that means. God told them we aren't entitled to the same rights as you.

[Ignis]

124. That's a sound approach, but has nothing to do with the DU Rules.

Just to clear up any misunderstanding for our new posters reading this. :hi:

[Kahuna]

130. I never said it was DU rules. That's jow discussion forums generally work..

The person positing a position, especially quotes should be able to easily back them up. Asking me to do so is like asking me to prove a negative. ;)

[Ignis]

135. Yes, that's why it's sound advice. The word "rules" just caught my eye.

Nothing personal intended. :hi:

[jenmito]

65. Here's a link for you which, sadly for you, does NOT back up what you said he said:

This article was written before he took office. He hasn't changed his positions since:

Analysis: Obama's comprehensive support for gay equality

...Barack Obama became the first President-elect to acknowledge gay people in his victory speech in the early hours of November 5th.

The next President of the United States then published a comprehensive list of action he will take on gay rights.

In a statement published on the Presidential transition website, Barack Obama and the Vice President-elect, Joe Biden, committed themselves to strengthening federal hate crimes protection by passing the Matthew Shepard Act.

The President-elect also committed to support civil unions and federal rights for LGBT couples.

"Barack Obama supports full civil unions that give same-sex couples legal rights and privileges equal to those of married couples," the statement read...

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-10636.html/

[cherokeeprogressive]

120. “I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman...”

Who said that, and where?

Candidate Obama said it, at a bigoted church, in response to a question posed by a bigoted man, while courting the votes of bigoted fundies.

[jenmito]

158. I was replying to post #50 which made claims of things Obama supposedly said and

when asked for a link, he told the poster to use Google. I used Google and found several quotes in favor of equality for LGBT couples regarding many policies but not ONE of the quotes the poster claimed he made. Funny how the poster ignored MY link.

[jenmito]

163. Obama said that followed by saying a whole lot of positive things you (...)ed.

And that's the president you supposedly VOTED for. You saw my post #65 above this (since you replied to it) where I post a link to all the things you DIDN'T quote him saying. Strange how you avoided all of those quotes, as did the poster I was replying to.

[LostinVA]

57. "Opposition to equality IS open hatred, deal with it"

:thumbsup:

[BklnDem75]

69. I agree that's a great quote

If only it were true in this instance. :thumbsdown:

[LostinVA]

104. Except it is true n/t

[NYC Liberal]

40. So then, which person will be getting your vote?

Which person can:

-Defeat Obama in the primaries
-Win the general election
-Get Congress (with all the "Blue Dog" Dems and obstructionist Republicans) to get the platform you support passed.

Or are you just looking for someone who can scream and shout but not actually get anything done?

[RBInMaine]

43. Abstaining is dumb because it only helps the RePUKE, and then how happy will you be?

[phleshdef]

46. DADT will be repealed by then. But DOMA may not be, we may need a second term for that.

And you know damn good and well as I do that if anyone is going to reverse DOMA between now and 2016, it will only be President Barack Obama.

[mkultra]

47. Then I shall abstain from activley supporting marriage equality

Seems only fair that if you are going to take your ball and go home, I should do the same. If stating a lack of active support for a democrat is not against the rules here, then neither should stating a lack of active support for a single issue.

[VMI Dem]

49. I would only be surprised if you "actively supported" it now.

So go for it.:thumbsup:

[mkultra]

54. Sounds good.

If you want to be single issue, its perfectly suitable for anyone else. I would encourage anyone else for whom this issue is not their top priority to do the same.

[Ignis]

87. If by "single issue" you mean "civil rights," then sure.

Some of us happen to think this is more than just window dressing.



YMMV.

[mkultra]

97. by single issue, i mean marriage equality.

that would be a component of civil rights which is a much broader issue. Sorry to burst your bubble, but Civil Rights extends far beyond just the issue of gay marriage.

[LostinVA]

105. Then you mean civil rights, because civil rights are compartmentalized

[mkultra]

117. you saying it makes it true

[Ignis]

108. Of course it does, but LGBT rights are included therein.

Or do you disagree that civil rights includes LGBT rights? :shrug:

[mkultra]

115. I would not disagree, i would not also attempt to claim that Obama is

resistant to Civil rights, nor would I find his performance on civil rights cause for abandonment. The simple fact remains that marriage equality is a single aspect of civil rights and thus walking away from the liberal agenda due to lack of performance on this single aspect is ludicrous.

