Which Candidate Would Be the More Effective Advocate for LGBT Rights...

... if s/he got true religion, and decided to carry the fight right into the evengelical pulpits?

Which candidate is more popular in that setting, and which one looks and sounds like a nervous tourist?

Who do you think would be better at conveying - in relatable terms to the congregations of voters - why the nation must move forward on LGBT issues?

Thanks!

- Dave

We have to fight in the halls of congress. I don't give a flying fuck about changing preachers, let them spew hate. I care about changing votes on CIVIL issues. This is all a generational thing anyway, and the bigots are slowly dying off.

In the meantime, you want someone with the cojones to get legislation passed. Not someone who will try to change the minds of religious bigots. You BEAT them legislatively, you don't fight this on religious grounds.

... you sat in a pew?

- Dave

for as long as you have. Maybe longer. I know my enemy very well. You don't win civil rights by changing the minds of bigots. This country was integrated over the HOWLS of bigots. Legislation was pushed through because we had courageous leadership. Then, in the generation or two to follow, the country came along, slowly. The way to do this is to get the political will to do it, and that means a leader who can browbeat, argue, persuade, cajole and trade with Congress. Not with the pulpits.

... directly to the people?

I have a different set of history books.

- Dave

now you're moving your goalposts.

Your OP is full of shit. Embrace that notion, say a prayer and move on.

... learn to read.

- Dave

I can read just fine, thanks. What you apparently can't do is own the fact that the very premise of your push poll is wrong.

... you're facing - and talking to - the congregants.

- Dave

Let me restate: learn to read for comprehension.

- Dave

you don't win human rights battles by persuading bigoted preachers or bigoted churchgoers. You win by passing laws and forcing the bigots to accept those laws IN THE CIVIL arena. You are implicitly accepting the opposition's premise that gay rights have something to do with religion and morality. They don't. They have to do with equal rights and civil justice and constitutional parity. Period.

... problems, I hope you at least get a bounce.

- Dave

and probably take away your signing bonus

... so which Senator will be Hillary's crutch? Thurmond, Helms, and Nunn are gone. Three peas in a pod.

- Dave

... and would expect a Rhodes Scholar turned President to be able to call a bluff.

- Dave

There was no statute at the time forbidding gays from being in the military. There was a military regulation. Nunn, Powell et al told Clinton they would CODIFY the ban as a statue if he didn't back down. He hammered out the compromise with them - DOMA, because had he issued an executive order, they would have promptly passed a veto proof law overriding him, forbidding all gays and lesbians from serving in the military. A law that would still be on the books today.

... you leave the third branch out of your analysis. Clinton could have called their bluff, and let virtually the same Supreme Court that decided Lawrence v. Texas by a 6-3 vote take up the law.

Funny, even with a 6-3 ruling, Senator Clinton is stuck in 1992.

- Dave

there was plenty of analysis at the time that the Supreme Court would uphold it, as they normally give great leeway to the military on this kind of thing. And it wasn't the same court that decided Lawrence V Texas. This was in 1993 - neither Ginsburg nor Breyer were yet on the court. It was actually closer to the Bowers vs Hardwick court.

... candidly admitting he erred after the fact.

It stood for merely 17 years.

So much for the Clintons' long view of history.

- Dave

gays in the military to get passed with the vague hope that some future supreme court, full of liberals, might strike it down.

Uh huh. That would have been really productive.

Your argument, such as it is, is now getting really tortured.

... of mis-reading the OP, and then mis-reading from that point forward.

You can't grasp simple prepositions, you never have admitted that it was clear that I was advocating that the next President - IF s/he had an epiphany and "got religion" on full gay rights - speak FROM the pulpit TO congregants/voters, and you've said that the approach Bill Clinton took was Presidential.

Thank you for exhibiting your low expectations of what the next President should achieve on gay rights, before declaring Mission Accomplished.

I hear they're dry cleaning that as a present for Hillary, just in case.

- Dave

and I know exactly what you were trying to say. And your very premise is flawed. My rights, and your rights, and the rights of millions of our gay brothers and sisters do not politically depend on convincing rightwing evangelicals to hop aboard our cause. We have to beat them at the ballot box and in the legislative arena, not spiritually convince them.

Anyway, I have to go running before I hit the hay. Sleep well.

No?

Then you're talking out of your hat.

- Dave

... and - when there's open ridicule from the bench that allows for laughter in THAT courtroom - the tide has changed.

1992 mindset need not apply to the Oval.

- Dave

:crazy:

If she had any inclination to speak to the religious about gay rights, she'd be doing it.

