Why Don't You Just Admit Gays Are the Most Expendable Group In Obama's Coalition?

Bad as Obama's choice is, all he defender's rationalizations just make it worse.

Why don't you just grow up and admit that GLBT people are the most expendable, and Obama is willing to trade on us to gain Evangelical voters?

It was plain with Reverend Donnie, confirmed with Caldwell and continues with Warren. In our Obama lifeboat, if you can dangle someone over the side to try to use as bait, it's always the gays first.

Just stop with the BS about reaching out, because it only applies to gays. When Obama invites a notorious racist to deliver a speech or seve an honored guest role, then we'll be able to take that rationalization seriously.

The insult of Warren is enough, but we've been insulted before and can cope. But don't add to it by rationalizing it, or by claiming as Obama did that he is a "fierce advocate" for us, which honoring a man who compares us to child molesters. It's one thing to be insulted, but another to pretend it was some sort of kindness.

Thank you.

I mean, please. Spare us the rationalizations.

Just come out and say that we're utterly expendable. Of course, not when it comes to taking our money.

He only acts from political expediency? Is that why you supported him, if you did?

In fact, I don't think we are even in the coalition.

Gays are the second most expendable group.

Look at the NC senate race. You think Hagen would have been attacked over or would have sworn off association with a homosexual rights group as was the case with the Godless Americans?

I voted for Jim Neal in the primary.

And though I share all the same issues around atheism, it's being gay that loses me civil rights.

but I do draw satisfaction from the fact that Liddy Dole did not retain her seat.

He was the best candidate all the way around, aside from being Out. We wound up with a DLC-approved machine candidate anyway, quelle surprise.

That he was gay didn't influence me except that I think it takes guts for an Out man to enter a statewide race in NC -- the kind of guts we NEED in the Senate.

But yeah, Neal's platform was all-around the best. I'm so very happy that Liddy's gone, but as a lefty liberal I'm skeptical of Hagan. Especially after she distanced herself from atheists. I mean, I get that she had to do that to win, but it bothers me in the same way I blanched when the Obama campaign denied that he was a Muslim, which to me inadvertently legitimizes the implication that being a Muslim (or atheist) is distasteful or dangerous.

Atheists, agnostics, skeptics.

Better off staying in the closet in life and in politics. Atheists pretty much have no choice on party. The God Only Party isn't a choice at all. All we can hope for is the limiting of shit like faith-based programs, which Obama has already pledged to continue.

The atheist part of me (with a similar percentage of the population) was recoiled from in horror and never so much as given even vague acknowledgment throughout the process.

Obama has made strong statements about supporting at least some additional steps forward in gay rights, has several gay advisors and is looking to make a gay man a secretary of one of the armed forces. He has said squat about removing the theistic hegemony from government or including atheists in a damn thing.

Even the reverend doing the benediction almost certainly thinks atheists should be ignored on earth and burned forever in hell (I have not researched him, but I don't recognize him as an advocate of universal salvation) so cheer up a bit - atheists aren't just (symbolically rather than practically) expendable - they are (both symbolically and practically) already expended. Gays are at least batting .500 on inauguration godbotherers. By definition atheists are batting .000 because if they weren't there would BE no godbothering at the inauguration.

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

about Sarah Palin's nonstop godtalk.

It takes discipline, ya gotta give 'em that.

(But then, so is Joe Joe the Lobster Boy.)

I am because I'm gay.

The constitutions of 7 states forbid your ability to hold public office. At least 2 of them technically forbid you from working for the state too.

Don;t get me wrong I realize it's not a zero sum game and god knows both of us doubtless have no desire for a competition between the two groups in any sense. I know atheists can marry without hindrance, but the discrimination and prejudice hits both, and under the law there is far MORE overt affirmation of belief than heterosexuality. Gays can't marry. It's a big deal. It's stupid. But every dollar we spend doesn't say that we should be straight. Thousands of coutrooms don't have Leviticus prohibitions against gay sex emblazoned above the judge who's trying our cases. Gays also at least have a few elected representatives, Atheists have one - who only dared admit it after 34 years in one of the bluest of all districts, and then because he was going to be "outed".

