I Love The Screwed-Up Logic Around Here

in regard to gay DU'ers who are horrifically hurt and appalled at what has happened.

"Well you should have paid attention to what he was running as/on/about!"

We damned sure paid attention--and we bitched about it THEN, too. When we did, we were told "Oh stop whining. Who ELSE are you going to vote for? McPain/Failin'??"

So I guess we're damned no matter WHEN we speak up, and no matter WHO we vote for.

Somebody please tell me when exactly it's acceptable and CONVENIENT for us to protest these slights to our humanity. In the meantime, I won't hold my breath. It's obvious that civil rights are no longer a Democratic priority.

It's much more pleasant being in the I GOT MINE brigade, isn't it?

how insulting it was when Democrats in the early 60's treated the AA Civil Rights movement with the same dismissiveness our party leaders treat LGBT issues now. In both cases, up until '64, even after the martydoms(the three schoolgirls and Cheney, Schwerner and Goodman in the first case, Harvey Milk and Matthew Shepard in the second)the message was still "wait your turn, know your place, you aren't as important as the people who hate you".

It will be unforgivable if the message, again, is "wait for the second term". And as was the case in the first instance, events and the Zeitgeist may not allow them to get away with forcing the wait.

and not wasting time and energy on a trivial matter. I would think all gay and lesbian advocates on this board would have bigger fish to fry.

Is there anything you WON'T dismiss as trivial?

Sounds like you're pretty much in the "shut up, it's enough that we have a president that CALLS himself a Democrat".

Sorry, the rest of us have self-respect and actually believe in our own principles.

situation. If Rick Warren was asked to be some sort of policy advisor then I would understand and support the outrage. However he is not and all I see is Rick Warren being given more power, thought and energy than he deserves. Principles are one thing but I don't see how any of this outrage is going to serve or move forward any real agenda.

I guess it's part of the sense that, over and over again, we've been ignored or treated as junior coalition partners at best in this transition.

Reaching out was supposed to mean us as well as the right.

:eyes:

and jackasses like you will NEVER get it...

Wait a minute, the point of protesting is that you're supposed to be inconvenient. I suggested a polite decorous protest on inauguration day (turn your back, wear a rainbow during the invocation) and scream bloody murder here on DU.

The "get over it" crowd are turning me into a radical.

and, when "Pastor" Hawaiian Shirt starts in, have them break into "Somewhere over the Rainbow".

My suggestion remains turning our backs and whipping out rainbow flags to wear when Warren speaks. Better yet, start contacting all the pols who'll be in the VIP seats and get them to whip out the little rainbows as well. This is our inauguration too--moreso than the invited invocater. We deserve to enjoy this. I won't be robbed of my president just because he overstepped a little trying to mollify the reactionaries.

It wouldn't drown him out, but it would still make the point.

That's your right if the Democratic Party is not fulfilling your agenda. I'm all for more political participation and getting away from 2 party rule.

And then STFU.

Calling them "House Gays" and such...

DU is in general a cesspool right now, the opposite side of the same coin the freepers inhabit...

and yes DU is a cesspool right now and it's because of the hOBAMAphobes and their gay apologists.

you'll never "get it"...

actually make an impact on the street, um no.. wait until the midterms are over, gotta give him some space.

Lather, Rinse, Repeat.

At least, after today's "comment" from Obama, nobody can honestly claim that he "never said" he was a gay-rights champion. Of course, it's bullshit--one cannot be a "fierce advocate" for GLBT rights and still give a soapbox to the people who'd like to see us gagged, forced into conversion therapy, and socially neutralized for good.

I get that people are offended by this man's presence at the inauguration.

However, he's not getting the mic to riff about his anti-GLBT agenda. I'm pretty sure that's been worked out. Does anyone really, really believe Obama would allow that to happen?

The man has a soapbox - his church. But Obama didn't build that.

People who agree with his beliefs might be pleased to see him up there, but I don't get how that equates with dismantling GLBT rights or is some sort of signal that anti-GLBT policies are now sure to follow.

I think it is what it is - a political maneuver to secure some support for issues that gridlocked governments have been unable to address. I don't believe it's indicative of the Obama administration agenda with regard to GLBT issues.

