Question: Where Women or GBLT mentioned at ALL During anyone"s speech?

I heard Obama about Civil rights for All And Lowery on race And I missed Warren. What did he say ? And was there any protest? I heard Katie Coric refer to the sppech having something for everyone but I heard nothing from anyone about women or LBGTQ!

The whats?

Whatmen you say? And what's a G in a BLT?

Civil rights for all pretty much covers women and GBLT also, right? Or did you mean you were looking for them to be singled out?

We either have principals and values which don't apply to just one group; or we don't. Things like equality and equal justice for all (whether it's marriage or estate planing or discrimination at work). This idea that we need to coach these issues in narrow terms of a single disadvantaged group is missing the point and weakens support for the efforts.

GLBT needs the rights and protections that *everyone* deserves. They don't deserve them less than straight people or black people or any other "in a box" group. They don't deserve it more... They just deserve it because they're fellow human beings and it should be a strong American principal that all people are created equal and in America *should* be treated equally under the law.

the point. When we say everyone , we should mean it! Obama's speech was beautiful but I will feel included only when he endorses all our Civil Rights.

Anybody who believes in equality and equal protection under the law, but not for everyone... doesn't really believe in it. I agree that both GLBT and Women and many minority groups do not have equality and equal protection. That is why we have to fight for the principal, and need to identify people who would oppose it and change their minds.

are arguing that GLBT rights are NOT civil rights, and that our struggles are not similar to the struggles of others who fought for civil rights, then yes - we need to be called out separately because calling for civil rights for ALL does not necessarily mean civil rights for GLBT individuals - not even in the minds of those who are theoretically supportive.

When everyone understands that calling for civil rights for all MEANS civil rights for all then I can agree with you. We are, unfortunately, not there yet.

...we'll never GET the rights.

ubiquitous families.

I just hope Mr. Obama means what he says and applies all civil laws equally toward all people. Then, there will be no need to sub-catagorize.

Things never seem to happen in my own timetable, but I feel more secure today than ever that justice for all will be served.

Or Native-Americans? Or disabled people? Or fat people? Or smokers?

Damn him, damn him to hell!

whom the OP specificly mentioned. If you are going to be a smart ass at least have your facts correct.

so maybe you should be wagging your finger at the OP too!

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5h4SrWpZNd-yocKSO7_9FO51iLJowD95R4RTG0

The word woman is used once and is in a generic sense. Certainly not like the words in the next paragraph.

"And now, Lord, in the complex arena of human relations, help us to make choices on the side of love, not hate; on the side of inclusion, not exclusion; tolerance, not intolerance."

pretty much covers everyone: gay, straight, white, black, Asian, Hispanic, Native American, the indigenous, women, men, poor, rich, the disabled, the abled, Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu, atheist, fat, skinny, etc.

but she clearly asked about mentioning specific groups. You claimed he did, and he didn't in the case of women though he did in the case of the groups I mentioned. Bottom line I was right.

when what the OP asked about was Warren. She said "I missed Warren. What did he say?"

Somehow we got on to Lowery, which maybe is a good thing because I think that everything that can be said about Warren has been said, many, many times, so hopefully this is a sign people are willing to finally move on.

I heard Obama about Civil rights for All And Lowery on race And I missed Warren. What did he say ? And was there any protest? I heard Katie Coric refer to the sppech having something for everyone but I heard nothing from anyone about women or LBGTQ!

end quote

Does the bold word help?

But I find needless arguing over nothing to be BORING, so you're just gonna have to find someone else to beat that dead horse with. Good luck and enjoy.

as a point of starting argument. So.... why????

You came into this thread and tried to make the OP sound like a hypocrite. I pointed out, accurately I might ad, that you were wrong. You then said, but the OP is still wrong because the prayer included women. I pointed out, accurately I might ad, that you were wrong again. So then you claimed the OP didn't mention Lowery. I pointed out again, accurately I might ad, that you were wrong yet again. It isn't my fault you chose not to read.

Is it really THAT hard to say, "you were right, and I was wrong?"

that's no big deal.

but making a point of what also was not in the speeches gives the complaint necessary context.

and i don't really think Lowery's sentences at the end really count as mention of groups. i mean, are we putting a check in the box next to asian because he said "yellow" and likewise for the other groups?

by that standard almost no ethnic group should be happy. but i'm not suggesting that's the best standard to use either.

You're FUNNY!

Here it is:
"Question: Where Women or GBLT mentioned at ALL During anyone"s speech? "

hmmm.

yes.

yes he did on Sunday but not today.

right?

and Lowery is mentioned in the OP.

were they mentioned?

:shrug:

okayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy. :eyes:

:shrug:

i shouldn't post any more in this thread. i've said my point enough and maybe too often actually.

is whatever reason women and GLBT were not mentioned the same in this case?

Everytime Obama says the word "gay", it turns my stomach, knowing that he doesn't give two shits about our struggle.

from a politician and a pack of Xians?

from day to day, I do not know the percent yet, but when he was all but won, we were in... when McCain had that post Nom surge, we were out... So... not sure yet...

WE were not in the speech.