It depends of course on your priorities, which are subjective. If the right to marry a person of the same sex is very important to you then your gay side will feel the unfairness most. If you simply want to live and be recognized as a full member of society free from prejudice and protected from job loss, housing discrimination, public opprobrium etc, both sides will cause you about the same pain in different ways. If you care most about not validating under law and by weight of government a viewpoint which by definition considers you unworthy, then the atheist side will feel it most. Plenty of congregations welcome gays openly as full members with all hope of salvation. The UU may acceptatheists, but it's by definition not a Christian denomination and as such has none of the political power or imprimatur of the state enjoyed by Xians and trumpoeted against atheists,

The problem is that gays don't have equal civil rights as codified in LAW.

As an atheist I have equal civil rights in the law, but people's idiocy prevents it from being realized. The constitutions of those 7 states aren't the problem - if you could get an atheist who could make a good run of it they'd be found unconstitutional. But the fact is even where such laws don't exist atheists can rarely or never win office, not because the law forbids it, but because people are bigots.

So the simple fact is my civil rights suffer as a gay person, but not as an atheist.

That's why the pledge doesn't have God in it any more, and why Freed Whitehead got his job back to think of just two.

Those are constitutional cases.

And I am certain that I have not one lesser civil right as an atheist.

would not be a gay case then either would it, but a constitutional one? How the heck can you make a case for constitutional equality that would NOT be a constitutional case. If an atheist brings those cases to get equal treatment for atheists, how is it not an atheist case?

It's about violating the separation clause. It's not specific to some treatment of atheists.

Even if there were no atheists in the world, "in god we trust" would still violate the separation clause.

Try running for public office.

United States Constitution Article VI, section 3:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

The Constitution says religion (or lack thereof) should not matter in running for public office. But obviously it does.

The laws say ethnicity should not matter in quite a number of things - jobs, housing, etc. But obviously in many cases it does.

Sounds like the same kind of thing to me.

You do realize gays can still be legally discriminated against in employment and housing in most states, correct?

And it's not about priorities, gay atheists know which classification has been more of an obstacle for us in life. Being an atheist hasn't lead to my being discriminated against or harassed ever that I can remember, while homophobia has often made my life a living hell. Be very careful about trivializing the vicious bigotry gays face in this country, bud.

People can be, and have been, fired for being atheists, refused housing for being atheists, ran out of town for being atheists.

Your experiences and opinions do not invalidate mine. Be very careful about trivilaizing MY experiences, pally. I've been fired for being an atheist. I haven't been for being openly bi. I have, obviously, planty of friends and acquaintances in both groups and quite a few like me who are in both. NONE of the gay folks I know have been beaten up in the last decade (the qulaifier is admittedly necessary) or had their cars vandalized for rainbow stickers. 7 of my atheist friends have had vandalized cars, and one of our more publicly visible members was beaten up for no reason just a few days after he appeared on TV. Unlikely to be a coincidence.

Just because Larry Hooper isn't as famous as Matthew Shepard doesn't mean he doesn't(or rather didn't) exist either. Don;t be so fucking sure that what YOU see and deal with is the same for us all. It's not a zero sum game - because GLBT folks get the sharp end of the stick doesn't mean nobody else does.

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

Google atheist fired or atheist beaten or atheist killed and learn something for a change. Expand your tiny fucking little horizons.

I've never heard of him. I thought there was none.

I'm sorry, but I have to say this. Can we stop with the pity party already?

Not everyone hates us, or dismisses us, or is out to get us.

Obama probably didn't even think about the gay aspect when inviting Warren, Okay, he screwed up, but that doesn't mean he is abandoning us or that he finds us "expendable.

And since he's not running for office and won't be running for at least another 4 years, I doubt highly if "Obama is willing to trade on us to gain Evangelical voters."

This thread isn't a pity party. It's a call for honesty.

So I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Thanks.

Just because I don't agree with you does not I am not being honest. If you are really interested in how I feel, please look here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=8005111

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8005175&mesg_id=8005550

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=4680972&mesg_id=4681224

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8005063&mesg_id=8005477

But when you tell me to "then be honest about it and stop pretending" I consider that to be dismissive.

We can go back and forth all day if you want, zapping one liners at each other, or we can talk, albeit via words on a message board.

I was speaking broadly and you took it personally.

I don't know your opinion, and haven't commented on it particularly.

When you say to me "then be honest" I take that you thought I was being dishonest.

I have stated that I don't think Obama has, to use a worn out phrase, thrown us under the bus. You said I was rationalizing. I stated that was my opinion and gave you four links to other posts by me on the subject to help give you some insight to why I feel the way I do.

What else do you want me to say?

If you have a specific question or questions as to why I feel the way I do, I'm happy to answer.

I haven't seen any until this post.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8005580&mesg_id=8005849

The one where I gave you links to four other posts by me and asked you to take a look for better insight into where I am coming from, so you saw the post, you just didn't bother to read it it seems.

You keep confusing broad statements with responses to you in particular.

I'm not confusing anything, I just think we're not connecting.

I made what I intended as a general statement that you construed as a particular statement.

Maybe we can go with that.

I don't particularly know your opinions about Warren and haven't responded to any.

simply be disagreements?

By insisting that ONLY rationalizations are possible for ANYONE you are begging the question, because that assumes we all know this is wrong and simply try to excuse it.

Whereas it's very possible to see this not as wrong in the first place but as pragmatism exactly as stated by Obama, and exactly as analyzed on electoral-vote.com, better than I could:

"Gay and lesbian groups fiercely denounced Obama for letting Warren play a role in his inauguration, but Obama emphasized yesterday his support for equality for gays and lesbians. He also said he wants diverse voices to be present at his inauguration and that includes Warren. Finally, he noted that Rev. Joseph Lowery, a civil rights icon who found the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, will give the closing benediction. Warren and Lowery don't agree on much and Obama pointed out that the magic of America is that it is a diverse country where multiple opinions are tolerated. The choice of Warren was no accident. Obama knew exactly what he was doing: trying to get evangelicals who voted against him to take a fresh look. Unlike many evangelical preachers who talk only about the hot-button issues, Warren is well known for saying that Christians have a duty to address world poverty and social injustice. By picking Warren, he is giving Warren (and his expanded agenda) a huge amount of credibility in the evangelical community. If Obama can get the evangelical leadership to stop focusing entirely on abortion and gay marriage and start addressing AIDS and poverty as issues, he will ultimately benefit immensely from giving Warren valuable exposure."

Even moderates don't equate Gay Marriage with pedophilia.

but that does not stop him being more moderate on the whole than most evangelicals. When did James Dobson say we should fight poverty?

batshit crazy homophobes out there. Seriously, did Obama really have to pick this one guy? Especially after the passage of Prop. H8 in California.

When Obama brings a notorious racist out to balance a racially inclusive speaker, we'll know he's sincere.

ANYBODY invilved in ANY event with Obama must agree with him on every single social and political hot button isssue of the day?

Is Warren speaking about gay rights? I'll be 100/1 he never mentions a single thing about them. If he does I guaran-damn-tee it's becasue he went off the approved script which will be documented.

Is he speaking FOR Obama in any way at all?

Can Obama ever include anyone who believes in, say, capital punishment in any event he holds, even one that has bigger all to do with the death penalty? Is every single speaker at every Obama event a guaranteed non-racist to even use your own example?

I'm not rationalizing a damn thing - I'm just flat out calling stupid the idea that every single person who gets up at an Obama event is somehow being given the keys to the kingdom for anything that he disagrees with Obama about, even if that subject is not even tangentially, for a second, connected to the event in question.

For Warren to be selected, just admit it's because we're expendable. Don't pretend it's to benefit us in some way.

>>Is he speaking FOR Obama in any way at all?<<

Yes, his presence speaks volumes for Obama, it is approval of Warren and Warren has a clear homophobe ideology.

>>Can Obama ever include anyone who believes in, say, capital punishment in any event he holds, even one that has bigger all to do with the death penalty?<<

We don't give a shit about any other event at his point, the topic is the inauguration and you know it.

>>Is every single speaker at every Obama event a guaranteed non-racist to even use your own example?<<

Let me know when one of the most prominent and vocal racists are invited to speak at an event honoring Obama.


The inaugural is not a dialogue it is an event honoring Obama, look who he selects to honor himself.

ts to honor him.

- are expendable to any/all politicians at the federal level.

Seriously. I can take honesty.

I support LGBT rights because its the right thing to do, however in a close election if the gay community does not come out for the democrat...the democrat loses.

come through on anything for us. It's a game of margins.

and if what I says happens the DNC will trash and shame the gay community for cutting its nose of to spite its face when in reality they were just standing up and fighting with the only way you know how.