He knew it would upset GLBT Americans and their allies who supported him, and that the media would frenzy over an opportunity to put "trouble in paradise" conflict between Obama and gays on the primetime news--again. Even if Warren doesn't say a single WORD about gay rights at his invocation (and I am NOT certain that he won't--there are ways to do it subtly, and fundies are MASTERS at this) it still accomplishes a chain reaction of damaging end results:

1. Thanks to the media firestorm, EVERYONE knows that Warren is virulently anti-gay. In fact, he's famous for it.
2. Americans see gay people deeply and vehemently upset, and loudly opposing the idea of giving Warren this honor.
3. Everyone sees Obama letting him speak ANYWAY, which signals to the nation that gay rights are not a priority, and that "unity" of the parties is more important than civil rights. Different people take it different ways; liberals shrug and ignore it, but conservatives see it as a validation of THEIR bigotry ("Hey look, even our liberal black president is friends with gay-haters! We must not be completely wrong after all!")
4. The bigotry continues, re-invigorated, regardless of whether or not it was intentional.

Sure, Obama scores popularity points for HIMSELF. Whoop-dee-doo for him. He'll broaden his base on the backs of suffering gay people. Yeah, that's something to celebrate. Isn't he SO smart? In the meantime, gay rights as a national priority falls another few notches down the "To-Do" list, and we lose another battle in the culture war that the right-wing is waging.

*sigh*

dogwhistles?

at 12:01 pm(EST)on January 20th, 2017.

Unless we still won't, of course.

Shall we count the screwed up logic in your own post?

honestly I don't think any DUer would ever want you stop fighting for those rights...
But (and isn't there always a but) don't you think with Obama as President there is a much better chance of getting the rights you want and deserve than if McCain had won?

I'd LIKE to say yes, because I'd like to believe that Obama wouldn't overturn the will of the people expressed via a bill from Congress. However, I honestly don't know. He's so back and forth on this issue that it is impossible for me to trust him in regard to gay rights.

But what really burns my ass is the lack of unified support here, at DU. I never trust or count on politicians, not completely, but my progressive brothers and sisters? God. If we can't count on THEM, then we truly are all alone in this. And that hurts and infuriates me more than ANYTHING a politician could do.

Even if it's just a gesture, it is affirming and empowering to feel like we have a solid wall of support at our backs. But that wall crumbles whenever "supporting gays" and "supporting Obama" come into conflict, and that is just screwed-up and wrong, to me. Not to mention incredibly hurtful.

If he didn't have so many people eager to defend him whenever he does something stupid like this, maybe he wouldn't DO this crap as often. He's smart, but dammit, he's human. He makes mistakes, and this is DEFINITELY one of them. It kills me that we cannot even mostly agree on THAT.

:banghead:

I can only say that you must decide for yourself how to deal with the situation. Obama has tried to explain his political methods and he seems to be having success. My choice is to support him and if I see him actually violating a campaign promise to raise a ruckus at that time.

It is early in the 21st Century. This is where we are at, now. No use crying that we aren't in the 25th century where the majority of Americans would accept homosexuality. The majority don't and we must deal with it. We have to face reality, or we'll get nowhere.

It is the middle of the 20th Century. This is where we are at, now. No use crying that we aren't in the 25th century where the majority of Americans would accept negroes. The majority don't and we must deal with it. We have to face reality, or we'll get nowhere.

Primary results, like any election result have consequences...
Those who supported a losing candidate during the primaries, then had to decide
which candidate to support during the General Election.

When they made that choice, I'm sure they understood that they were NOT backing
the candidate that they believed was best on the issues that they care most about.

Many in the Gay Community didn't back Barack OBama during the primaries,
and there are posters here who can be identified as such....in particular those
who quoted the Donnie McClurkin controversy over and over and over again
throughout the primaries as their reason to oppose him.



So although I understand why folks are hurt about Prop 8 passing, and about Warren giving the invocation, and what that all means...

why are the same folks outraged that Obama doesn't support Gay Marriage,
or thought that he would be more tolerant with a bigot than what they believe is appropriate?
Why are most now claiming to be Obama's biggest supporters who were let down?

http://www.windycitymediagroup.com/gay/lesbian/news/ARTICLE.php?AID=20050