I will never vote for another candidate ever again who doesn't support full marriage equality.

I will support the Democratic party wholeheartedly, but I'm not going to be complicit in this civil union bullshit. It's dishonest, bigoted and cowardly.

If this is too "one issue" oriented for some of you, frankly, I don't give a flying fuck.

My vote from now on goes to people ethical and courageous enough to support my family.

If that means I don't pull the lever in some races down the road, so be it.

You step up to the plate, you got my vote.

Otherwise, you're on your own.

:toast:

that have equality before their courts or legislatures.

Withholding your vote is one thing, it may make you feel as though you've taken a stand, but in the big scheme, it's rather passive. People withhold their vote for all sorts of reasons--from single-issue differences to getting too drunk to drive to the polls. All you're really doing--and it's your right and your choice, certainly--is giving the opposition one fewer vote that they need to counteract.

I think the trend is positive, myself. That may be "insufficient" in the big and ultimate picture, but it's a start, and if you told me, ten years ago, how many states would have made the right call on this issue, I'd never have believed it.

We vote(d) far more than any other constituency. We support(ed) the whole of the Democratic Platform. Not so much any more.

Think about how many states went for Obama by less than 7%. Think about how many Senate and House races went by less than 7%. That's the impact we can have.

To the Greens? How does that help, either?

All politics is local. Work for candidates at the local level who share your views.

Be positive, rather than negative. Telling people what you won't do is rather like announcing that you're taking your ball and going home.

Not to be unkind, but those sorts of pronouncements are usually followed by a line that starts with "Don't let the door hit ya..."

As you peel away angrily, more and more people who called themselves "moderates" and "independents" are warming to Obama and drawing nearer. No offense, but it'll be a wash. You won't have the impact you're hoping for by stomping off in a fit of pique.

You'd do better to shape the party from the ground up. Back candidates locally who share your single-issue view, that's one way of making an impact. It's more positive, and certainly more proactive, than petulantly proclaiming that your vote is being withheld unless a politician does precisely what you say.

Obama's view on this particular issue was no secret. It's why (check the archives) I had trouble with him. I was told, I recall, to shut the fuck up, that I was simply a Hilbot, that he knew what he was doing, that he didn't mean it, etc., etc. I think he did know what he was doing--he judged that people who didn't want equality would be "OK" with his wafflish stance, and people that did want it would put up with his McClurkin/Caldwell Gospel Hatefest and write it off as a simple pandering exercise.

Here's the truth--equality is going to have to come from We, The People, and that means it's got to come from the STATES, not the Federal government. If you are expecting Congress to pass an "Equality" law without at least half the states (and they'd better be the Big Population ones, too) having equality laws on their books, well, dream on. They won't do it. Don't shoot the messenger.

Again--all politics is local. Start on the ground floor and work your way up. It's less glamorous, but it's more richly rewarding over the long haul.

Who gives a fuck If voting Dem doean't help they can do without my vote and support. We hear that " where else can you go" every year, Well It won't work this next time. I'll write in who I want.

I'd refer you to my comments about grassroots work, but you probably could give a shit.

Have a nice day, nonetheless.

Ever hear of the Civil Rights Act of 1964? The Civil Rights Act of 1990? The Americans with Disabilities Act? How about the Age Discrimination in Employment Act? Equality has never come from the States. However, realizing that the family law is the purview of the States, if Obama really were committed to Equality...MY EQUALITY, he would be saying it from the bully pulpit. Do I think it'll come...probably. But for all those people like this who talk about "patience" etc., I produce these words for you:

This is no time to engage in the luxury of cooling off or to take the tranquilizing drug of gradualism. Now is the time to make real the promises of democracy. Now is the time to rise from the dark and desolate valley of segregation to the sunlit path of racial justice.

If you guessed this came from the I Have a Dream Speech, you are correct. Can you imagine anyone saying to Black folks then to "be patient?" Gradualism and patience do not seem to have been on Dr. King's agenda, and they aren't on GLBT people's. When I see things like the Defense of Marriage Act forcing my partner and I to chose between staying here (he's an immigrant) and leaving where we can be together, I tell you..."FUCK YOUR PATIENCE AND GRADUALISM." I don't have time to wait.

There was no need for state-by-state civil rights acts, because MOST states didn't discriminate the way the south did. I never saw a colored water fountain or a colored waiting room or a colored rest room north of the Mason-Dixon or west of the Mississippi. I sure saw them in Virginia and the Carolinas, though.

Now, if the only states that didn't have marriage equality were the same states that, back in the bad old days, institutionalized Jim Crow and still had a lynching every now and agin', why, I imagine the Congress would "hop to" for that cause, too--because it was a MINORITY attitude, see?

Now, we know that attitudes are changing, and that's good. But more states will have to express that attitude before Congress gets up off its ass. I don't say this gleefully, I say it pragmatically.

You're yelling at me, and that might make you feel better, but you fail to understand that I am on your side. Look, you're simply shooting me because you don't like my carefully considered and reality-based opinion. I wish my opinion were different, but my view of the situation is this--a LOT more states are going to have to sign off on civil unions/marriage equality before Congress pulls out their ten foot pole to touch this issue. It's still divisive, even though it shouldn't be.

I'm sorry if you don't like that view. I wish it weren't my view, but it pragmatically is, based on a read of the politics of the situation. It's why you saw so much parsing over this issue at the primary debates.

Thank God, people as timid as you did not run the civil rights movement. Am I yelling? Wasn't my intention. But I will say this: when I don't have same rights, am treated as a second class citizen, but have to pay the same taxes, you're Goddamned right I'm going to yell. And really...keep your pragmatism. Pragmatism, gradualism etc. never changed anything.

looks like it's pretty accurate, based on attitudes and polls and demographics? Why do you ascribe motive or attitude to me? I'm not "timid." I'm a realist and I don't quite understand why you're mad at me because I'm making an honest assessment based on my read of the landscape.

I was an early supporter for the equality referendum in my state--first in the nation, FWIW--way before people thought it had a hope in hell. I drove supporters of the measure to the polls in VERY large numbers. I don't want credit for that, but don't go telling me who's "timid" simply because I make a purely political assessment that is at variance with yours.

Tell ya what--if we see federal legislation for equality before Obama's second term, I'll stand on the DU ramparts and flog myself with a chain and bellow my error of thought, word and deed to all and sundry assembled. Will that please you?

If I'm right, and I'd rather not be, but I think I will be, I won't ask you to do a single damned thing except keep plugging away, and maybe with a more positive and grassroots attitude. I realize it's not easy, but pissing all over people who support the same goal you're working for because it's not happening fast enough is just unhelpful and probably a bit demotivating.

In any event, I'll continue to support equality, as I've always done.

...rights as all other Americans, then Fine...Let Gays only have to pay 1/2 of the Taxes other people pay.
When the Prudes had to make "up the Difference", I bet that would get their Asses awake. :)

get more backing for that than a lottery in a cash-strapped state!!

A lot of single people out there don't use the services of schools (they don't have kids) or other "family oriented" community services, and they have an argument that since they use fewer services, they deserve a tax cut, too.

because you're not an idiot...

Most northern states segregated their schools. Chicago just recently got out from a court desegregation order, for example. And that says nothing for, say, race-motivated police misconduct in cities like New York and Chicago.

NEIGHBORHOODS were segregated, not schools. And they weren't segregated by law, they were segregated by custom, tradition, economics/affordability .... and realtors.

And prior to busing, NEIGHBORHOOD schools were the norm. You didn't get on a bus to go to the school across town, you went to the school closest to your house. The result was de facto segregation. However, for you to suggest that "states" had laws to enforce this situation is a total falsehood. Northern states had no "segregation" statutes on the books.

If you were the "blue one" who happened to live within the confines of the "green ones" neighborhood, you went to the "green ones" school.

Watch LEAVE IT TO BEAVER reruns. If you look real hard, you'll see "Token" in the classroom.

ETA a photographic example--Class of 1915, Cedar Valley School, PA



I have relatives who went to "segregated" public high schools in greater Boston in the 1940's--the girls (of all races) were segregated from the boys (of all races).

It's not that hard. There's a reason it's considered the most segregated city in America--still.

That surely can't be "that hard," either--unless such a law does not exist.

One more time, since it didn't sink in the first go round: Segregation was an issue of neighborhoods, and neighborhood schools, in the northern states --not an issue of "law." Before busing, you didn't go across town to achieve a "balanced" ethnic population in the city schools. You went to the school closest to your home.

That makes it easy to shit on gay people, which is his natural inclination anyway.

Where do we go? Who the fuck cares? I've been sending letters to my congresswoman and senators asking that they get all of us narsty homos forcibly exiled to a country that actually wants us. I served my country in the military for 8 years. I'm already more secure in my patriotism than damn near everyone in the country. If you don't want us here, then the humane thing is to help us get out.

Once upon a time, that beauty queen GOP VP candidate was on the school committee, or something. Then she was a mayor.

They all start out small, you know. They're not all born to the Senate. If you want good ones to rise to the top, you've got to put good ones in at the bottom. That's not done in a vacuum.

Calling Democrats Republicans isn't helpful, though. It's antagonism without a purpose. Working to change the laws in the states is an avenue, while continuing to press at the federal level. As more and more states embrace equality, the Federal government will have to see the trend for what it is.

If we'd had as much state-level organization that the Equality organizers possess for the ERA a few decades back, it might have passed. That's one that has only been kicking around for oh, eighty five years or so.

you've got your eyes closed.

Haven't seen a single thread in a state forum about it, either.

I don't have my eyes closed. I simply haven't seen that aspect of local candidacy prioritized here or in my local area. Perhaps it should be, but I haven't seen it. Of course, I live in an Equality state--it's less of an issue here, but still, I've not seen it highlighted in neighboring states, and my eyes are wide open, thanks anyway.

Oh wait...there is one! Or two!

The Victory Fund and The Gay and Lesbian Leadership Institute

You might want to pay more attention before you presume to know what the LGBT community is doing to advance its interests at the local level.

the effort that I described (as opposed to the two agencies you provided in response, which aren't doing quite what I was saying) at work in MY local community, or the states in my region.

The Victory Fund's endorsements are specifically for LGBT candidates--not just those of any stripe who support equality. The Leadership Institute's focus seems to be the same--to get "out" gay people in office.

I wasn't suggesting that anyone limit their support to LGBT candidates--my suggestion was to work for anyone, regardless of orientation, who supports equality.

Don't put words in my mouth. It's not cool.

And if the LGBT community is doing this, well, great. My suggestion was to focus on stated platform attitude, though-- not orientation.

I think you're just playing devil's advocate now, and it is tiresome.

I didn't say that what they were doing wasn't "enough"--I simply said that YOU, and that guy over there, and that woman over there, and any person interested in advancing the cause of Equality might do well to get off their own soft fat behinds and find and/or back local candidates that AGREE with the premise of equality. That means WORK. You know, the kind of shit that "I" do--walk around handing out flyers, do a little smiling and dialing, talk to neighbors, ask them if they'll put up a yard sign, find people willing to vote for the local candidate, drive them to the polls on what's usually an "off" and inconvenient election day--that kind of shit. I'm not talking about writing a check to The Victory Fund and sitting back smugly. I'm talking about giving the gift of time and energy--working for candidates--gay or straight--who support Equality.

I am not "playing devil's advocate." I offered a fucking constructive suggestion as to where to stuff all this brand-new anger I see blossoming like spring flowers up in here, and you let it whizz over your head and then came back and denigrated my intent. If anyone's taking an advocacy position (as in "Nothing is right, and nothing will EVER be right, so THERE!") it's you.

You have a nice day. Hope the thickening stew is at least tasty.

For someone who loves to talk about reality so much, you have a very limited understanding of the actions of those people on this thread who are saying we will only do what you so clumsily suggest we do, which is support candidates who support LGBT equality.

Your condescending tone doesn't help your case, either.

Go find someone else to lecture about politics.

My advice was generic, but you want to go out of your way to offend, and then take personal offense.

You're uninterested in honest discussion. You just want a "Me Too" chorus, or a fistfight.

When you don't like what people say, you accuse them of being condescending or lecturing, when I have reiterated, over and over again, that I'm not telling ANYONE what to do. Do have that nice day.

Wow. That's quite an, er, accomplishment. :wow:

You say your eyes are wide open, but just what exactly are you looking at?

Your posts in this thread are absurd, and frankly repulsive.

Years and years and years of work by people of good will in communities all across the state... with solid results, no less.

Yet, because you lack the will or the wit to have noticed it... it didn't happen.

What a crock of shit.

Point me to threads here that talk about the small, organic, grassroots efforts that I was referring to--not big, rah-rah, national office support--I was talking about efforts to elect that school committee member, that city or town councilman, that mayor, who supports Equality. The old "grow your own" mentality to keep people occupied at the local level if they are unable to support national level politicians.

That was my point. Whooshed right over your head, too.

I know what's happened--and is THE LAW-- in Massachusetts. I helped.

What's "absurd and repulsive" is an unwillingness by anyone to debate the issues and instead, toss labels at people in lieu of discussion. You're doing a heckuva job, brownie.

Have one of those nice days.

And a not-particularly-adroit griefer.

As for this little gem:



:rofl: You helped, somehow, without ever seeing it? :rofl:

Credibility, zero. Plausibility, nil.

It would be a bit more interesting if you actually had something of substance to say, though.

Your post "is" ROFL-funny. You just reiterated the fact that you are, indeed, a sloppy and poor reader. Grab your dictionary and look up the word "local," why don't you? Naah, don't bother, too much effort, I'm sure.

Have one of those nice days, now!

See, that's how discussion boards work. I thought you knew that, being a famous lecturer on the topic of online discussion boards and their mysterious traditions.

:hi:

and showed us all that you either do not read before you fire, or you don't understand the difference between local and grassroots efforts (like school committee elections, for example) and statewide and national efforts, like the fight for Equality.

You're a tired scold. Have a nice day, though--you sure sound like you could use one.

Wonder why that is.

Wonder why that is.

Veiled accusations are the refuge of bullshit artists. Just so you know.

Wheeeeee!!! :dunce:

I'll give you credit for one thing, though: You don't make veiled accusations.

Nope, your accusations -- phony, convoluted, and ham-fisted though they may be -- are paraded around naked for all to see.

Yay, you!

No life, huh? Poor you.

Why do you keep engaging in this behavior? Don't you find that sort of thing disturbing?

Stop following me around!!!!!!11

:rofl:

:cry:

:yoiks:

About how you found his campaign "smarmy, stupid, offensive" etc. Those were your words, weren't they?

:shrug:

We are telling you what we are GOING to do, not what we're NOT going to do. We are going to vote for REAL change. You're welcome to join us.

and choose what you'd like from it. If you don't find what you like, you're going to throw it at the waiter, call him an asshole, and march out of the restaurant.

Why not play a role in writing the menu? Work to get Equality minded people in local government, for example. The cream rises to the top. Not everyone inherits their Senate or House seat--some people actually earn it from the ground up.

People who state what they will do, rather than what they won't do, are generally perceived as positive. It's an important quality of leadership, IMO.

Is that positive enough?

:patriot:

These folks tend to vote the same way on social issues and many think as long as it doesn't concern them it doesn't matter. Well, it should. Equality should always have the highest priority, and if it doesn't something is wrong.

thrive in areas where the bulk of the population share their view.

The present view of the Democratic Party is that, on the issue of choice, well-meaning and sincere people can and will differ, and the Party isn't going to let the GOP make it a wedge issue in order to crowd out other issues like poverty and health care. While the party as a whole endorses choice, they allow for and tolerate individual differences and deeply held (religious or otherwise) views.

You can try holding their feet to the fire about this, and that's what you'll get back--the tolerance message. No person will be thrown out of the party for being "prolife" or "anti-abortion" or "anti-choice" or what-have-you. And they won't be called "Halfway Dems" for retaining that view, even if most of us don't agree with it. It's more likely that you'll be called intolerant for insisting that they change a sincere and personally-held belief.

Americans, I guess I can live with that. I find it really sad that oppression is viewed as "tolerance". Why is oppression on issues related with gender accepted but racism is not? Just imagine if one substituted the word "race" for "choice " or gender rights?

I also find it amazing that so called "religious tolerance" is considered more important than issues pertaining to women and those issues pertaining to the LGBT Community as both those groups of citizens have no "choice" about who they are as opposed to the folks of various religions that choose to believe as they do! And as far as the argument that those Dems such as Casey, Murtha and Reid "thriving in those areas where the bulk of the population share their views," well that is like an argument supporting the Dixiecrats after the Civil Rights Act. Perhaps one could also suggest that Sen. Byrd remain a member of the Klan if that was the view of most of the population?

And I find it ridiculous to pose and either or argument on the question of "poverty" and "health care" in regard to either choice or gay rights. These issues are all interrelated and coexist. We must find answers to ALL these issues. More women are in poverty than any other group and GBTL folks need health care reform. How are the issues separate?

BTW, I read you down post on supporting the "local" candidtes and you are 100% correct!

Not the Marriage Equality issue. The right-to-life crowd simply have a difference of opinion that is based on their religious teachings as to when "life" begins, and believe that a woman should suborn herself to the rights of the embryo. That's really an opinion of "belief," and while the law of the land doesn't agree with that belief, the party isn't going to shun people who believe that, and practice it. After all, there's no law requiring people to avail themselves of abortions. People who don't agree with the view simply need not practice it.

No one is saying that "religious tolerance" is MORE important. But it is out there, and it (or lack of it) is used quite successfully as a wedge issue. What the Democratic Party is doing is playing a triangulation game and preventing the GOP from doing that. On these issues of religious difference, they adopt a "Disagree without being disagreeable" attitude. It's what the GOP is trying desperately to flip to, using Meghan McCain and others as mouthpieces for a "more inclusive" party.

My view on Equality is that I would like to see it happen across the land. I live in an Equality state, and I voted for it--it's a good thing, it makes sense. However, I'm not about to shove people over the side who are sympathetic and at the same time, pragmatic on a national level (because, let's be frank--they're PANDERING to GET VOTES), in favor of those who hate the idea and oppose it--the old "cut off the nose to spite the face" routine.

The way Equality is going to happen nationally is not by Congressional Decree. Not by Presidential Fiat, either. Give that idea up. There needs to be a state-by-state wildfire, grassroots on up, and then and only then Congress will see the "We, The People" logic in crafting some federal legislation.

We're just not there yet. I wish we were, but if wishes were horses, then beggars would ride.

Also, Obama doesn't have the authority to dump DOMA, and DOMA is the Big Enchilada. Congress made it, Congress has to dump it. And realistically, so long as DOMA is on the books, you can't lift DADT without overtly endorsing discrimination in the Armed Forces (YOU, Sgt. Hetero Jones, can marry your girlfriend, but YOU, Corporal Gay DeGeneres, cannot!).

This unfair situation would likely produce a challenge to DOMA in the courts that would zip to the Supreme Court either quickly or slowly, depending on politics. Do you really want this court ruling on the constitutionality of DOMA? I don't. I'd rather just dump it without asking that question, at least so long as this particular crew of jurists sits on the bench.

Don't we have a Democratic House and 60 Democrats in the Senate? O8)

I don't. I think some of them LIKE DOMA.

What makes you think that lifting DOMA would have any impact on the way anyone sees DADT? If a court can ignore the patent unconstitutionality of DADT, they can certainly ignore any implications the lifting of DOMA would have on the military.

I didn't say that lifting DOMA will impact DADT. Please follow my argument.

It's HORRIBLE discrimination. Of course.

What I said was that you cannot possibly lift DADT without FIRST lifting DOMA, otherwise, the Federal Government is endorsing discrimination between "like" citizens. And if that's the case, there will be a court challenge. And if that's the case, then you have this bench of justices at the Supremes ruling on the "Constitutionality" of DOMA. The potential there is to make a bad situation worse, which is why I want to get rid of DOMA entirely.

If you have two soldiers who are alike in every way--age, rank, gender, and you tell one that they're going to have steak and dessert, and the other that they get thin oatmeal for supper, you're discriminating. You can't tell hetero soldier that he can marry and his spouse will get an ID card, a house to live in, medical and dental care, family recreation services, etc., and then tell the other solider to shut the fuck up and live in the barracks--no "family support" for you--because, you see, you're GAY!

Right now, like it or not, the way the rules are written for volunteering for military service, if you are gay (and even if you're not) you sign an AGREEMENT to be discriminated against, and/or to tolerate discrimination, in the Armed Forces.

Gay people who serve now AGREE to be treated like shit. It's not right, but they sign a document that says they won't ask, they won't tell, and they won't engage in any homosexual "conduct" while serving. People who aren't gay sign the same agreement, which also includes a proviso that they won't run around trying to "out" people who might be gay (don't pursue).

A lot of people think that DADT means that you can (legally) have a sexual relationship and live a normal, if closeted life while in uniform. That's not true. Actually, it's a lot more onerous than that. You've got to behave like priests and nuns (no, the ideal, not the reality) to stay within the lines of the DADT regulations.

The scenario you describe exists for gay people in civilian life EVERY DAY. There have been dozens of lawsuits filed on the grounds that dissallowing same-sex marriage is discriminatory. None of them have made a dent in DOMA. What makes you possibly think that if gay people are allowed to serve openly in the military, the courts will "have no choice" but to rule on DOMA?

Silly.

The US MILITARY is a FEDERAL organization. It's not "civilian life." Private employers of civilians aren't required to uphold FEDERAL law--they can be discriminatory turds, sure, but they're also free to give medical and dental and other benefits to spouses of gay people, if they'd like.

DOMA prohibits FEDERAL agencies from doing that.

FEDERAL law applies to the US MILITARY.

DOMA is a FEDERAL LAW.

Are your synapses firing yet?

A married gay soldier (assuming DADT is lifted, with DOMA still in place) gets no ID card for his spouse, no base housing for his spouse, no medical/dental for his spouse, no family services for his spouse, no use of commissary, exchange, MWR facilities like the gym, pool, golf course for his spouse, no air transportation for his spouse to his new duty station, no "command sponsorship" which is required to live at overseas or remote duty stations or even enter some countries as anything other than a tourist on a brief visit visa....starting to "get it" now?

So, you see, not "silly." There'd be a challenge to DOMA after DADT is lifted, based on "separate but not equal." And the Supremes would get it.

That's why I'd rather convince Congress to dump DOMA. I don't trust the Supreme Court one bit to rule on the constitutionality of that law.

So very, very silly.

Again, not silly at all. Your dismissive attitude isn't helping, either, FWIW. It just makes you look...er, silly. Please take careful note, now:

***You do not get extra money in your paycheck, like you do in the military, simply for being married, if you are a federal employee.

***You do not ordinarily get base housing if you are a federal employee (rare exception: overseas*).

***You do not get commissary/exchange benefits if you are a federal employee (rare exception: overseas).

***You don't get free medical/dental if you are a federal employee--you have to buy into a health plan.

Most federal employees don't travel much, they stay in the same job, pretty much, with a few "internal" promotions, in the same place, for a full career--unlike military personnel who move every few years to new duty assignments, and who get a larger moving allowance if they're married.

There's much less motivation for a gay and married federal employee to challenge the federal system, because WAY fewer benefits are at stake. There are also a bunch of entrenched old bigots at the senior levels of the federal civil service system who are only too willing to make life difficult by finding reasons to lower evaluation ratings for "troublemakers," and if you're not going to get any real benefit, why borrow trouble?

I don't know how many gay federal employees are married, but I'm guessing the number is small. I'm also guessing that if DADT is lifted, and DOMA trashed, the percentage of gay servicemembers who choose to marry will mimic the hetero forces--marriage rates have climbed dramatically in the last several decades. Once upon a time, the military used to be full of single young men. Now, it's full of married men and women, many with children.
................................................ ...................................... ....................................
*Overseas federal billets are often filled by the spouses, usually wives, of servicemembers. Many spouses go out of their way to develop an expertise in a federal job skillset that follows the military (such as civilian personnel or housing management, disbursing, commissary/exchange services), and the military goes out of its way to match federal "wives" (or husbands) with jobs at the spouse's duty station, when the spouse is assigned overseas.

There are THOUSANDS of Federal rights and responsibilities that are granted to married couples that are not granted to gay couples. Rights and responsibilities that gay Federal employees are not now entitled to.

Insanely silly. Do yourself a favor and google "Federal employee same-sex discrimination" next time you want to advance such a stupid argument. I'm sure that reading about the few dozen court cases filed by Federal employees that directly impact DOMA will smarten you up some. Apparently, these men and women being discriminated against don't agree with you that they have it so good they've got no need to want more.

very real, very concrete and very valid issues I raised vis a vis DADT.

I never said anyone "had it good." You made that shit up to make it appear to the sloppy and indifferent reader that I held views that I don't hold.

Look, you want to be pissy and childish, go right ahead. I was interested in an adult discussion. I guess I'm not going to get that here, and apparently not from you.

How "silly" of me to think I could.

We can speculate all we want about the possible reactions to every piece of legislation proposed in Congress. That is not an excuse to avoid passing it, or put off passing it until other more difficult to pass legislation is signed.

Imagining the consequences of an immediate DADT repeal should not be used to put it off until some unnamed threshold of support is reached. It is not pragmatic to worry about the consequences of equal rights.

There is an "if-then" dynamic at play with DADT and DOMA, and I'm quite sure that legislators outside the HASC and SASC have noticed it, too.

because IF that happens THEN people will sue!

I've never heard anything so ridiculous.

My only point is that the two issues, the law and the policy, are intertwined. And I'm likely not the only person in the world with this awareness--like I said, I'm betting the HASC and SASC have figured it out.

Despite my admittedly snarky tone, the facts are these: you said that DADT can't be overturned before DOMA because it would "force" a discrimination trial that could ultimately lead to the Supreme Court ruling unfairably on DOMA. I responded with instructions on how to find information on dozens of court cases that ALREADY challenge DOMA, court cases filed by Federal employees who are effected by the exact same ban on same-sex marriage as the military.

I said I wasn't going to discuss this with you anymore, but I wanted to offer you the chance to graciously admit that you were incorrect on this particular point. No matter how much I enjoy that bear eating the red X in your sig line, I'm not willing to let you defend inaction against DADT on such a flimsy excuse.

It could easily happen, and there could (and probably would) easily be a federal challenge to DOMA as quick as you say "Tiddlywinks!"

However, I will say this, even though you might not like it--the points I've raised are not lost on legislators. "Could" does not necessarily equal "will." That's why shit ends up dying in committee--because issues like the ones I've raised become sticking points.

There's a huge difference between discussion of the situation of federal employees who are gay and military members in the same circumstance, though. It's very much like comparing apples and oranges, simply because gay federal employees don't labor under the same personal restrictions that military personnel who are gay do.

Gay federal employees are not prohibited from getting married in states where marriage equality exists, or prevented from living with their spouse as a married couple, or prevented from telling their fellow workers about their orientation. They can live openly as gay Americans. However, servicemembers who are gay may not marry their same-sex partners. They may not, under current directives, express their "gayness" in any way--to include sexually, without violating the DADT regulation. All that is part of the "don't tell" piece. If they "get caught" or if they "tell"--like the unfortunate LT Choi--they are subject to discharge under current regulations. It's not right, but that's the law of the land right now.


ETA--that's actually a CAT, not a bear!! A himalayan!

You don't need to repeal DOMA to pass the bill that has already been introduced in the House to repeal DADT. I have yet to see a military regulation, policy, or code that will treat LGBT servicemembers differently than opposite servicemembers under federal law (which includes DOMA and means that any state-sanctioned same sex marriages do not exist in the eyes of the federal government).

Are you saying that opposite married servicemembers will challenge DOMA because they are subject to the military's adultery regulations and their same-sex married colleagues are not? Because that is the only conflict I can see under the law.

Please look just upthread--I explain clearly what DOMA in place means to married gay servicemembers--it means they're "not equal" and don't get the same benefits.


I am saying SAME SEX servicemembers will challenge DOMA--because their spouses will not be recognized by the military. Their spouses will not get benefits. I explain it just upthread.

I don't believe for a second that it will be easier to repeal DOMA than DADT. There isn't even a pending bill to repeal it, while there is a pending bill in committee right now to repeal DADT.

In fact, the only bill proposed so far this Congress related to DOMA is one that would bar any court in the United States from deciding on the constitutionality of DOMA: HR 1269.

And HR 1269 sounds like a terrible, swift, two-edged sword to me. The fundies must love the idea of it.

It also sounds .... unconstitutional!!! No laws are off limits in that regard!

The Admins/Mods will have a list of the unfaithful to line up and execute and vanish.

Granted, that list was there already. We started a list of everyone who was still here. It wouldn't have taken as much effort--just cut and paste the list of GLBT DUers and let the axe fall hard.

"You're doing your job?"

Pray tell, what's my "job?" You're plainly making an accusation against me. I'm a bit unclear as to what you're suggesting.

Come on--no snark, no bullshit, no idiotic "superior" or dismissive attitude--answer that question. Thank you.

Come and tell us how things are so good for us again, won't you?

In the meantime, at least one longtime DUer is now facing a mod warning for something he didn't do because the mods/admins need to trump up the charges before removing us. I

I tried taking this private to spare you the embarrassment. You threw that in my face. So let's come back out in the public and discuss how much you and the PTB want to attempt to justify eliminating us one by one. The thing that you're missing is that if we go--especially if we walk from the Democratic Coalition because we're tired of being told to shut up--this place will wither and die.

And what "embarrassment" did you spare me???

Come on, OUT WITH IT. Enough of this absurd and asinine and childish NONSENSE.

You emailed me, and I emailed you back.

I haven't revealed the contents of our private email discussion to anyone. I have not contacted a mod or anyone about this thread OR our private conversation, and I am getting the strong impression that this is what you're accusing me of.

Shall I email an administrator and get him to TELL you that, no, I didn't play the Rat Fink? Will that please you?

Calling people disruptors without proof is NOT ON, Creideiki. It's BULLSHIT for you to behave like that.

You make shit up about me (justify eliminating us one by one? PLEASE--get over your lame-ass self. Follow the fucking DU rules, and you won't have ANY trouble. Why is that so hard for you to comprehend?) and think I won't challenge you? Get real, pal. Put up or shut up. Prove your lies---and that's what they are--outright LIES--about me, or APOLOGIZE. Otherwise, shut the fuck up.

Would you like me to post our private conversation here? Would that "clear the air" since you're accusing me of absolute bullshit? Hmmmmm?

"I live in an Equality state, and I voted for it..."

You mean you sit on the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court? Because that's who voted, 4-3, to recognize marriage equality in Massachusetts; it was never put to a vote of the commoners.

Or are you a member of the Massachusetts state legislature, the only other body to vote on the issue -- specifically, on whether or not to allow a referendum (to reverse the SJC's decision) to reach the ballot (which, as I recall, was last trounced in 2007)?

If you are neither a Massachusetts Supreme Court judge, not a state lawmaker, and you meant to say you intend to vote no on a marriage-ban ballot measure (which won't be possible until 2012), then I thank you in advance for your plan to "vote for equality."

Otherwise, I fail to see how you could have "voted" on the 2003 decision at all.

Do let me know -- I want to make sure I address you properly next time; e.g., "Your Honor."

:thumbsup:

Perhaps if we're patient and wait another 25 years we'll get our chance at the adults table.

<pfffft>

Awesome post. Highly kicked and awesomely recommended.

for standing up and insisting on full marriage equality, and on other aspects of LGBT equal rights.

And I'm sure there will be more of us tombstoned again when the mods and admins get tired of having to hear us. :(

But I won't stop pushing our issues either.

I have compromised on occasion in the past, for the sake of "party unity."
And for that i and people like me have gotten nothing but tire-treads up our backs.

In the oh-so-eloquent words of my friend Gill here in MoTown: Fuck that noise.
Never again.

would just not vote. I don't give a flying fuck, either. our lives are not a single or pet issue.

But you are not "one issue" oriented--not by a long shot--and don't let anybody tell you you are.

I am sorry that we cannot seem to get it together enough as a nation to find a way to treat all of us as equals. I am sorry for the countless times "Wait!" is thrown out there...all the while those who are told to "Wait!" are among the most active, most dedicated, of campaigners.

I've got your back.

but holy shit many in the democraticunderground GLBT got all Donner party with us for saying it before.

I'm not gloating - I'd much rather have been proven dead wrong.

Obama just ain't very bright, I'm sorry to say. Likable at face value, but our lives have substance, and that's what's missing from the guy.

Moral conviction is based on true fairness, and in fairness ignoring, backburnering or downplaying the rights of some Americans is immoral.

Also, not voting on occasion IS a form of voting.

It is easy to make note that the exact same politicians in our Party who make big noise about their religionist opposition to equality wind up having large ethical problems. John Edwards being a hyper example, but note that those who are too holy to support equality are also the same people who can rationalize torture, and pardon those who committed heinious crims without a hint of emotion.
Those who oppose human rights oppose human rights. They see some people as intrinsically less than the sort of human they are. So the anti- marriage people are also the pro-torture people, the forgive the rapists people, the maybe Cheney is right people, the anti-Union people, the pro more war people and so on.
I will not ever cast a vote for a person who publically professes bigotry against my family again.

in the primary. Or Clinton.

I stuck with my heart and voted for Kucinich, although I was *this close* to voting for Clinton.

insane. some of the excuses they make for his bullshit are unfuckingbelievable.

I know they are batshit insane! ha ha :rofl:
And I am not a fan of these excuses either. :mad:

I too am sick of this shit.

...but I would be happy to stand up not only for justice in this matter, but also for plain-old fact-driven rationality. Of course one reason I'm not running for anything is because the minute I say I support marriage equality, it be the end of my chances on election day. Telling people what I think = never going to get elected. This is a very provicial, parochial county in a provincial, parochial state.

the time is now

...was not my choice for POTUS - Dennis Kucinich was. I knew in my gut Obama was going to pull a "Clinton" on LGBTs if he was elected but held out hope he'd prove me wrong. Next election, I will not vote for any candidate who does not stand for equality. Here in CA, the only two likely candidates who have committed themselves to equality are Gavin Newsom and Jerry Brown.

With five states having legalized same-sex marriage (MA, CT, IA, VT, ME), with a sixth apparently on the way (NH), with nearly a majority supporting same-sex marriage in at least three of the biggest blue states around (CA, NY, NJ), and with a public that now ignores the insane "God, guns, gays" ramblings of the Republican Party, Democrats have absolutely no excuse to oppose same-sex MARRIAGE, or to dilly-dally until the issue is "safe".

If you are principled, you don't wait until it's "safe" to express an idea before you express it. It doesn't work like that. Ideas don't incubate in a vacuum until they're "safe". People have to join together and express it in unison in order to make the idea "safe". If you just wait, you make yourself part of the problem, not the solution. Equal marriage will only be a legitimate idea in the public eye when our leaders make it one.

I wish this post was an OP of its own. :thumbsup:

If a democrat is in an office, even without genuine support of the gay community, at least hate groups don't feel support from the government to defame us like they did during the Bush administration. The Bush policy toward right-wing evangelical, i think hurt very much the most vulnerable, those still in schools, the youngest gays and lesbians.
it's taking too long and our democrats are less than courageous, but there are more vulnerable gays and lesbians in America who need your vote.

We can continue to give our votes away, because politicians will know we will continue to do it. Or we can stand up and say, "enough" and demand accountability for our votes. Which serves the more vulnerable gays and lesbians better? Showing them that sitting on their hands and continuing to bemoan their fate is the only avenue open to them, or showing them that if they stand up for themselves along with others like them and their allies, they have a better chance to collect on promises made them?

i don't think any win of a republican, due to the loss of a democrat, can lead to a positive outcome now or in the near future for any member of the LGBT community. do you?

On a national level, it hasn't been any time that I remember.

again i know i'm saying to vote for a lesser evil. However i think that a republican administration or congress that supports and even funnels money to anti-LGBT evangelicals groups run out of churches is much more damaging to those in LGBT community who are in the most remote areas or are the most vulnerable. i'm not yet convinced i'm mistaken.

they either support me and the Gay community or they go kiss some more fundy ass. I have heard your argument for thirty years or so, and I am convinced I and the Gay community are better off voting for people who support us. Here in Calif there are many Dems to vote for luckily. Maybe because people hold them accountable.

A Democratic Congress and President has done what for LGBT Americans? DADT, DOMA, the failure to reintroduce ENDA, the failure to pass a hate crimes bill, the failure to withdraw the HIV travel ban, the failure to change the blood donation rules that prohibit gay men, the failure to even comment on Marriage Equality passing in five states, the recent suicides of several middle schoolers due to anti-gay bullying, and a number of other failures.

I won't be as stupid as the anti-choice fascist who keeps believing the Republic Party's promises to criminalize abortion. I will vote for those who truly stand with LGBT Americans, not those who only pretend to stand with us.

We survive one way or another. Trust me. There are not going to be any pro gay laws in rural areas like where I live any time soon. When it comes to GLBT issues, local candidates are one and the same, regardless of the (D) or (R) behind their name. They are the same on all progressive issues here. There truly is no difference.

Sometimes it's very hard to tell the players without a scorecard.

you can't reward someone who doesn't support marriage equality by voting for them simply because they're the best available, while simultaneously demanding better. They already have your vote. Withholding votes is the only thing that works when faced with a slate of candidates that don't measure up.

Virtually half the country now supports marriage equality. In many areas, a solid majority are in favor. I am no longer a willing accomplice to putting someone in office who holds the immoral view that separate but equal is good government policy, or worse, someone who deep down has no problem with marriage equality, but adopts a civil union stance out of what they perceive as political necessity.

Abortion rights are favored by 2/3rds or more of the electorate. Yet we have elected a number of hardline anti-choice Presidents in the last 50 years. How? Because, if one is true to one's principles and voters sense that authenticity, one can hold a view not shared by the majority and still win over the hearts and minds and votes of most Americans.

Democrats have to learn to frame this as an issue of equal rights, not as one of religion or custom.

It's long past time for the party to grow up on gay issues.

it doesn't matter who is president or part of the US Congress. Things stay the same in these states no matter what. I know that from personal experience. It just seems that too many progressive people are too afraid to just BE progressive. Pick a set of values and stick to them. It's not that hard to do. Until WE change the system, nothing is going to change.

I'll NEVER vote again if it means compromising who I am.

political parties—parties sometimes turn their backs on people, too. Throw your support behind someone who will fight for you, not someone who has shown time and again that they won't.

I know who to support, and where, and when, and why.

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

Surely you jest.

Legal civil unions do not work. That was proven in New Jersey. Separate but equal will always still be separate.

If you want to "settle" for someone elses rights that's your choice. Some of us have chosen that option for years and are still no closer to the goal. So do not think to speak down to us. As for "useless" and "deserve nothing"...yeah, that's kind of the way we feel about the elected reps. They're useless and do not deserve the support they've received.

then you deserve nothing.

Apparently you don't think your civil equality is worth much -- but I think mine is fucking priceless.

As for "useless" and "deserve nothing"? I think you forgot who you're talking to.

I believe I should have health care. Do I deserve an all or nothing approach on that? Will you refuse to vote for a candidate that supports gay marriage yet doesn't support my right to health care? Are your civil rights more important than my human rights?

You miss out on some tax breaks, if I get a serious illness I will die.

Maybe we should all make a list of our "all or nothing" issues, follow them religiously, and just hand the country over to the republicans.

Maybe you should organize yourself around health care like gay men did. Have you heard of ACT-UP? We did that.

Has your 33 year-old spouse died in your 30 year-old arms? I certainly hope not.

And you want to lecture me about health care and equate my birthright to tax breaks?

Like I said before, LGBT people have every right to demand their long-overdue civil equality. We've paid dearly for it.

Maybe you should get with the program and ally with LGBT people. Whatever the costs.

You've got some balls coming here and lecturing us about "issues". Are you barred by law from getting married? Can you be fired for who you sleep with? Could you be refused entry to a loved one's hospital room just because the nurse on duty doesn't fucking like you?

Give up all the rights you have that I don't, and then whine to me about "issues", douche.

And to answer your question: yes, my civil rights are a HELL of a lot more important that your "human" rights. Demonstrate some humanity, and then we'll consider the equation again.

Without civil rights, we in the GLBT community die too...there is no count as to how many of us have been raped, beaten, murdered, and falsely accused of atrocities we stand firmly against. If you don't think that destroys our lives, you got another thing coming.

That is how I support people. I tell them they are stupid, will get nothing, are a purist, are useless, and deserve to get nothing.

I can't understand why anyone would question whether or not Democrats supported them. They are probably all just whiny malcontents, pouting and looking for any little thing to express their faux outrage about, eh?

Do me a favor. Don't ever speak for the Democrats again. You are making all of us look really bad.


...

Just remember you wrote that. Doesn't that validate people leaving YOU on your own? You could hardly blame them, it's what you do when the going gets rough.

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

:rofl:

If he starts thinking about voting for someone who doesn't believe in equal rights.I'll remind him. No more "it's not the right time for you" bullshit. NOW IS THE TIME, no more bullshit

We are taking a beating by so many who are SUPPOSED to be our allies.

We've served our time doing for the greater good just to be back stabbed at the most inopportune times.

It's time we in the GLBT community think of our own lives and what we need and stick to it. I'd rather vote my conscience and be able to sleep at night than always voting for any "lesser of two evils."

The fact is that there are good Democrats out there. They just get ignored because everyone falls in line with what corporate America wants. Therein lies the problem.

I know you can do it.

Repeatedly attempting the same task, and expecting a different result.

We've voted with our brains for years, and it has gotten us nowhere. Voting with our hearts is a much SMARTER option.

Thousands of Nader voters proved that idea as a bad idea in Florida.

Head your own advice.

You can be damn sure that everyone in the USA, (and the World) is aware of how the GLBTQ community is being treated.....


So for the Whitehouse to feign any attempt at ignorance would be a waste of mediocre acting abilities, as no one is going to buy tickets for that feeble bit of:


"Master Thespian Theater"....


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=naKm3iO2XSA

Anderson Cooper (anchor), Richard Quest (reporter), Hillary Rosen (contributor)...many others have made the jump from CNN to other news outfits.

CNN makes the same point I do--that it's got to get some critical mass at the state level, and that's not past the tipping point yet.

Obama would have to be in his second term before he took any bulls by the horns.

That this behavior is going on (Obama's indifference)......... and it's not just the Militant Queers talking about it....


... and frankly Obama's behavior is no shock to me..... and it's certainly not a shock to you either, (so I won't bother about getting you the smelling salts while the obvious is being pointed out).......


SO........ lets all be adults here, and stop the bullshit tip-toeing........


Queers are not high on Obama's list (and Hell, I doubt if Queers even appear on the list at all).... so being an adult,


"I GET IT"..... He doesn't like Fags... and even though that sucks ... I can accept he doesn't like Queers.....


So in the mean time the "Deep Down He Really Does Care About Your Kind Ghouls" that slither out of the woodwork to pop off about another persons life, in which others want to decide if we do/don't deserve any rights...... while having no fucking clue.... need to get real, and just say already.......


You Know What...... Obama Really Doesn't Like Queers, and he no longer needs you.... instead of the luke warm, half baked, crapcakes that are being handed out to the GLBTQ community....


Obama needs to be a man.... say what you mean, and mean what you say.... and then you know what? Everyone will leave Obama alone, as there will be no grey area.... and then folks can get back to the good ole days of threatening Queers what will happen to them if they don't vote the way the Democrats dictate.....


As Where Else Can They Go? Right? You Just Might Be Surprised!


McCain met with actual living, breathing Queers.... "The Log Cabin's" in person during the campaign.... (he didn't send his wife to do the groveling for him).......


http://www.gaypatriot.net/2008/06/25/breaking-election-newsgaypatriot-exclusivejohn-mccain-meets-with-log-cabin-republicans-president/


Can you name the Candidate who did send his wife to meet with "Teh Gay" rather than having to soil himself.......


http://rodonline.typepad.com/rodonline/2008/06/michelle-obama.html

I also think you're right. He doesn't particularly like gays or respect them or care about them--if he did, I doubt he would have done that McClurkin/Caldwell thing. It's one thing to pander to the religious crowd with the Biblical interpretation of marriage, but going out of his way to hire on the Pray Away The Gay guys kind of tipped his hand, I thought.

However--and all that said--I think Obama won't miss an opportunity to make history. It's obvious the direction that the Equality trend is taking; if he can be the one to sign the legislation, he'll be happy to do it. Sometime during his SECOND term--after many large and heavily populated states have signed marriage equality or civil union bills. I don't think he'll get out in front of this issue in his first term, no matter how hard he's pushed.

LBJ danced with the southern devil many, many times over the course of his career. In the House, in the Senate, as Majority Leader, he was a total shit to black people at times. At other times, he did what he could--but not "too much" because he didn't want to piss off his Dixiepals. Once he got in the White House, though, he thought about it a bit, and said "Fuck it--history demands this." And then he did the right thing and did his Great Society and landmark civil rights legislation.

Obama is never going to be blunt, though, and tell you what he thinks in plain language. He's not going to say "You gay guys aren't my top priority; my upbringing wasn't too gay friendly and neither am I; I'm not about to kiss the religious vote goodbye for you guys, and you'd better just understand that and get off my case about your legislative wishes--this term, anyway." That's just not going to happen. He may think it, but he's not saying it.

He's going to continue to triangulate the issue. To expect anything else--and I do not mean this unkindly, I just mean it pragmatically--is to expect more from him than I'm betting he will deliver. At least THIS TERM.

His next term, though? I think it's a good shot he'll at least find a way to unload DOMA and eliminate DADT and permit gays to serve openly in the military. Beyond that, who knows?

Your being pissed at the guy is understandable, but being pissed isn't going to change anything. He's the President. He's doing OK in the popularity department, and he's doing a decent job under tough circumstances on a number of issues (other than this one that he's not doing a good job on).

I just don't see Obama moving in the direction you desire of him, fast enough to suit you or anyone who favors equality. What's to be done, then? Do you push him and push him and push him, and try to force him to say things that might alienate that huge mass of independents in the middle who don't favor equality, which could cause them to flip to the GOP? Or force him to say things that alienate him from you, things that he doesn't really mean?

I don't know what the answer is--but I honestly think you're probably in for disappointment if you anticipate federal change soon. I think the movement and impetus is at the state level.

I don't know if the GOP will do much appealing to the gay community, LCRs notwithstanding--who knows, though, if the governor of FL winds up on the ticket, that might be a subtle signal that they're doing a flip that's a bigger roundabout than Nixon's southern strategy!

Again, I don't mean any of this unkindly, and I wish it weren't the case that I see Obama as being slow out of the gate on this issue--but that's how I see it unfolding. I'd be happy to be wrong.

We're saying that from now on, NO MORE OBAMAS. No more fence-sitting cowards who are more concerned with kissing religious ass than delivering on promises.

Obama will not get my vote in 2012 if he doesn't change his tune, and I know a large number of people (not even counting the people on this site) who feel the same way. Nor will any other candidate, from Senator to head librarian, get my gay vote unless I know he/she is gay-friendly...and willing to prove it.

We've heard all the tired lectures about "being realistic" and "being pragmatic" and "that's just how it is", and all it amounts to is "you're not important enough". That is clearly Obama's view, and that is why I will do my best to ensure that he does not receive another gay vote - EVER.

I was simply giving you my read of the situation. I wasn't commenting on the unfairness or lack of progress either. I was simply saying what I see as likely, based on what I've read and heard.

I'm not going to tell you to vote for him or anyone else, if you don't want to. I'll simply repackage what I said before--as you fall away and disengage, another voter, from the rightward edge of the Obama constituency, will likely take up your slack.

I'd rather not see the party slide too much more rightward, which is why I think disengaging is an unfortunate tactic. I think we've got enough diversity as it is in terms of POV. However, the party can probably get away with sliding a bit more to the right and not lose total votes (they'll pick up as many as they lose).

It'll be ten or so years before they get as obnoxious as the GOP has gotten. I'd just prefer to not have to see it go that way. Oh, well!

However, it is not we who have disengaged from the party. It is the party which has disengaged from us. If you don't like the slide rightwards, you should be voting for progressive candidates.

You may believe that the absence of the gay vote may mean nothing, but I can't for the life of me figure out where all these mysterious voters are going to come from to take our place. Do you imagine that the Republican party will be down forever? Especially with the Democrats not pressing ANY advantage, nor delivering on the key promises that got them elected in '06 and '08? I can assure you, the Republicans will be back, and those mystery voters of yours will go flocking to their banner, leaving only the clueless, defeatist, pragmatic Democrats who NEVER get tired of getting screwed, who believe that change will NEVER come, and who wouldn't feel comfortable voting for someone unless they had to hold their nose while doing so.

Good luck with that.

I wash my hands of it, and so, I hope, do the vast majority of my much maligned and cruelly manipulated gay brothers and sisters. No candidate, Republican OR Democrat, will ever get my vote without putting their money where their mouth is on equality. If Obama thinks he can take us for granted in 2012 like he did in 2008, without delivering on any of the promises he made to us, he is SADLY mistaken.

Maybe you're right, and it won't change anything. For the sake of all "pragmatic" Democrats, you'd better hope so. It would be a shame if you guys, through your unwillingness to fight for real change, allowed Romney or whoever to win in 2012.

But I do think, if gay voters leave en masse, in a huff, that sends a signal to bigots that they're welcome here. And they will fill in the empty seats. And even if angry gays decide to vote for Romney, I don't think it will turn the GOP tide.

I hope it doesn't come to that. It will eventually lead to the crash-n-burn of our party. It won't happen straightaway, though. Look how much time passed between the "Newt" heydays and the Decline and Fall of the Fristian Empire. A lot of legislation under that bridge....

See, Equality is in my "top ten" of issues that I feel are important to the party as a whole, along with poverty and homelessness, health care, a variety of other issues. I am not going to leave the party, or withhold my vote, because the party doesn't follow my wishes on one or even three of my top ten issues. I'm just not--but that's ME; you do as you please--your perspective is plainly more personal.

I'm going to stand, and fight, and gripe when I don't like something. Why? Because I know I'll get a better hearing from my party than I would from the GOP. I'll have more chance of using persuasion, working at the grassroots, and repeatedly stating my case to effect change from the Democratic legislators than I would from the GOP ones. And those ARE the choices--Democrats or Republicans, pick one. All this Green/Reform/Constitutional bullshit is just pud pulling nonsense.

You probably won't be voting for Obama in 12, then, because I don't expect him to take on issues of Equality until his second term (as I've discussed upthread). That doesn't please me, but it's what I see him doing. He may start making a little noise about the issue closer to election day, or send out surrogates to tell you (nudge wink) what he "means," but I do think he wants the fight to proceed in a state-by-state fashion. I don't think he was lying about that, even though I do think his "man-woman" marriage line was bullshit.

Being "unreasonable" is the only way to make significant change. Pragmatism is simply a defense of the status quo.

I'd say his Great Society and Civil Rights legislation was nothing to sneeze at.

Or does it disjoint you that McCain met with Queers, and Obama didn't?


As if you remember... McCain took a lot of shit from the right for meeting with the Log Cabin's during the campaign.......


Or does Michelle's photos makes all the difference?........


It just kills people that facts are facts....


Can you show me where Obama met with Queers but didn't take photos? Can you show me anything?.... I think he did say that he, & Michelle went to a Queers house for dinner..... there are no photos, nor do I know if it really happened..... does that count? He invited Queer families to the Easter Egg roll at the Whithouse... does that count? So show me where he has met, and talked with a Queer, as I think many in the GLBTQ community would be quite happy for me to be wrong.....


Hummmmm...... 1, 2, 3, ..........

and i don't recall anything in the MSM of any conservative pundit criticizing McCain. what was said in conservative blogs does not reach most real independent swing voters, so it becomes "a secret family dispute".

Michelle's pics make all the difference? no, but it makes a difference. it's not like Michelle Obama was not under attack by the conservatives, attacks relayed by the MSM.

Obama didn't meet with LGBT Americans. true. facts are facts. is there nothing more to look at?
Gay activists meet with Obama team: Leaders seek high-level LGBT appointees, policy changes

Gay activists meet with Obama transition team

i don't think that he is courageously fighting for civil rights this far, and it is hypocritical of Obama to never meet any LGBT Americans during the whole campaign. he has not done everything he can do right now to advance LGBT civil rights. However his voting record is encouraging:

His score of 94 out of 100 for his voting record given by the Human Rights Campaign. It's not the best however it's far better than John McCain's 33 out of 100
http://www.hrc.org/documents/Congress_Scorecard-110th.pdf">Human Rights Campaigned Congressional Scorecard:Measuring Support for Equality in the 110th Congress

The only thing i mean( i'm not quite sure it's well conveyed) is there still are reasons to believe that Pres Obama didn't just want votes and money for his campaign. You know the whole hope thing? i just think that this civil rights strugle is a marathon and can't be won after just one election cycle.

I think in the end that your heart is in the right place....


But just as you think I am "confused" about Obama..... I believe you are "oblivious" to the facts directly in front of you....


... and in the end, no matter what "I think", nor what "you espouse" is going to make Obama act in a different manner.....


If it walks like a duck.... blah, blah, blah......


The only hope is that the Same Sex Marriage momentum continues.... and then Obama will usurp the movement for his own gain (plain and simple), which in the end will serve the GLBTQ community.....


... and if he doesn't adopt the movement (as he hasn't even been able to say Congratulations to the community on Same Sex Marriage advances).......


Then no biggie..... as in the end "It's Only A Two Minute Prayer", right?

Gavin Newsom in a benefit for Obama at the Waterfront

Deja Vu all over again. Where have I heard this before? When have I heard this before? Time and time again from people who don't give a flying fuck about gay rights to begin with. It's carved in stone by now. Why do you waste your breath saying it over and over and over and over again. We've heard it before. THAT is why we are pissed off now. We are TIRED of hearing the same tired old lines over and over again. Here a quarter. Tell someone who wants to hear those same tired old lines. The rest of us are fed the fuck up.

Do you actually think he'll do anything in his first term? Have I said anything that the average person believes is a total falsehood?

Why are you shooting the messenger?

Christ--just because I hold this opinion, this view of how things are going, does not consitute my personal endorsement. If I tell you it's raining, do you blame me because you think I willed it, and ruined what otherwise would have been a sunny day?

I simply expressed my view of the situation, that doesn't mean that I am giving a hearty cheer over it. I'm just calling it as I see it--I don't have the magic wand I can wave to change it, either-- just in case you thought I did.

Though you'll surely deny it, nestled between the lines of your every post in this thread is the message "Obama is doing what he must. He has no alternative but to throw gays under the bus."

This is the thinking that has halted progress for GLBT for decades. You claim that you don't agree with it, but you are implicitly endorsing it in every post.

It's not new. We've seen the same message thousands of times, in all kinds of forms, for years now. We are experts at seeing finding it, no matter how cleverly disguised.