1.2 million living together in a partnership similar to marriage.

That is enough to sway an election on the federal level.

The problem the gay community has is that the attitude is what are you going to do vote for the Republican? However, if there is ever a close election this becomes a problem because there is the very real alternative of voting for a third party or not voting. In that case you get a Republican but the gay community has sent a message. Its debatable on how that works out because by sending a message you got someone worse however, you also might have someone you can vote for who supports you in the next election.

C'mon now!

We didn't elect a President to have "civil discourse" with extremist bigots about gay rights, we elected one to fight for rights, justice and law.

Warren sees gay civil rights as a moral issue, we see it as a legal issue.

The President elect's job is to work on the legal issues, we don't need him to be our proxy with evangelicals for "outreach."

Obama is the Uniter. Try to bear that in mind.

It was 6.00 am on a cold winter's day in Moscow, too many degrees below zero and with an overcast sky threatening snow.

A long, begraggled but orderly queue had formed overnight between the snowdrifts outside one of dilapidated outlets of the official Soyuz Stolichnaya vodka distributor.

At 10.00 am, an hour after its official opening time, a little hatch in the paint-peeled door opened up and a Soviet commissar announced "The workers of the Stolichnaya Vodka Co-Operative are presently stranded in the snow and the delivery will be late. Our heros will prevail against the anti-Soviet weather - but the vodka must rationed. There will be no vodka sold to the loyal Jewish citizens of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics today!"

Obediently the Jewish citizens of the USSR left the queue and the little hatch in the door closed.

At 11.30 am, the little hatch opened up again, and the commissar announced, "The anti-Soviet weather has been vanquished, but the heros of Soviet labour have now to repair the engineering of the delivery van which has been damaged by anti-Soviet saboteurs. There will be no vodka sold to the citizens of the Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic today!" And so the citizens of Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic duly left the line.

The weather grew even colder and it started to snow...

At regular intervals throughout the day, the little hatch would open and the commissar would announce the latest incident to have held up the delivery of the vodka, each time announcing that certain loyal citizens of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics had to leave the queue.

By 5.00 pm, citizens of the Armenian SSR, Azerbaijan SSR, Byelorussian SSR, Estonian SSR, Georgian SSR, Kazakh SSR, Kirghiz SSR, Latvian SSR, Lithuanian SSR, Tajik SSR and Turkmen SSR had all left the queue as instructed and the only people left waiting were the ethnic Russians of the Russian Soviet Federated Socialist Republic.

At 5.30 pm, just before official closing time, once again the little hatch in the door opened and the commissar's head popped out to announce that reactionaries working along the Soviet benzine pipeline had prevented the duly repaired delivery van from filling its tank and thus reaching its destination. As a result, there would be no vodka sold that day, even to loyal citizens of the Russian SSFR.

Freezing cold, covered in snow, hungry and tired, one Russian turned to the person behind him in the queue and said in a whisper, "Those bloody Jews get all the luck!"

What does a presidential candidate need: votes and money.

So they must make it seem like they care when running in the primary. That is in order to get the money.

But the votes not so much. Gay folks are an important voting bloc in California, NY, Mass., and I can't think where else. None of these states are ever going to vote for a Rethug. SO when a general election comes around the idea of appealing to the anti-marriage bigots is more important than increasing the vote in states that already in the bag. So GLBT folks will always get the shaft.

If we want change we have to spend our political dollars more wisely, not running after people who will just stab us in the back. That means before we give we need a signed pledge to support gay marriage - and nothing else. Otherwise us marriage equality supporters will always get f'd over.

http://www.washingtonblade.com/2008/10-17/news/national/13443.cfm
Obama seeks gay help in battleground states
Democrat is competitive in unlikely places

Dan Pinello, a gay government professor for the City University of New York, said the “overwhelming” concern over the economy is making Obama competitive in states where Democrats have historically not performed well.

Noble said Obama’s gay supporters can help win these states by talking to friends, family members and co-workers about how the Illinois senator would be a more effective president on gay issues.

“They should be telling their own story about why they support Barack,” Noble said. “Let’s talk about the fact that we have a candidate who’s unafraid to talk about the need for LGBT laws.”

Obama’s gay supporters can also help by knocking on doors in battleground states and participating in “get out the vote” activities, Noble said.
.........

This is now:

Warren’s model of civility includes describing his “many gay friends” as being in relationships which are morally equivalent to child rape, incest, and polygamy, as well as his bald-faced lies about what Prop 8 will do to free speech. Yes, I’m sounding like a broken record, but I’ll keep saying that because that’s the whole point.-- Box Turtle Bulletin
http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/

Let the Agape begin

>>Saddleback Pastor Rick Warren has issued this statement on President-elect Barack Obama’s choosing him to give the invocation at Obama’s inauguration:

I commend President-elect Obama for his courage to willingly take enormous heat from his base by inviting someone like me, with whom he doesn’t agree on every issue, to offer the Invocation at his historic Inaugural ceremony.

Hopefully individuals passionately expressing opinions from the left and the right will recognize that both of us have shown a commitment to model civility in America. …<<

"Why don't you just grow up and admit that GLBT people are the most expendable, and Obama is willing to trade on us to gain Evangelical voters?"

The election is over - he's not going for voters anymore.

In the long run, this act ironically is probably going to help with GLBT legislation. He is not EXCLUDING anyone - he's just including more. People that you don't like (and I certainly understand why). But, these are the very people that can make it difficult to block things like legalized gay marriage, partner benefits, etc.

Obama is trying to find common ground with these people - because hate them all you want, they are still very much able to stop a lot of the kind of progress we want for GLBT. So if we can get part of this group to see that we have things in common, we're going to have to include them at the table.

Or we just end up with a Liberal version of Bush. A president who walks around and is loved by the left - but doesn't have the political clout to get anything passed. Just look at how abortion sits right now.. much to the right's dismay - it's still very legal, even though Bush is very loved by that sector.

That is a ridiculous notion!

The only ridiculous notion here is that letting this douche bag give the invocation while the GLBT marching band walks by is somehow going to diminish your rights or that the opposite would improve them.

Now that is fucking ridiculous.

means nothing. That is a f*cking joke.

I personally don't think its meaningful in any real way as hes just giving the invocation.
Your anger and that of your compatriots seems very out of proportion. This is probably why your not getting alot of support on the issue. It may have been a bad choice, but thats the extent of it.

but it just sounds like your methods are both inappropriate and out of scale.

While i am not angered by his selection and in fact support the choice, I still feel confident that Obama will work towards equal rights. The reality is plain, there is very little of real measure he can do to prevent discrimination aside from fixing the executive branch policy and pushing for a constitutional amendment. If you agitating for the amendment, then i think you are just yelling for the sake of yelling(which is worthless.)

One thing he can do is council and try to lead people at the state level regarding this issue. This of course would require an environment of inclusion, even of them, which you do not support.


Good luck.

"In the long run, this act ironically is probably going to help with GLBT legislation" - RoadRage

so i see that civil rights laws are instead passed by just ignooring 1/2 of the population (or 52% in the case of CA) who are opposed to this, steamrolling over anyone who disagrees and just doing it anyway.

That's not how politics works. Legalized marriage for same sex couples SHOULD BE LEGAL. But that's my opinion - and sadly not the opinion of 50.1% of the country.. if it was, we'd be there. Right now it's not - and politics - getting the other (right now larger) side to come to a concensous on this is going to take BOTH sides. Appeasing them (hate mongers as they may be) is the only way this is going to happen.

What do you think will happen right now if we just leave this up to a "vote"? In one of the most liberal states in the country - California.. it just got shot down. I agree, it SHOULD be legal.. back in the 60's, if you took a vote on if black people should have equal rights, many areas would have voted against that too. Just because it's voted against doesn't mean it's not right. But politically - you have to take this steps at a time.. and you have to get some of those who are against you to come to the table. This is one way of doing that. Blocking the majority who are against gay rights from coming to the table makes your position smaller, not larger.

but I agree with you. Unfortunately, LGBT Americans seem to be the most expendable group for most Democrats these days in their quest to gain religious voters. It's pathetic and ridiculous.

There's a ton of faux outrage around here sometimes, but this is not one of those times. Having Warren at this inauguration is a huge slap in the face.

It is a fact that gays cannot join Warren's church, no matter that they believe in Jesus and been baptized in the Holy Spirit. It is also a fact that Rick Warren runs his own Exodus program to "cure" us all of our "lifestyle choice."

:puke: