Gay Blog. Endorses Obama

I don't know the first thing about any of this but thought it interesting that this fellow seems to think Obama is best when it comes to gay rights.

Obama is best for gay rights

After more than a year of campaigning in the most wide-open primaries in decades, it’s finally time for voters to pick a president. On the Democratic side, the three hopefuls with a viable shot at the nomination have all signed on to almost every item on the so-called “gay agenda.”

That includes workplace rights and hate crime protection for gay and transgender Americans, repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” and opposition to a constitutional amendment banning gays from marrying.

The differences that do exist come on the politically dicey issue of legal recognition for our relationships. Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards all support repealing the provision of the infamous “Defense of Marriage Act” that blocks federal recognition of marriage licenses issued to gay couples. But only Obama and Edwards support full repeal of DOMA, including the provision that says each state can choose to ignore gay marriages from other states.

Hillary Clinton won’t go that far and has stopped short of criticizing her husband for signing DOMA and “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” into law. She and Obama have also declined to sponsor the Uniting American Families Act, which would extend to gay Americans the right to sponsor a non-American partner for citizenship. Then again, Edwards didn’t sign on to UAFA’s predecessor legislation during his Senate tenure, and all three say they support the idea of equal immigration rights in principle.

More:

http://citizenchris.typepad.com/citizenchris/2008/01/obama-is-best-o.html

Anyone who thinks Obama is anti-gay should read this.

his prominent positions.

Let's see what you're talking about. I don't believe you.

Or are you just talking out of your ass?

plenty of editorials that are easily accessed...

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

that has nothing to do with Obama.

nt

is against transgender rights and has constantly towed the line for Bush... writing such wonderful editorials as "don't judge Justice roberts too quickly" .... rw shill.

Again, I think you're just making this up.

I've read that blog and it is pretty fair-minded and clearly a great resource for LGBT issues.

You can trash Crain if you want, but unless you can back up your claim, I consider what you're saying to be fiction.

Can we expect some information from you to back up your opinion?

Won't post a link b/c there is none.

he spiked several stories that could have cost GWB the election in 2004..... this guy is no friend of the progressive wing of the GLBT community... and this does not have anything to do with Obama.

If you're going to make ad homonym attacks, you should come to the table with something.

:crazy:

on who is better on GLBT issues far more than Chris Crain.

and I bet I'm just as queer as he is!

lock-step monolith?









Who knew?

was one of the leading gay bloggers on how important it was to remove trans-inclusion from ENDA.

He coined the term "trans-jacked" and accused transgendered folks of purposely trying to kill ENDA by demanding inclusion.

He's a sick little fuck that has absolutely no business speaking in behalf of queer rights.

Andoni on Jan 3, 2008 5:57:07 PM:



All I'm trying to say is there is much more to Obama than the McClurkin incident. Unfortunately, there are a whole slew of LGBT people out there who can only fixate on the McClurkin incident to the exclusion of everything else he stands for. These people remind me of those who read the Bible with its hundreds of thousands of words and myriads of messages and all they can ever see and focus on are a few words in Leviticus.

Think about it.

outta my mind only I wouldn't be using any Biblical references.

To each his or her own.

I'd rather support a candidate that evolves in their LGBTQ views than devolves and shuns their previous record.

Hey, at least we're finally having a discussion about the candidates various positions regarding gay and lesbian rights.

But it did start out awfully painfully. Fuck.

Find obscure statement of support by member of wronged group. Post in a cheap effort to counteract and delegitimize the worries and anger of said group.

:puke:

And Chris Crain of all people? :rofl:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4136959

Nothing better than going straight to the source, I guess.

Homophobic bigots are "good, decent, moral people."

:puke:

Who are currently being told that acceptance of gays and lesbians is a sin.

We've got to try to see where the other side is coming from or this nation is seriously screwed...and gay and lesbian equality will never be achieved.

If you followed GLBT politics and society you'd know that more intimately.

And this cheap tactic just shows how deceitful and ethically bankrupt Obama's followers really are.

GOT INTEGRITY?

Until he ran for President...

We're expendable, buddy. We don't matter as long as a Democrat wins office.

It doesn't take much to scratch beneath the surface here on DU and find a lot of really ugly things.

But don't want us.

Screw 'em. Imagine if we organized a sit out.

In my post I admit I am no expert on any of this, and I support Edwards more than Obama. Not to mention I will most certainly support Hillary if she gets the nomination. Your blanket statement of putting all Obama supporters in a group and calling them deceitful and ethically bankrupt is an indictment of your ability to be rational and fair.

It's a post to create debate and discussion. Nothing more.

It's a post to create the impression that the very real, very legitimate outrage over Caldwell is "manufactured" by giving examples of more "reasonable" voices within our community.

It's a common tactic by this crowd, and was used post-McClurkin. Don't tell me about being "rational and fair," I've seen this too often and it's like ticking off a checklist.

By the way, while we're on the subject why don't I post the opinion of another Crain reader from his blog:



http://citizenchris.typepad.com/citizenchris/2007/02/an_independent_.html

I stumbled across this and decided to post it. I don't know the first thing about any of this as I am not in the gay community. Sure I support Obama and posted it in hops it might help him but I admitted in the OP that I don't know this blog or much about the subject. When I posted this I gave it about as much thought as to how much sugar I want to put in my coffee.

You are calling me a liar and I think that is fucking bull shit! Get hold of yourself, calm down and learn to be respectful and give people the benefit of the doubt. Let the debate continue and if you are right about this blog then that info will win. If you are not then the opposing viewpoint will win. But let the chips fall where they may and be glad that this can be debated and shot down if it's so offensive to you.

I'm saying this tactic isn't helpful.

And it's not about whose "viewpoint" will win. There is no valid viewpoint for a Democrat other than that a man who runs an organization devoted to mentally abusing GLBT youth should not be campaigning for a major presidential candidate. And a candidate with a pattern of associating himself with such people deserves to face some tough questions.

What are your thoughts on this guy? Again, I am no expert and not trying to stump you. Just want your thoughts on this fellows endorsement of Obama:

http://blabbeando.blogspot.com/2008/01/openly-gay-latino-mayor-to-endorse.html

http://citizenchris.typepad.com/citizenchris/2007/10/lambda-legals-e.html

Actually, I do follow LGBT politics more than you might think. Whatever. What's your opinion on this issue from Crain...

And I support full trans inclusion.

And Crain's position on this issue is yet one more indication of why he's not a voice that represents the LGBT community at large.

There are even gay Republicans. They don't speak for me.

I guess we should all just follow suit and drink the kool-aid too. :eyes:

This time on his defense of antigay cretin Richard Curtis:

http://queertardo.blogspot.com/2007/11/victims-are-willing.html

I saw that somewhere...

Sure some people change, and some people don't change that much. John Aravosis is another ex-Republican gay blogger (America Blog), a much more prominent one than this guy I'd never heard of before. And Aravosis still shows his Republican leanings sometimes, like spearheading the anti-trans inclusion in ENDA thing people are bringing up about this Chris person too.

This one on transgender rights:

http://merlot-winters.livejournal.com/5834.html

From logoonline:

http://visiblevote08.logoonline.com/2007/10/09/enda-the-gay-backlash/

http://www.queerty.com/queer/gossip/chris-crain-stepping-down-from-blade-20060908.php

See the comments.

Crain defended him until the very end:

http://www.waynebesen.com/2006/01/conflicted-columnist-jeff-gannon.html

When Crain stepped down, one of his successors' first actions was to fire Gannon:

http://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowlDC/newspapers/washington_blade_parts_ways_with_jeff_gannon_44172.asp

Bottom line: I trust the perspective of Chris Cain just as much as I trust the perspective of Andrew Sullivan.

Which should explain all.