To "reach out" to them. I don't trust him on LGBT and he lost my vote over just that issue.

... but a little history and a little perspective is in order here.

LBJ was one of the most foul-mouthed, wretchedly political (in all the bad ways), bass-ackwards cusses who ever "graced" the halls of Congress or walked from the Residence to the Oval.

But when he got religion on Civil Rights, he was an effective champion, and was able to carry the fight into the bastion of resistance: The Deep South.

Hillary looks like she's terrified someone's going to lay hands on her to do a faith healing at most pulpit appearances.

- Dave

He fought the fight in the halls of congress. Jesus. You couldn't be more wrong and you stupid little push poll is fooling no one.

... TO congregations, standing IN the pulpit, AT churches, IN the South.

Hope those prepositions were clear enough.

- Dave

he was on the same side as LBJ. Your argument gets more nonsensical.

... far apart from them.

Are you suggesting that it's futile for the next President to go into churches, and try to persuade the congregants' - i.e., voters' minds - in a setting in which they are conditioned to give a respectful listening to the person speaking?

Members of Congress change votes when they start hearing from constituents. Having the President of the United States land in your district, and hearing that minds were changed, is a pretty big deal.

- Dave

if he/she is committed to it, works congress, uses the presidential bully pulpit to win over independents and moderate republicans and wastes no time coercing rightwing evangelicals. As noted above, you don't fight this on THEIR turf - it's not a religious issue, and you don't cede the frame.

... and the bully pulpit, what is that?

Even know what that is? It's the microphone that the President happens to be speaking from, no matter whether it's from the Oval, or a church dais.

- Dave

unlike what your OP clearly states: the evangelical pulpits.

... is that the President of the United States, showing up in a religious setting to directly confront the fake religious objections that have been contrived by charlatans, might actually change minds.

Heaven forfend that a President go on offense in a tough battle to win over a seemingly (but really not) immovable adversary group.

Here's your clue, Vanna.

- Dave

it's not a religious issue. It's not a moral issue. For evangelicals, it IS a religious and moral issue. You don't win this by accepting their premise and fighting the battle in churches. You win this by rejecting the religious argument and conducting the battle on the turf of civil, constitutional equality.

... at all.

I have, however, studied - quite extensively - the history of Presidents making successful direct pleas for support to the public, in order to move Congress.

I would recommend, as a primer, http://www.amazon.com/Going-Public-Strategies-Presidential-Leadership/dp/1568028997">Going Public: New Strategies of Presidential Leadership. It's up to the 4th Edition now; my copy is the 2nd.

- Dave

is an entirely different proposition than what your OP describes. Your OP is limited to talking to, and trying to persuade, evangelicals.

... evangelicals are the component of the PUBLIC that is the stickiest wicket.

What the hell should the President do? Go stand with a bullhorn advocating for gay rights in the heart of Dupont Circle in DC?

He'd get cheered, but - pardon the pun - he'd be preaching to the choir.

Simple concept: take it to the part of the public that needs its mind changed.

Lord, have mercy.

- Dave

can get a lot passed without the rightwing evangelicals. 80% of the country now supports gays serving openly in the military. Similar numbers support ENDA. We don't need rightwing evangelicals. The votes are there for a President with guts to fight the fight.

... we have yet another straight talking Clinton to take on the job of building that triangle.

:sarcasm:

- Dave

so to speak.

You just have problems with Hillary. That's your prerogative.

But don't couch it in this bizarre OP.

When you figure out how to make your grey matter operate my fingers, you can sign my name.

Until then,

- Dave

It's the 21st century, and we need to do away with discrimination, period. Electing an African American man as President, with the next successful candidate being a woman should go a considerable distance in waking people up to that reality.

Then there's the other fact, that the Republicans won't admit to - in spite of themselves, they have done a lot lately to make their own side realize that there are a lot more gay people out there than they might have thought. Not that Mark Foley, Larry Craig, or Jeff Gannon are the best examples. Maybe that might help THEM get over it?

Both will make progress, but probably not enough.

We give President Obama a majority in both houses, and then we put them all on notice that they represent US, and they will pass the laws that the PEOPLE want.

Sure, there will be some right wing nutcases that will object, but their arguments can be neutralized within the Christian doctrine itself (I might start a separate thread on that subject soon) And the fringe nuts like Phelps..... well, I won't go there, because I hear some guy named "Agent Mike" monitors this board.

As I said, it's the 21st century. Let's end this flat-earth way of thinking.

These issues are my top priority.

Economy
Iraq
Healthcare

Those are my requirements for Obama's first term. Feel free to flame me, but I would be okay with the full GLBT agenda not being fulfilled until his second term.

... that sparked this OP.

The whole OP is predicated and premised on the idea that one of them is elected, and has a true epiphany, getting real religion on the issue of full equality.

Assuming that condition, which would be more effective?

- Dave

If she believes that LBJ, through the catalyst of MLK, was the force which finally broke the barrier and granted civil rights for blacks, then Hillary must be responsible for fulfilling the rights of the GLBT community. They must be recognized as equals in the eyes of the law, which will hopefully result in the GLBT community slowly but surely being recognized as equals in the eyes of all members of society.

Justice delayed is justice denied.

You're not comparing Hillary to Truman, are ya?

:spank:

... nah, I just long for a Democrat with some backbone. If you've got jumper cables that fit Edwards, I'll give you a good barter.

- Dave

And should have.

... yet, we're all expected to believe that Hillary will be different.

Right.

:eyes:

- Dave

Expand Hate Crimes Statutes: In 2004, crimes against homosexuals constituted the third-highest category of hate crime reported and made up more than 15 percent of such crimes. Barack Obama cosponsored legislation that would expand federal jurisdiction to reach violent hate crimes perpetrated because of race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, or physical disability. As a state senator, Obama passed tough legislation that made hate crimes and conspiracy to commit them against the law.

Fight Workplace Discrimination: Barack Obama believes the Employment Non-Discrimination Act should be expanded to include sexual orientation. While an increasing number of employers have extended benefits to their employees’ domestic partners, discrimination based on sexual orientation in the workplace occurs with nofederal legal remedy. Obama also sponsored and passed legislation in the Illinois State Senate that would ban employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

Promote Gay and Lesbian Rights: Barack Obama supported legislation in the Illinois State Senate to prevent discrimination based on sexual orientation in housing and public accommodations.

Support Full Civil Unions: Barack Obama supports civil unions that give gay couples full rights, including the right to assist their loved ones in times of emergency, the right to equal health insurance and other employment benefits currently extended to traditional married couples, and the same property rights as anyone else....

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:I-sORnC_IBgJ:www.sovo.com/2007/5-25/Obama.pdf+obama+gay+issues+record&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=6&gl=us



Openly gay Latino mayor endorses Barack Obama
http://blabbeando.blogspot.com/2008/01/openly-gay-latino-mayor-to-endorse.html

if you exclude those who believe in most of the democratic tenants except for this or that thing, they have no where to turn but to the Republicans. If they are in, they can be exposed to something different than what they believe. If they are shunned, they will work with the opposite party to destroy Democratic tenants in general.

I believe that many Hispanics are also not as tolerant to Gays....just like Black folks (it is mainly the older folk and the issue of religiosity). If you start to shut out every group unless they totally agree with a 100% of everything, there will be no Democrats left.

He goes to church and talk to Black folks about that specific issue, but he gets nothing for it....cause he committed the ultimate sin in not closing his doors....cause when he said unite, he meant everybody....not just the chosen few.

It goes to show that some in the GLBT community would want to believe that they have every right to hate and never forgive, but somehow they believe that someone hating them is unacceptable? So which is it? GLBT the only ones allowed to hate without remorse?

Obama was very clear in his speech that he knew everyone would be listening to, because it is a MLK day speech being given at King's church. He knew that the entire Black community in the entire US including his "friend" would hear this.......




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

1. I'm sure others appreciate the actual info.

2. I'd rather listen to Obama speak (from the pulpit, the bully pulpit, in a televised address that interrupts my favorite program, etc.) any day of the week and - being raised Pentecostal, after all - twice on Sunday.

3. All that said, Obama pulled a Bill Clinton triangulation on the McClurkin Matter. As you can see, he's got a looooooooooooooooong way to go to heal that hurt.

The OP is predicated on the idea that President Obama or President (barf) Clinton wakes up one morning, and says, "Holy cripes! I've been upside down on this issue all along. I need to carry this fight into Congress, and I'm going to expend REAL political capital - including by speaking from pulpits to wary congregations - to move us forward on these LGBT issues, as a nation still seeking that more perfect Union."

Assuming that conversion experience, I think Obama would make the case to the public in the setting described MUCH more effectively than Hillary, who I wouldn't want to even hear do a reading of the Bible's shortest verse, quite frankly.

- Dave

... meaning that half of the people who voted think that Hillary gives as effective a sermon from the pulpit as Obama.

Lord, have Mercy, I wouldn't want to have grown up in those churches.

:boring:

- Dave

Recall that he excused that by saying "but we're all sinners".