[dsc]

121. yea since your ox isn't being gored

and gay rights aren't real civil rights as we all know.

[mkultra]

139. Seems as if minding our own oxes is the stance dejour

Have fun minding your own.

[dsc]

145. you're the one saying it is perfectly ok to abandon gay marriage

and leave us dead in the ditch. Somehow I feel if this were an issue affecting you, you would have a quite different opinion.

[mkultra]

150. Actually, the op is saying that its OK to abandon the rest of the liberal agenda

for a single issue that is important to him. I'm positive that if it effected me, it would be at the top of my agenda. I am also positive that i wouldn't give those liberals with different priorities the finger to accomplish it. I'm rethinking that stance though.

[Ignis]

122. DOMA + DADT = 2

When does the count get high enough to call this a "civil rights" issue rather than a "single-issue voter" issue?

We can certainly dip into the pool of betrayals by our elected (D) politicians on reproductive rights, if that helps tip the scale into the broader category of "civil rights."

thus walking away from the liberal agenda due to lack of performance on this single aspect is ludicrous.

Yes, that would be ludicrous...if I had said that. But I didn't.

So, what gives with the strawman? :shrug:

[mkultra]

140. That is the point of the op

That would be the very first post of this thread at the top. Just glance up.

[Ignis]

142. OK, but I'm not the OP. I can only answer for myself and my own words.

Also, I'd love a response to the first half of my post, if you could manage it. Thanks!

[mkultra]

144. you joined a discussion in progress so the context is appropriate

as for your other point.


When does the count get high enough to call this a "civil rights" issue rather than a "single-issue voter" issue?


I would say that you are simply playing semantics. GBLT rights are one portion of Civil rights but i would i agree that DOMA and DADT are two seperate aspects. To the point, when does the count get high enough? I assume you mean high enough to abandon Obama and the democratic party(as this is the context of the entire thread). The answer is much higher than it is currently.

If i felt that Obama was actually standing in the way of progress for spiteful reasons, i would be upset, but i would likely still vote for him over most any republican and probably over most any democrat as well. Anyone who says that he has done that thus far is reaching. In my view, we have the best chance of getting the most done with him over any of the other primary candidates(aside from Edwards or Dean until they tanked).

I certainly wouldn't vote to primary Obama as that would also be a ludicrous decision. In summary, the count would need to get awful damn high before i cut of my nose to spite my face. In my opinion, anyone suggesting otherwise is a damn fool.

[Ignis]

154. "I assume you mean high enough to abandon Obama and the democratic party"

Nah, that's not what I mean, and I'm sorry if I didn't make that clear. Yes, I realize we're having this discussion in a sub-thread of the related OP, but I didn't make that argument in the OP, and again, I can only account for what I've said.

I've held my nose and pulled the (D) lever many times over the years for crappy general-election candidates, because I think the "lesser of two evils" is a shitty choice--but it's still always better than the RW alternative.

But I do think that the primary option (unrealistic though it might be) should be separated out from the idea of not voting for the (D) candidate in a general election. I'm willing to consider the the former, but not the latter.

My primary concern as a Democrat is to get Democrats elected into office.
My primary concern as a Progressive is to push elected politicians to sponsor/vote for progressive legislation.

I love it when those two concerns align nicely and easily. But when they don't, I don't feel a lick of shame at pushing harder to make the latter happen.

[mkultra]

182. I see, that certainly clears things

I guess i would agree with you aside from a couple of small points. Specifically that i think that primary voting is important in the run up to a fresh candidate. At times when we have no candidate or a candidate that recently lost, its important to vote as progressively as possible. I admit that i haven't always done that in the past. Sometime i vote out of fear of losing to a specific.

On this previous election, i felt that McCain could easily beat Hillary by taking the middle and the promise of Palin was frightening. Edwards is the only other person that could have beat him but he imploded.

With that said, i also add that a primary challenge to an incumbent is not just foolish, but just out right stupid. If the middle views the incumbent's achievements as good, you lose that by replacing him, if they see the achievements as bad, that dislike will translate directly to the new guy of the same party. In addition, replacing the incumbent will tell the middle that our judgment is poor.

[LostinVA]

59. BINGO!!! You won!

[mkultra]

71. nobody wins in this scenario

[LostinVA]

106. No, you won the game of bingo

[mkultra]

116. .self deleted

never mind. i also abstain from dragging this into the gutter.

[Name removed]

96. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

99. Deleted message

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

[Touchdown]

189. Oh' wow! A threat to stop doing what you never did.

Oh' please reconsider! :rofl:

[unapatriciated]

220. Civil rights is a single issue...

health care is a single issue, ending these unjust wars, habeas corpus. torture is a single issue, right to privacy is a single issue I could go on and on. How many of those are you willing to compromise before you stand up and let our party know how much they have strayed.
Seems like we have gutted our platform one issue at a time.

[jenmito]

51. The president you voted for said he will get DADT and DOMA repealed in his first term. The

president you voted for also (unfortunately) said he believes marriage is between a man and a woman but he also believes in civil unions, gay marriage should be left to the states, and same-sex couples should have all the same benefits as other couples. That's the president you voted for.

[totodeinhere]

170. Then there is the problem that the votes to repeal DOMA in Congress probably are not there now.

And if as many expect, the pukes pick up seats in November, it will make matters worse. Obama could do a better job promoting the repeal of DOMA, but he can't just waive a magic wand and get it done.

DADT is another matter. I expect it to be history soon, but I'm not so sure about DOMA. Of course, Clinton should have never signed DOMA, but I guess that's water under the bridge now.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

52. I am sorry so many here --

are pissing on your right to vote for whomever you damned well please based upon that candidates (un)willingness to address an issue that is obviously important to you.

Personally, I think voting to help someone put a knife in my back is not a good thing. And a knife is a knife, whether put there by a "R" or a "D". :shrug:

I have quite a few knives sticking out right now -- I don't know if I have room for anymore.

:hug:

[inna]

185. +100. I just have to shake my head at some of the gratuitous ugliness in this thread.

At least it provides some insights as to why we are so screwed up as a country. :shrug:

[firedupdem]

56. You have to do what you feel you must. I'm just happy those who

came before kept fighting until we were able to vote, drink at water fountains etc. I can only imagine what would have happened had we decided to sit it out.

[LostinVA]

60. That is what the OP is doing -- fighting for rights

[mkultra]

151. abstaining is not fighting

fighting is fighting.

[DonCoquixote]

212. So

What will do you if Obama loses in 2012, throw a party?

[Spazito]

64. OMG, stop the presses....

someone who has been less than supportive of the President is.....wait for it......STILL not supportive!

Damn, where's CNN, MSNBC and, most of all, FOX when you need them!

:eyes:

[grantcart]

111. well he is willing to negotiate. lol

[Spazito]

133. LOL, to paraphrase a popular quote...

'I do not think that word means what he thinks it means'.

:rofl:

[QC]

68. How dare you put your daughter before a politician!

How dare you!

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

94. I rather think it's the opposite, actually.

If the OP really had their daughter's needs first, they'd understand that they're far better off with Obama than they are someone else. This is childishness - not selflessness.

[Jennicut]

70. I think every person has a right to vote how they feel they want to.

That would not be for me, I will always try to keep the Rethugs out. I also don't think withholding your vote is going to change anything. Getting someone in even less sympathetic to your views (and my views, I might add) is kind of counter productive. But I understand your anger and impatience and it is not my place to tell you what to do.

[Phx_Dem]

72. Good. Go rally for someone else, somewhere else.

:hi:

[Sheepshank]

73. I'm pretty sure

you were clear that no incremental changes at all will assuage you. So the hospital visitations, federal employee gay partner insirance coverages etc were not even a good start? I suppose that's your perogative too.....really, the world is much more interesting because of "vive la differance"

Since Obama is likely not to get your vote because he didn't do exactly what you wanted, right when you wanted it, I'm assuming you've scoped out someone who will step up to your standards? Someone with 100% assurrance to pass all the legislation needed to implement everything you want just when you want it. Please tell. There are hundreds, probably thousands, who'd like to get to know such a potential candidate as well.

[dsc]

78. there is no insurance coverage so please stop lying and saying that there is

Under DOMA insurace was specificly left out of the benefits Obama granted. Here is the link which backs me up.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/federal-eye/2009/06/eye_opener_same-sex_partners_g.html

President Obama signed a memorandum today extending some federal benefits to same-sex partners of federal workers. The measure does not cover health care and retirement benefits

[Sheepshank]

138. the truth is that long term care started on July 1

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/federal-eye/2010/06/opm_extends_long-term_care_to.html. You are right I mistook long term care for "something" positive...OTOH, you mistook it for "nothing" in favor of same sex partners. :sarcasm:

Since feds currently don't cover health care for non married domestic partners...I assumed that once marriage becomes legal for all so would health care....I may have jumped the gun, the but the matter of the fact is there are still positive changes that are not enough for some and completely ignored by those who would rather lean on one item voting agenda.

[dsc]

159. you were flat out wrong

and frankly I am sick to death of ignorant straight folk pretending to know what rights we do and don't have better than we do. Instead of apologizing, you instead try to lecture me, how nice. Oh, and how dare you compare people who can't get married to people who choose not to? And, to top it off, gays legally married in MA and IA to name two places, also don't have health insurance benefits as you wrongly said they did. But of course, being straight means never having to say I am sorry to a gay no matter how ignorant you are.

[Sheepshank]

176. you judge, in spite of all the fuss that you are being judged.

I have no use for that from straight or gay.

Your all or nothing idealism is not as noble as you'd like to make it sound. It does nothing but create battle lines that cannot be won. You obviously loved to manufacturing the outrage of a comparison that didn't exist. If you'd have read my statement without that huge chip on your preconceived shoulder, you'd have read that my comment is about *all* married couples being treated the same...we all need to get to the point where there is a marriage choice for all couples. But of course that's not what you wanted to see or read so went off. I'm done with you and your judgements.

[Name removed]

Deleted message

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

[Dawgs]

200. I'm sorry. The previous poster was right. The 'chip on your shoulder' will only hurt your cause.

You need to grow up a little.

[dsc]

202. I am so sick of this

really. If I said to a black poster something about civil rights which turned out to be totally wrong, I would be embarassed and apologize. Straights here, say fuck you.

[Name removed]

225. Deleted message

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

[jenmito]

76. What YOU don't get is he's doing exactly what he SAID he'd do...

and what he hasn't gotten done yet, he promised to get done in his first term.

[zulchzulu]

77. While I understand your passion, understand that DOMA and DADT need to be voted on and then signed

If Obama puts in temporary measures ending both DOMA and DADT, both policies could still be overturned by a future President. Both insane policies need to have iron-clad legislation passed to end both policies once and for all.

Obama has been rallying on ending both, but votes need to be cast and legislation needs to be signed by him to squash these ridiculous policies once and for all.

If you think that the Republicans would do any better or that a third-party candidate would do any better, you would surely be mistaken. A better solution is to join other grassroots movements or start your own getting members of the Senate and Congress to act on legislation that Obama can sign.

[dsc]

79. then why, at his insistance, does the legislation which repeals DADT

not come with an explicit plan to let gays serve? If this entire exercise was to prevent a new President from undoing the whole thing, then why is it being done in a way that will allow a new President to undo the whole thing.

[CakeGrrl]

80. In that case, abstain from voting in the primary.

[dsc]

82. He will get my vote in the general

but nothing else if the big three (Hate crimes, ENDA, and DADT) haven't been dealt with. You are a great parent your daughter is lucky to have you.

[FrenchieCat]

83. You should do what you feel like doing......

not that it will improve the rights of the LGBT community that you are currently so very
concerned about to the point of threatening to withhold your vote.

If everyone did what you are threatening to do, there will be no more tangible gains
for the LGBT community after 2012. In fact, there will only be tangible losses.....

So no matter what you do, I hope you don't offer up yourself as an example for others to follow, since what you are proposing doing would only result in a backward lurch for the LBGT community.

.....But as long as you are personally satisfied that you made a difference, even if it has a negative effect on your own cause, you should go for it.

[DevonRex]

84. Okay. nt

[Name removed]

92. Deleted message

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

[LoZoccolo]

98. Your California vote is unlikely to matter, lol. n/t

[Ignis]

123. So you've decided to forgive CA voters for Nader 00 votes?

That's big of you! :hug:

[LoZoccolo]

129. You can be irresponsible and ineffectual at the same time. n/t

[Ignis]

134. That's big of you to admit.

:thumbsup:

[dave29]

100. Wait, is it ANY and EVERY group or just LGBT?

I think a line may have formed

[bvar22]

204. Thats because it is not a GLBT issue.

Civil Rights and Equal Protections for EVERYONE is an American Issue.
There is NO gray area in which bigotry may be defended.

[BklnDem75]

207. Only two were mentioned.

DADT and DOMA. The OP was very specific. Simply because it is a Civil Rights issue doesn't make this ultimatum about Civil Rights.

[bvar22]

209. The fact that you would attempt to separate them from Civil Rights...

...is revealing.

[BklnDem75]

211. LOL!!!

Says the person who's trying to expand the OP's stance a day later.

[Yavin4]

109. Obama's Position on Gay Marriage Has Not Changed

He never advocated Gay marriage and for that matter, neither did Hillary.

[DevonRex]

194. That doesn't matter apparently. Don't waste your time. nt

[Hell Hath No Fury]

224. It sure as hell HAS changed.

In 1996 he was for it unequivocally and vowed to fight any attempts to undercut LGBT civil rights. On this issue he is a political coward who changed his views to get elected President, plain and simple.

[handmade34]

112. I humbly ask that you reconsider

...you vote democratic and I promise (and I expect many others will) to do everything in my power to help get equal rights for everyone. It isn't the politician that is going to bring the change it is us demanding it of them...

Most of us are disappointed on many levels, but if we give up now, it will be that much more difficult to rise up from the abyss where a republican will surely take us...

[unapatriciated]

167. Thank you for the one reply that actually offers help and shows compassion..

To those of us who are tried of seeing our loved ones suffer and treated like second class citizens.
I have seen many hateful responses on this thread from those that disagree with the OP. I appreciate your response..

[FrenchieCat]

173. Personally, I'm tired of seeing many loved ones, no matter their

race, religion or sexual orientation suffer.

When one seems to care so little about the sufferings of the many
under Republican rule, one has to at least consider that since
one is no longer going to be part of the solution,
they might just become part of the problem.

As for being treated as 2nd class citizens,
I'm not sure that deciding to vote for apathy
or revenge will help those folks much more,
beyond deciding that walking around without a nose
where one should be simply to spite their own face is
solving something.

So although the frustration and general anger and despair is understood,
when one choose deliberately to vote against one's best interest,
why do you believe that should be pitied or even appreciated?

[unapatriciated]

197. simply compassion.

We all sound off when the hurt is deep and especially when it is directed at our loved ones. How you react to someone else's pain shows more about you and your compassion for your fellow man. I stand by my statement post 112 showed compassion, understanding and a solution. Other posters not so much. My father taught me the lesson of compassion a long time ago.

[MineralMan]

114. Well, OK, but you'd do better to send your ultimatum to President

Obama himself. I don't think he reads DU. If you don't have the address, I can get it for you.

[GoCubsGo]

180. +1

Thank you.

[boppers]

156. The KKK, FLDS, and American Nazi party thank you for your support.

"ANY and EVERY group"?

Perhaps you didn't mean to say that, did you?

[depakid]

174. Impressive that you don't see the irony in that statement

or the disconnect in the fact that the Republican governor supports equal rights while the Democratic president doesn't.

Tell you what, if Kagan ends up the deciding vote against gay marriage- all hell's going to break loose.

[inna]

183. Jesus, what an idiotic and mean comment.

:wtf:

[boppers]

191. For asking about a an extremely broad generalization?

You do realize that, for example, the FLDS believe that their "rights" to have multiple child brides are being denied?

I simply cannot support that.

Maybe the OP does, and has an ideological absolute stance, which is why I asked.

[unapatriciated]

216. Thank you for comparing my daughters rights to child abuse

At least you didn't use incest as so many of my fundie relatives. Comments like this say more about you than you realize.

[boppers]

222. "ANY and EVERY group"

That includes groups who would deny your daughter rights to marry.

I'm quite aware what my words say.

I'm not so loose with them (my words) to give credibility to my opponents.

edit: correct terms

[pampango]

179. Surely you mean "any group" of Americans. Foreigners (people born in the "wrong" place)

are not included in your "ANY and EVERY group" statement, right?

[Aramchek]

186. I think you would get faster results if you held your breath

[spiritual_gunfighter]

187. Obama is against gay marriage

I guess its time to start looking.

[Touchdown]

190. Funny how they can turn your thread into their...

[Orsino]

203. I was about to argue with you...

...but your acknowledgment that most of this stuff is negotiable shows more than enough flexibility. More than this Administration deserves, IMO, in the matter of human rights.

A demand that the president turn his own behavior around is reasonable. Presumably, a real flip-flop would put more pressure on Congress to achieve those tangible results we need.

[DonCoquixote]

214. Question

are you talking about the Primary, or the general?

[Name removed]

229. Deleted message

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

[babylonsister]

239. Hahaha! Yes, you nailed Obama, a homophobic bigot.

Oy. Prove it. Nah, nevermind. You don't like him, you don't like him. He's not a bigot, and he's not homophobic. He's entitled to his opinion, as much as we might not like it.
Let me know what president has done more for gay rights than Obama, or who might in the future even.

Homophobic bigot? Jesus Christ, you are ridiculous.

[ncteechur]

231. Maybe you need a civics lesson. There is this "thing" called Congress that makes/repeals laws...

You probably know that but maybe forgot. Has any congress member introduced a bill to repeal DOMA?

[ruggerson]

232. I'm so fucking tired of this argument

because it's utter bullshit. Presidents propose legislation all the time. They simply get a Congressperson to formally introduce it for them.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

233. Wow

Seriously.

Do you have any idea how the United States Congress works? You really think all the President needs is one friendly Congressman to get his agenda enacted?

Really?

[ruggerson]

234. Reading comprehension difficulties?

The President/Executive branch can propose a bill and get someone on the Hill to introduce it.

That process does not mean he gets his "agenda enacted."

It just means he can get it introduced.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

236. Civics comprehension problem?

Any idiot who happens to be a member of Congress can introduce a bill. In the 110th Congress (2007-08) there were 10,000 bills introduced.

I'm not going to go through the whole "Schoolhouse Rock" version of how a bill gets enacted, but for god's sake, know what you're talking about before you post this drivel.

[ruggerson]

237. Are you disputing the fact

that Presidents can propose legislation, get it introduced and then lobby Congress to pass it? Are you actually disputing that?

[cherokeeprogressive]

242. Yeah, I don't get that one either. Not only can the Executive propose legislation,

said legislation can be introduced verbatim. There is absolutly no wall between the two in that respect.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

243. I'm disputing your grasp on reality

If you know anything at all about how Congress works (and I'm betting that you don't), getting a bill introduced in Congress is no more difficult that getting paper or plastic at the Grocery Store. Getting a bill through Congress is massively difficult, particularly when any one of 100 asswipes in the United States Senate (even members of your own party) can effectively spike any legislation that gets that far. Particularly when any one of the more than 40,000 registered lobbyists on Capitol Hill can cause the bill to die in a subcommittee.

The Preident, in fact, has no control over that other than trying to bring political pressure to bear on key members of Congress to get the bill through. But that's not always enough -- in fact, most of the time it's not enough. President NEVER get their entire agenda through Congress. And to believe that all the President has to do is get the bill introduced and them lobby Congress to get it passed in pretty ignorant.

[cheapdate]

235. Your decision to vote as you see fit is your's alone to make. n/t