We're telling you that we are no longer buying it. It IS within Obama's power to stop military discharges under DADT, and he has refused to act. It IS within his power to at least endorse the recent state decisions on same-sex marriage. He has chosen not to do so. It is within his power to introduce legislation to get rid of DOMA, something he promised to do. He has done nothing.

Obama is not helpless. He is in an excellent (and probably once-in-a-lifetime) postion to enact positive change for gay people, and he is doing NOTHING.

and telling you "There, there." What I am doing is pointing to a blue sky and telling you, "No, no matter how much you want it, and yell at me or anyone else, that sky, it ain't ORANGE!!"

I am not delivering any "message," I am describing simple (and OBVIOUS, to anyone who isn't pipe-dreaming) facts. There ain't shit "cleverly disguised" or "implicitly endorsed" in anything I've said. I'm not doing any motive-ascribing or mitigating.

I'm simply telling you, like it, or not, what IS. And what "is" has been pretty obvious since the primaries--why are you only NOW, suddenly shocked, surprised, or getting all "Enough!! No MORE!!" dramatic about it? Why not a year ago?

Why not when I was taking issue (and heat for doing same), during the Gospel Tour?

Frankly, the question really needs to be asked, directly: What took you so long to figure out where the guy was actually coming from? Why is everyone so "shocked" and "hurt" and "angry" at what was apparent to me way back when?

You are "interpreting" my remarks and you're interpreting them incorrectly. You craft a POV for me that suits YOU, so you can make me your whipping boy and a resting place for the blame you want to pile on, because you aren't achieving your top priority personal and political goals (and you may well have been in the "He doesn't mean it," club, and now you've found your membership revoked--could that be it?).

I guess pointing out the obvious, too, is "Un-PC" here. Anyone who does had better stand by to be blamed as a collaborator. Not the best way to win friends or influence people, but whatever.

You need to grow up, and stop blaming your allies for pointing out the unacknowledged obvious.

It doesn't work in political strategy or war.

We're well aware of the political reality. We know that Obama is not going to give us anything. We are angry at the fact that he COULD. And it is annoying to have people come along and say, "that's the way it is. Deal with it." Regardless of your intention, it is VERY MUCH like you are "patting us on the head". What do you expect us to do with your "information"? Are we supposed to all "settle down" and stop complaining? Meekly accept whatever scraps Obama or anyone else deigns to toss our way every six years or so?

We're supposed to be doing what we're doing. Making a big noise, making ourselves heard, here and elsewhere. You say build grassroots support? We try that every day. You know what the biggest stumbling block to progress there, is? Pragmatists that go around saying "This is the way it is. This guy can't be elected. The town/state/country's not ready."

Really, honestly, if the point of your posts in NOT to apologize for Obama, what are you posting for? What do you hope to accomplish? We've been at this for a long time; we know what needs to be done. We don't need people giving us "reality": we LIVE the reality. We need people to stand WITH us, not stand in front of us wagging a finger and saying "This will accomplish nothing." Join with us in DEMANDING change, or kindly stay silent.

And, for the record, if you'll check my journal, you'll find that I was NEVER an Obama supporter, and NEVER expected anything from him. Why so many of my brothers and sisters DID is a mystery to me. The man is charasmatic and seemed sincere; perhaps they really believed he meant what he said. I don't know, and I don't care. The fact is, they are waking up now to this "reality" you like to discuss. They have finally had enough. It doesn't matter that they didn't find their breaking point sooner; they've reached it NOW. And if we can get most of the GLBT community to join us, we can affect REAL change. You can help, or you can keep talking about what CAN'T be done. Either way, we're not slowing down for you.

But he DIDN'T. Obama is no more "special" than Bush--in fact, they're on the same page, DOMA-wise. Why expect from Obama what you didn't expect from Bush?

I don't understand why the fuck you excoriate people who agree with your goals, simply because they're not ready to drop EVERYTHING and join the parade. It's like you're pissed off at the way it is, and you're going to beat up everyone you encounter who isn't operating at the same level of bullshit mad anger as you are.

You know, I've got a few "agenda items" that are high on MY priority list too. For example, I'd like 'em to legalize pot, so my friend with brain cancer can get it without having to jump through his own asshole to help him after chemo. That would help my friend, and I'm pissed it hasn't happened yet. It's important, and it's URGENT, too, because the way things are going, the poor bastard will be one lucky son-of-a-bitch if he lasts six months, never mind five years. Even though I've got decent health care for myself, because it comes with my pension, I'd really like decent health care for my family members who don't live in Massachusetts, are barely getting by, and can't avail themselves of the MA state care option. That REALLY pisses me off, and it affects my family and loved ones.

Now, the fact of the matter is, neither of these things I want have happened yet. But I want them NOW. NOW, I tell you--not next week, not next year. But I can't see any point in saying "You haven't addressed MY issues? Well, FUCK YOU!" That's not how you move the ball down the field. I'm not stupid, and I am not going to withhold my vote--or my pressure--while I work to make these things happen. Why? Because I'm smart enough to know that I'll have a rat's chance in hell of getting what I want from the GOP, and right now, they're the only other game in town.

That said, I'll reiterate that I'm not trying to convince you of jackshit. I'm simply trying to understand why you give up so easily, so readily. But hey--knock yourself out. Go. Do what you will. I simply think your strategy is counterproductive in the extreme to your goals, either short or long term.

As for the "point" of my posts? Last time I checked, this 'was' a political discussion board. Not a "cheerleading" board. Not a "One Point Of View, Only, Thanks!" board. I could ask you the same question--if you don't want to discuss the issue, why are you here? I listen to your POV. I understand your anger. I completely understand your "impatience." I just don't understand your "solution." That's, in a nutshell, what I'm trying to express to you.

What I read in this thread is that LGBT Americans are finally waking up to the fact that politicians are politicians and the only way we're going to achieve equality is to do things for ourselves and only support those who support us.

Why should we continue to throw our money and energy into the black hole that seems to be the Democratic Party?

think that he believed something other than "marriage is between a man and a woman?" And "the states need to take the lead on the issue of gay marriage?"

We might not like his view, but it's not like he kept it top-secret.

Why not throw your money and energy at flipping more states to the Marriage Equality column? That sounds like a more productive use of time/energy than railing at a guy who made his views pretty plain over a year ago. IMO...

"I support a change of DADT eventually" and silence on DOMA?

I was, at most, a hold-my-nose reluctant supporter of President Obama. I never trusted him, but I voted for him anyway because I supported the idea that we needed to make a statement about change in government and President Obama definitely represented a profound change at that time.

Seven months later, my suspicious have been proven correct and I'm done listening to excuses from my party about why they can't follow through on the promises they make.

I heard him say that he thought it was an issue for the states to decide. I heard him say those things many, many times.

I did hear him stand up and speak after "Pray Away The Gay" Kirbyjon Caldwell and Donnie McClurkin riled up the Carolina religious crowds for him.

I expressed deep concern about that.


I figured, and I think accurately, that Obama isn't going to touch this issue with a forty foot pole in his first term.

I figured that was a pretty convincing signal that he intended to "go slow" on this issue, at least during his first term because he might see backlash when he stands for reelection. I figured it meant that "MAYBE" he might tackle it during his second term, IF the political climate was right.

That's what I got from what he said.

I am hopeful--but I honestly don't think there's any guarantee at all--that he'll try to work it during his second term, simply because he used to be pro-gay marriage before he ran for national office.

I figured all this out way more than seven months ago, too.

I don't like the situation either, but it's not news to me--I just don't get the delayed anger, I guess.

President Obama's campaign. It is only now, after Prop H8 and Iowa and Vermont and Connecticut and New Hampshire and Maine and Lt. Choi that they're realizing that it was all smoke and mirrors.

Please don't assume that all of us who are saying we will only vote for candidates that support full equality are the same people who actually believed that President Obama would do anything but say the word "gay" every once in a while.

I found his campaign smarmy, stupid, offensive, Hitlerian (I know, you say Hitler on the internet, and you lose) and mindless. I thought the catch-phrases were stupid, the 'sets' over the top, and the stadium cheering by slack-jawed stoners just...horrible. But hey--it worked, apparently.

I struggled to pick the nuggets of corn out of the shit that emanated from these events. I was starved for information that related to policy, and when I got it, it was barely sufficient, to my mind. It's the reason why he got my very reluctant support when the time came. I didn't buy the charm. I wasn't swayed by the chanting and horseshit, and I listened to what he was actually saying during the rare occasions when he was forced to answer a question without a cheerleading squad. Because I listened, I'm just completely not surprised by his "take my sweet time" attitude on Equality.

With the exception of the California debacle and LT Choi, I'd say that the progress at the state level is exactly what Obama was talking about when he said "Let the states take the lead." I really don't think he has any intention of bullying Congress to do anything until a lot more states sign up. I just am surprised that others are surprised. I do think a lot of people made the bad assumption that Urban automatically Equals Liberal. Obama's a moderate, with some liberal tendencies, but he's by no means a badass liberal--not even close. And as he gets older, he gets less, not more, so. IMO.

Nor, for that matter, did he PROMISE to do anything for GLBT people. Obama DID. (And, for the record, Obama promised to get DOMA overturned.)

And stop the pity party. Nobody's "excoriating" you. I'm not "attacking" you; I disagree with you and I find your postiion defenseless, especially since you just lost MAJOR points by falling back on the tired old "special interests" gambit. Equal rights should be the concern of ALL moral people, not just the persecuted. I'm damn sure not going to get into a game of "my murdered gay teen" trumps your "friend with brain cancer"...especially since gay people are just as likely to have brain cancer. But that's not why they get murdered.