... is who - if s/he had a real epiphany on LGBT rights - would actually give a more compelling sermon from the pulpit, to congregants/voters.

So, you voted that Hillary is a more effective speaker from the pulpit.

When voting, either accept the premise of the poll, or don't.

- Dave

Seriously. A little help here would be great, because I just don't see her record as being one of leadership. It's been calculating, and about what's "practical" (hardly Kennedy-esque), and it's been about her climb.

If, just once, she'd channeled her supposed hero - Eleanor Roosevelt - and championed us like Eleanor did the most down-trodden, I'd be inclined to lower the hackles that got raised by her asinine answers at the LOGO forum.

You could see that she was fumbling to say just enough to placate us, without having a sound bite that the GOP could use against her. Her. Her. Her. It's all about her.

If you really think she's a great advocate for us, lay it out.

- Dave

I don't think either one of the two are particularly great LGBT advocates. Regarding that particular issue, I see Obama as problematic position. Being gay has nothing to do with sin. Dialogue with RW hate mongers will never convince them of anything.

... I disagree with this: "Dialogue with RW hate mongers will never convince them of anything."

First, look at the language.

"RW hate mongers" demonizes them the way that some of their choice words demonize us.

Second, look at the pronouns.

Them. Us. You and I both used them.

"Never"

Do you ever change YOUR mind? If so, and if they're human too, it stands to reason that THEY do as well.

What causes you to change your mind? Does it help if someone frames a thought in relatable terms for you?

Well, there is Scripture that is skipped right over in fundie churches but which - if you know the cites - can be just like that shot Luke fired at the Death Star, exploding the whole construct.

See this http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2529514&mesg_id=2529514">OP, and response #9 for the Scripture cites that explode fundies' heads, causing them to start to rethink in many - in my experience, most - cases.

- Dave

... but to do so, it helps to know when you're dealing with someone who could benefit from some facts, some relatable points (including Scripture passages, examples of people they know, like, and respect for living a good life - who happen to be gay, etc.), and a comfort zone to ask questions.

What I liked best about Edwards' videotaped answers at the VisibleVote/HRC forum was that he candidly expressed the struggle he was having between his personal religious upbringing (deep programming) and his secular progressive beliefs, drawn from such things as the Civil Rights movement (also, deep programming).

I've heard similar expressions of doubt and struggle from family members and friends.

With Senator Clinton, her positions - on videotape - are maddening, and they change with the venue. She's a fair weather friend, and when she says the word, "practical" with respect to LGBT rights, I hear it the same way I do when she says, "I hope" to get the troops out of Iraq.

Expediency and her overweenie-ing desire for a second term will be paramount.

- Dave

Had he not played footsie with Cure-the-gay-fundies and then made the sin statement, my feeling would have been that both he and Clinton hold relatively similar views on the LGBT community. At this point I am left with two candidates who support roughly the same policies toward my community, but one has said things that personally hurt me. I just can't look at Obama and see someone who's really going to stand up for me or my community in any sort of way. As far as I'm concerned he would have been better off if he'd never brought up the issue.

The first time you hear someone you respect say something like that, it's a gut punch.

Eventually, you learn how to engage, discuss, change opinions, and bring them around.

I'd rather know where any pol stands, so that I know how to approach trying to change their mind.

Hillary doesn't ever give me the notion that she's looking me in the eye and telling me the truth about where she stands on our rights.

Edwards told the truth. You could hear it, feel the sincerity of his struggle, and his desire to find a way to reconcile two conflicting "lines of code" in his programming.

With Obama, at least I know where to start, what has worked successfully with similar people in the past, and can therefore base a reasonable hope for an evolution in his thinking.

That, plus he's not as set in his triangulating ways yet. She's been steeped in that school of thought so long, she'd be teabag brown if someone pulled her out.

- Dave

He still doesn't get it. It's still an obstacle in our relationship.

Here's the deal about Obama and Clinton. I see these two as good Democratic candidates. I believe both will be able to defeat the repub nominee in Nov. I see both candidates as having roughly the same policy positions on LGBT issues as well as most other issues. They're also both politicians so I'm not going to crucify either one for a bit of flip-flopping or spin (and yes, both have done so). However, one of these candidates has parlayed with bigots and has called being gay a sin (albeit indirectly). It's a small difference, but for me, an important one.

... for speaking his mind and holding to it (you, I mean, not Obama).

: )

I sincerely hope that you have what I imagine is an ached-for breakthrough with your brother.

If you ever want to talk about ways to get through to him, I'd be happy to do so.

:toast:

- Dave

Much appreciated!

:toast: