For all of you in an uproar regarding McClurkin and Caldwell, I have a question for you.

"Don't ask, don't tell" and the "Defense of Marriage Act"...

So, how did those laws turn out in the struggle for gay and lesbian equality?


Are you seriously telling me that associating with the right people is more important than supporting the right legislation?


ETA:
Listen all, my point here is NOT TO DEFEND OBAMA! I have spoken out against McClurkin before on DU and I am more than disappointed to hear that Caldwell will campaign for Obama as well. The only point of this post is that both candidates are flawed with regards to gay and lesbian rights. There have been no less than 10 threads condemning McClurkin, etc. but I've yet to see a recent, unbiased discussion of DADT and DOMA.

I wanted to know why, in fairness, we aren't discussing those as well.

I hope this will not get me killed.

Is there some synergetic relationship that I don't understand between gospel, the black community and homosexuality?

Is there some kind of entrenched homphobia in the Black community that is so deep that Obama is finding it difficult to gain support from Black churches WITHOUT sticking his foot in the big pile of shit he seems to keep doing? What am I missing with him?

It is not that I support Obama so much that I don't believe that he could be homophobic, it just doesn't SEEM to be true given that he is such a deep thinker. My intuition says no.

So I guess I am trying to ask those here on the other side if they think that he maybe is just in a really tight position in trying to get support from the black religious establishment (where there is more entrenched homophobia than he can deal with politically?)

Do our Black DU'ers here sense more outright homophobia in their churches? As for me, I'm Jewish so I've never been to any church, but I tell you one thing: I have never been in a synagogue that promoted anti-gay ideas.

If you, for whatever reason, consider my asking this question to be racist or homophobic, I apologize if that is an impression you were erroneously left with.

I am just trying to understand why Obama would be doing this/allowing this. It all SEEMS wrong.

behind DOMA and DADT?

history as well as those who have been personally affected by these policies.

I'm willing to learn, but I would be shocked if either one of them have actually promoted gay and lesbian rights.

Do tell. (I'm asking)....lol?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4133344&mesg_id=4134262

But I'd encourage you to do some research into why both were done at the time.

in my opinion.

DOMA was inexcusable, but arguably staved off the push for a Constitutional amendment which would have been far more difficult to reverse.

Now, do you plan to tell Obama he should dissociate his campaign from someone whose organization mentally abuses GLBT youth?

she was running to Wikipedia to look em both up.

DADT cost the Dems votes in the 1994 election as I recall. Many voters were anti-DADT because they didn't think gays should be in the military any how any way.

Having said that, DOMA was appalling.

...was the exclusion of partners of federal employees from receiving benefits.

I mean the rest left a lot of interpretation up to individual states. But that particular clause was non-negotiable.

Listen, I'm not gay, nor am I lesbian...so even if I could recite these laws to you verbatim, I could not understand them. All I meant to ask, but worded poorly, is why we are not also discussing these issues in addition to the McClurkin and Caldwell thing? That's it.

And, since Hillary claims that she was active during Bill's presidency, I'd have to think that she bears a bit of the responsibility for these laws.

When DADT was passed. I knew what it was "supposed" to be about.

Seriously, knock it off. DOMA and DADT are horrible POLICIES that can be repealed. And ultimately will be repealed.

The "ex-gay" movement, which McClurkin and Caldwell represent and promote, says that gay and lesbian people are "sick" and "evil" and need to be "cured". The "ex-gay" movement is something for hatemoners to get behind to appear "compassionate". Since they can't come out and say "I wish you fags and dykes would all die".

Knock off this attempt to lessen what a vile, hateful thing the "ex-gay" movement is, please. Seriously.

These are totally different issues, although the OP's goal is merely to change the subject since she can't defend her own candidate.

n/t

Thank you.

:thumbsup:

It is my opinion that Bill Clinton had a real chance to stand up for gay and lesbian rights, but he didn't. He backed down, compromised and signed terrible legislation (IMO). It is also my opinion that marginalization of gays and lesbians, as such horrible policies as DADT and DOMA promote, only feed anti-gay ignorance and issues such as the "ex-gay" movement you speak of.

Seriously, if Bill Clinton had taken that stand over a decade ago, do you really think we'd be in the same place with this shit? I seriously don't think so.

Including the whole history of this whole mess, the horrors and history of the "Ex Gay" movement (including the Reagan legacy), and what gay youth and adults go through.

You cannot defend that which is indefensible, so please quit trying. This has went beyond candidate boostering and is just insulting to every GLBT DUer.

...and others not.

And I do know the history, but like I said in my earlier post to you, there is no way I could personally understand them.

She just said to me that they would have sent her to an Ex Gay camp if they had had more money.

I know what hell she went through, so, people like the OP and others who try to defend this shit, especially since it's MINORS that are ripped apart, can just STFU.

The "Clinton did it too!" response does nothing to answer our objections. Thanks!

Was it wrong of Clinton to support the Employee Non-Discrimination Act from which language that would have protected transgender people was removed?

Wanna yell at someone --yell at Barney Frank.

HRC supported trans-inclusion in a similar bill here in NYC.

That episode was disgusting. Shame on Barney Frank and Pelosi for doing that.

Didn't she have enough pull with Barney?

Seriously, who REALLY felt it was necessary to remove the support of the transgender community for political gain? Was it really Barney? That would seem unlikely.

Do you know the animosity many gay men have for transgendered people even being part of "their" movement?
It's been an ongoing debate for the better part of the last 20 years.

It was pure unadulterated Barney Frank --and he should be ashamed of himself.

Thank god MY congresswoman Nydia Velazquez listens to her LGBT constituents and voted nay on that travesty version of ENDA (props to Nadler too)

That is pretty nasty.

and a source of incredible sadness for me at times.

If you like, I can send you some information on the decades long debate.

Do M-F trans people suffer because they have "become" women at the same time that F-M trans people suffer because they WERE women and are not "true" men in the white patriarch mindset?

Is that the way it is?

with main stream acceptance.


There is a rather strong undercurrent in the gay male world of transexuals (both f2m and m2f) of being too visibly queer.
It is by no means all gay males that feel this way. Please do know that.

I have many gay male friends who are just as outraged by transphobia within the community as I am.

The gender component is also likely present among the older more mainstream types. It's all very complex --but I've been subjected to some rather horrid little tirades about the "T" not belonging in "LBG"

Cause it would seem like law passed would be more important, cause you can only begin to change men's hearts by imposing laws that make sense and then enforcing them.

Integration in school legislation occurred prior to integration in schools happened.

Hillary said that she "does" stuff, not simply talk about it. Guess she was talking about her hubby passing DOMA and being too politically cautious to be more assertive and compromising away our citizens rights with DADT. :shrug:

and the entire history behind both.

You are not or you could not have written: "her hubby passing DOMA and being too politically cautious to be more assertive and compromising away our citizens rights with DADT."

Now, if you want to know the history of both of them, I'd be happy to fill you in. But I don't know if you really care or if you are just using them as a political club.

and if so, please tell me how? Because I dare post in this thread?

I know the history....and what I said was what I meant.

I always value what you say.

However -

1) Clinton didn't "pass" DOMA. It was introduced by Bob Barr and was passed by veto proof majorities in both houses. Clinton was a coward and signed it, but he did so knowing it would avoid a republican led push for a constitutional amendment. He also thought the courts would eventually overturn it. What he should have done was veto it and let it become law on the override. But, he wasn't that politically courageous.

2) Unlike DOMA, he actually tried to do something good about gays in the military. When he was first elected, he informed the Joint Chiefs that he was going to sign an Executive Order ending the regulatory ban. They ganged up with Sam Nunn and Colin Powell and others and told him if he did, the Congress would respond by institutionalizing the ban with a statute (up until then, it was just a regulation). The press went nuts - how could this new President waste political capital on this insignificant issue (back then the press was far more homophobic than now). Clinton responded by crafting a compromise with his opponents. Thus, DADT. He was basically forced into it - had he signed the Executive Order, which was his desire, congress would have passed a law forbidding gays from serving, a law which still would be on the books today.

thanks for your TRUTH in the matter.

WE lived thru it all. WE know what happened.

SHAME on the OBAMABOTS...

I have now lost any respect I was gaining for you over this weekend...ANY and ALL...

She has indeed "does stuff," including her voting record and her involvement with the GLBT community.

n/t

to get anything done at all with a Republican led Congress. The "ex-gay" movement destroy people's lives by spiritually and mentally abusing them into believing they are "sick" simply because they are gay. There is a WORLD of difference between the two.

How long before you fire off a letter to Obama letting him know you disapprove of his cavorting with the "ex-gay" movement? I'm not holding my breath. Looks like you have decided you are fine with it despite the fact that GLBT people are trying to educate you on the facts we already know. You, and many others like you, are just not listening.

Nice try you fucking ass!

You would think that a Democratic candidate in 2007 would not be discussing "sin" as it relates to gays and hiring ex-gays to campaign for him.

:eyes:

it's always part of the struggle for equality. This grandpa is saddened that the tough, sometimes deadly battles of the past aren't better understood. Life was very, very different until the civil rights legislation of the 60s and the advances that DOMA and DADT represent.

OF COURSE there are imperfections and there is much more to do. Ridiculing the pioneers is of no help at all. :argh:

over a Repub.

But Obama talked about people turning to Reagan after what Obama called the excesses of the 60s and 70s. Those were the decades when women, African Americans, and gays began to get more rights.

At the time, many, many people made fun of women's libbers, people of color (I won't use the names I heard them), and gays (again I won't use the names I heard them).

But getting rights is not an "excess" in my opinion.

choices from which to choose our president, I think many would agree.

But frankly, a discussion of DADT and DOMA as a means of making Obama look good just won't work.

I asking for realization that both candidates should be considered flawed, at best, as far as gay and lesbian rights are concerned.

I'll try and edit to clarify.

n/t

and there's no excuse for this

"Giving them a set of basic rights would allow them to experience their relationship and live their lives in a way that doesn't cause discrimination," Obama said. "I think it is the right balance to strike in this society."
Sources: Chicago Daily Tribune, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force

He caved on those two pieces of legislation, but he also would continually defend gays in interviews. Saying it was time for us to have an equal place at the table, and that people have to "expand their imaginations" about homosexuality, a condemnation of anti-gay narrow-mindedness. He was the first president to say anything nice about gays. I'm not even sure if any previous presidents made any appointments of openly-gay people, probably not, and Bill made a ton of them. The 90s was a very long time ago, Clinton's inclusiveness was a first step. Public opinion has continued to evolve, and if Bill were president today, he would've been in a position to be more protective of gay rights.

And finally, Hillary isn't Bill. She's a whole separate person. Women are generally more pro-gay than men, so I see no reason why she wouldn't be a staunch ally for gays in office. She probably has lots of gay friends.

such as his work on AIDS awareness.

I can understand why Obama supporters might not want to support Hillary Clinton.

What I don't understand is why you aren't supporting Edwards. He is the most progressive candidate left in the field.

Thank you.

the REPUKE were trying to ram thru various ANTI-GAY measures - not just supporting marriage and the other "nice" ones - but BANNING gays from holding jobs, getting married or civil unions ANYWHERE, even if passed by the individual states or localities.

The DOMA is a watered down REPUKE measure that was the COMPROMISE.

The anti-gay fucking religious assholes tried to BAN gays from the military - and we COMPROMISED and got "don't ask..."

but YOU fucking obama BOTS refuse to see it at all...