I am also not stupid, and I am also not going to withhold my vote. As I said, I am going to vote for a candidate who is openly supportive of full rights for GLBT people. See, the stupid thing would be to once again vote AGAINST my best interests. Like all the pragmatic people who are satisfied with the status quo, you may consider it a wasted vote. That's your right, and it's completely appropriate, as that's exactly what I'll consider YOUR vote for more of the same.

As for giving up; I think you've got it backwards. It's the Pragmatists who keep the world the way it is. It's the Dreamers and Crusaders who change it.

Obama can't bark an order and force them to vote his way on this. And particularly since "his way" is to let the states take the lead, and a view that marriage is between a man and a woman.

My point is, any President can push an issue, but when the will isn't there, you're not going to get too far. George Bush's Congress was much more responsive to him (they'd hold their nose and vote for bullshit if he told them to) than Obama's Congress is to him. If they get their shit together on health care, that'll be a profound accomplishment.

I am not disputing that Obama said he'd overturn DOMA, though I never heard him say it (as I have noted elsewhere). Did he say WHEN? Did he issue a timetable, and has he exceeded it?

I have heard him say marriage is between a man and a woman, and states should describe what they feel marriage is--not the federal government. If I had to guess, I'd say he's waiting for a few more states to hop aboard before he moves forward with that "getting rid of DOMA" thing. That's just a guess, mind you.

I'm not having a pity party, but unless you're obtuse, you have to see, plainly, that I'm catching shit for stating the obvious AND for the sins of others. Apparently, I'm not bullshit-angry enough to suit you, or others, and I don't place this issue high enough on my list of "Shit I want done NOW" to suit you, either. I can't help that. If I ruled the world, every day WOULD be the first day of spring!

I don't consider your vote "wasted" no matter what you do with it. There's only one vote I can "waste," and that's my own. You've got to do what you've got to do.

All I can say is, a great Pragmatist was the guy who signed the Civil Rights and Great Society legislation. LBJ was the opposite of a dreamer, though he crusaded (bad word, nowadays) in his own way. JFK wasn't going to do it--it was "too soon," and he told MLK just that. LBJ took the bull by the horns and did it anyway, at great cost to our party in the near and far term, but his entire career up to that point was marked by accomodation, go-slow tactics, doubletalk and hemming and hawing.

Sometimes, the way isn't always direct. It doesn't make the wait any more palatable, but that's reality.

However, I'll just add two last comments:

1. There are things Obama can do that would not be as difficult as overturning DOMA; things that he's NOT doing. He could stop the discharges of gay personnel from the Armed Forces. He could get the FDA to lift the ban on gay men giving blood. He could comment favorably on the wave of legalization of same-sex marriage sweeping the Northeast. He could do all these things and more without breaking a sweat. He's choosing not to.

2. Are you really trying to hand LBJ the credit for Civil Rights? Do you really think that LBJ would have signed ANYTHING if it hadn't been for MLK and the many, many people who stood with him? Pragmatists don't enact change. They admit defeat. Obama is much like LBJ. It's going to take a lot of noise and a lot of support to make him get off his ass for ANY gay cause.

You can now get your last licks in about how you've been unfairly abused for speaking the truth and how nobody is capable of getting anything done in this country. I won't respond...I've got bigger fish to fry.

1. Obama will not do these things you want--the discharges, the FDA, the state legalization comments--because he has made a political decision not to do so. He's not touching gay issues with a ten foot pole. That's just the way it is. I wish it were otherwise, but I'm entirely UNSURPRISED that this is how he's playing it. Why? As I said--it's a POLITICAL decision.

2. I am handing LBJ all the credit for Civil Rights. Why? Because he signed the fucking legislation. No one else did--he did. And WHY did he do it? For POLITICAL reasons. He knew full well it would screw the Democratic Party in the short term, lift it up in the long term, and salvage his place in history after Vietnam went so horribly wobbly. Do not, for a second, think that I believe that LBJ was a cuddly fellow who was angst-filled over the plight of the downtrodden each and every day. He was not a Carteresque hand-wringer. He was a hard bitten muthafucka who knew how to play the game, and he played it for keeps. Obama IS much like LBJ--that we CAN agree on. If Obama signs Equality legislation of any kind, he will do so to secure a page in the history book on this subject. Make no mistake.

Your last paragraph was rude, false and gratuitous, but have a nice day anyway.

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

I held my nose and pulled the lever in November. Never again. I swear someone will have to hold me back if another person tells me that "at least it's better than the alternative!" Never again.

Where does that leave us?

who have the guts to stand up for what is right.

It is those fighting a desperate rear guard action, trying to drive the party to the right, trying to promote reactionary and conservative positions and relentlessly attacking any and all who express any left wing views, who will soon be in the minority. Where does that leave them, is the question we should be asking. I suspect that they will succeed in gaining control over the Democratic party, in which case it will replace the Republican party as the conservative party and a new pro-Labor and true left wing party will emerge, or they will recognize that they are what we used to call moderate Republicans, that they cannot stamp out the left within the Democratic party, and will go over there across the aisle where the pro-capital people belong and clean that mess up and bring the Republican party back to sanity. Either way, that will be good for us, good for everyone. Right now it is a mess.

There is a small, but very aggressive and dominant minority hear, who are pounding and pounding and pounding on the same theme day after day on very subject - left wingers and left wing points of view are not welcome. So we keep fighting them here until either they leave, or we have an alternative. One or the other WILL happen. It is inevitable. You can't bash people into a coalition the way they are trying to do. You cannot ask people to abandon their principles and ideals as a condition of belonging to the coalition. every demand for party loyalty or loyalty to the leaders, every malicious attack on the Left, makes the break up more and more inevitable. They are shooting themselves in the foot, and are so far down that path that they cannot turn back.


...

It's not rocket science. On your own is pretty simple.

:thumbsup:

:hug:

The next election you lose, don't turn around looking for us with rocks in your hands. It will not be our fault that a Republican was elected. It will be yours, and others like you. People who do not stand with us in demanding equal rights for all. People who happily let the corporations pick their candidates for them, and then complain that none of the choices are "progressive" enough. People who rationalize the ongoing injustices against gay people in this country by saying "it would be worse with a Republican".

We have listened to you for years. We have meekly cowered while you lectured us about the "big picture" and "larger concerns" and told us to wait. We watched you laugh when we threatened to go elsewhere, and we believed you when you told us there was nowhere else to go. And we heard you blame us every time an election didn't go your way, calling us selfish, and strident, and single-minded.

Well, it's your turn now.

Gay people are fed up. More importantly, we're waking up. We're starting to realize that we've only felt powerless because you've been telling us we're powerless. No more.

Here's the deal:

We're going to vote only for candidates who support full marriage equality, who support complete protection for us under the law, and who make it clear by word AND deed that they value us as tax-paying citizens of our towns, and states, and country. We don't care what you think, and we're not interested in what you say. This is what we're going to do. Maybe we have the numbers to make a difference, and maybe we don't. But we'll never again walk out of a voting booth feeling as if we've betrayed ourselves. No more settling. No more selling out.

Now, here's where YOU come in.

You can either ignore us, and continue to vote for the same corporate-selected empty suits that are predetermined for you, OR you can follow our lead and vote as we do. The choice is yours. However, if you get stuck with a Palin or a Romney, the fault is YOURS. You can try and make us feel responsible for refusing to vote against our own interests, but it will no longer work. You had your chance to vote for progress, and you voted for more of the same. You FAILED.

We have let you drive long enough. We have our own bus now, and we're taking it in a new direction. You can follow us, or you can stay behind, but get in our way, and we will run you RIGHT. THE FUCK. OVER.

And giggle our asses off while we do.

The time was so right, so early on. The longer it drags on the more old patterns, bigotries, arise and soon we are back where we started.

We are sick and tired of being sick and tired.

Gay rights are human rights.

As weird as that may sound.......


But we as a community need to implement the standing......

You're Either With Us, Or Against Us!

:patriot:

When there is no candidate worth voting for, no one with the courage and clarity to take a stand for what's right... show up at the polls to vote anyway. And write in "Mickey Mouse."

It's a way of saying "none of the above," but it also has the effect of sending a powerful message. Imagine it: Millions and millions of votes for Mickey Mouse. Mickey Mouse even winning a few races here and there.

Over time, I imagine Mickey will achieve quite a following... and the politicians and the press will begin to take notice.

Friends, they may think it's a movement. :hi:

:P

Mickey Mouse doesn't really scream loudly as our pick. We need to get it right so everyone will know the votes came from us.

:patriot:

I went with Mickey Mouse because that's been a common way of expressing it for a long, long time: "I'd vote for Mickey Mouse before I voted for that bum!"

Maybe my age is showing. If there are better possibilities, I hope people will suggest a few.

Anything will do. They key is to show up at the polls and actually write the name in. Imagine 'Mickey Mouse' or 'Betty Boop' or 'Buzz Lightyear' getting a mention on the news for winning a significant slice of the vote! :D



(edit typo)

:evilgrin:

It won't happen again. Either you're for equal civil rights or you're not. If you're not, you don't get my vote.

eta: Fooled, that is.

Welcome to DU! :hi: