Are you *really* in favor of full equality for gay people?

Really?

If you are, then why are you saying they have to wait, to be patient, that these things take time?

How much time do we need? Gay people have existed longer than this country has, longer than recorded history.

How long do they have to wait?

And if you've counseled waiting in the past, and still believe that today, ask yourself seriously if you're part of the problem or part of the solution.





edited to change "your" to "yourself" in the final sentence

at both my son's weddings, regardless of whether it's groom/groom or groom/bride.

So, yeah, I "*really*" am in favor :)

since humans over the centuries have taken those rights, and since just now we have so much to attend, I will admit that I'd be more than a little displeased if LGBT rights were put ahead of jobs stimulus and UI benefits, which are in dire need for all manner of sexualities. Other than that, yeah, get 'er done.

And, I certainly hope the Government can juggle more than one thing at a time. Oh right, they already do! Why are you so cavalier with GLBT citizens' right, including the right to have a job? All the jobs in the world won't help if you can be legally fired from it. Or kicked out of your place when the landlord finds out you're gay. Or acquire staggering medical bills because you aren't legally allowed to be on your spouse's health insurance.

:wtf:

I always find this argument the most disingenuous.

asexual. You have reasonable points, but I stand by my concern that unemployment should be the very first thing that is addressed in this nation as things stand now. But I've been tooting that horn since February 2009, so don't expect anyone to be listening.

Please, choose one, so the playing field may be leveled a little bit.

:hi:

We all need jobs, we don't all need marriage rights, as many of us have clearly chosen not to be married. Our economy needs to get going again because no one lacks more rights than the impoverished, no one, imo.

And, you know it.

I'll ask again: what right do you want to give up?

of working on only one problem at a time?

How does your theory cope with that? I can't find any fucking work, and have been blacklisted for filing a complaint with the state. This affects gays disproportionately - EVERY LAST ONE OF US was laid off. That's 9 gays for 12 layoffs.

:sarcasm:

See:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8765083&mesg_id=8765181

And.... :hug: I'm sorry for you.

Not too much seems to have changed...

Hope things worked out for you =)

THey said it was "performance". My work was fine, and I heard differently from co-workers. This was back when gays in the military were first being discussed, and DADT was the horrible result of that.

I saw a good response to that, which made me feel better. Some people (obviously not you) think that there are many "safe" places for gays in this country - like the big cities. Discrimination against gays (and women, and racial minorities) is rampant, even in the big cities - it's just more insidious. In my case, they would make the gays work the unpaid overtime so others "could go home to their families." As if we had nobody waiting at home for us.

And thank you for the kind thoughts =). I am so fortunate to have this happen while I am young, healthy, and with a supportive family. I have lost almost all material possessions from this extended unemployment, but those things are never what made me happy!

:(

welcome to DU :hi:

Then we can blame a whole new set of problems for why the LGBT community should wait.

This country is never without a crisis of some kind that can be blamed for why some basic civil rights issue is ignored.

You do see how that works, right?

Gay marriage precludes gay marriage????
Just a silly, silly, and hurtful argument.

will post any responses

there's a word for that

coward

Hmm?

NT!

ask MLK to wait. They told jews to wait and get over it. If they aren't gay, black, or jewish, they see no reason for haste. They are for equality in principle, not practice. Just as long as they are not inconvenienced, that is all that matters. Right now they are tsk-tsking this OP and thread. As mentioned above, most are too cowardly to say what they think because they know they can't defend their prejudice.

Please note the number for each post and the number the post is replying to.

You have either misread or gotten lost in the thread.

Isn't it better to keep them motivated & mobilized? You know, in a 3D Chess sense?

the cowardly response to our calls to overturn DADT, DOMA, and the passage of ENDA.
No more $ to DLC, DNC, et all only to singleton candidates that walk the talk.
Besides I haven't got $ to throw away, certainly not enough to affect the outcome of any decisions. I will not vote for Obama again, I will vote for any primary candidates. I did not vote in the primaries this year, the first time I have ever stayed away from the polls, I had other things going on health wise and was not too interested in any of the candidates all were bad as far as I was concerned and this is a heavy leaning D county/district.

From what I can see they are only interested in us if we can generate donations..oh yea they are interested then, but never fucking follow up with anything for us..and no one gave a shit when I was homeless and unemployed either....
I was outed from the navy in 82 and then fired for being gay from too many jobs to count, since I worked in construction with pt jobs in restaraunts and bars.
I got fired or 'laid off until times are better' invariably someone would tell me that so and so fired you because he heard a rumor that you were a fag.
Off hand I can count 12 jobs I was let go from because of that..I m no flamer and was pretty butch and something of a rowdy I think that not fitting the stereotypes made them even more nervous.

IT IS NOT A "PONY" OR A "PUPPY".

We're talking about a basic human right- to be treated with dignity and respect, to not be fired from our jobs or discharged from the military based on which gender we're sexually attracted to, to not be kicked onto the street at a young age (losing our families in the process), to not be taunted, beaten, and killed.

For far too many people, even here on DU, that's too much to ask for.

Sickening, that.

to some of our "allies" for them to finally get what it means to be assumed automatically like that that we're wrong, immoral or whatever else.

http://upload.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8724093

I started this one as a result of the histrionic defense of The President for not being responsible for it. It central point was missed and debate tactics were discussed instead.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8719813&mesg_id=8719813
Central point lost in a distracting poisoning of the well over semantics.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8722557
A corrected thread which was also poisoned so that it too would be locked.

They should have all the rights we straight people have yesterday! Not tomorrow, next month, or next year. Now!

Now, I frigging LOVE you!

:pals:

is when republicans are in power so there's no chance of them actually passing.

(learned that from reading posts from straight democrats. ;) )

:hi:

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

First good laugh of the day!
:patriot:

:hi:

Obama has not moved fast enough, out of being overly cautious or just not believing in full gay rights. Whatever. He needs to move faster.

Patience is a vastly overrated 'virtue' IMO. Waiting for the results you desire is 'magical thinking' that plays into the hand of those who want to keep civil rights for everyone on the back burner for as long as possible. I also take exception to the point of view that attempts to minimize the plight of gays when compared to the discrimination that racial minorities have endured for centuries. We're intelligent people capable of multitasking, after all, and justice will never come about if all our energies are focused on only one form of discrimination.

... or honestly if they do. Typical, I know. :hug:

had the nerve to question the policies of this administration, and leaving their usual snide response questioning the intellect of the poster, but offering zero to the discussion. Either that, or they are busy searching for some clever way to twist a vote or action of any of our truly liberal/progressive leaders into something it is not, posting the nonsense and calling in their co-workers to rec and post appropriate adulation's. Posts like this though, well they can't say anything here for fear of blowing their cover. Best they can do is simply hope it sinks and dies soon, and that nobody questions Obama's "fierce" advocacy in the thread.

Yet his cheerleaders go "BUT IT'S JUST ONE SONG!!!" :eyes:

banned as a homophobic biggot. Give me a quote. I haven't seen one.

Sen. Obama said, “I believe marriage is between a man and a woman,” shortly after being asked if he opposed same-sex marriage, to which he responded, “Yes.” This positioning is not new for Sen. Obama. He has uttered those words plenty – during a debate with Alan Keyes in 2004, on the Senate floor in 2006, even in his 2007 Human Rights Campaign candidate questionnaire.

http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2008/06/20/Obama_and_One-Man,_One-Woman_Marriage/

Which rule requires that?

DU members are expected to support equal rights for all people.

that DU members are expected to support marriage equality.

That's part of DU policy/rules --

Not only does DU support full equality for homosexuals --

it also includes support for gay marriage --

Too many here don't know that -- because evidently that rule hasn't been

repeated enough lately!

There are some supporters of full marriage equality who feel that given the present political climate the best way to get to full marriage equality is to use an incremental approach. You can disagree with that idea, but I do think that DU rules allow that.

what we are discussing however is the attempt to suggest that gays are being

"self-centered" or "impatient" in their battle for full equality in America --

including gay marriage.

And, that's been happening here --

And any further writing on this topic would surely get me banned.

not because I want it that way.

Fortunately, Gays can live openly in society now. That was not true in the 50's and 60's where every town and state had anti gay ordnances. Go a little farther back and it just gets worse. Read Raymond Chandler's Phillip Marlow novels, like the Big Sleep, for a glimpse at attitudes from the 30's and 40's, or Dashiell Hammett's Sam Spade novels such as the Maltese Falcon. Not only was it against the law, for which gays could go to prison, it was a common tactic of the police in fiction and reality to make these accusations to destroy careers whether true or not. Gays can no longer go to jail for a kiss in public.

Civil rights for non-whites, non-western Europeans, non-Christians, gays, and women have come a long way. But all of these groups must still fight for rights that those of us simply born white have without any cost at all.

It is terrible that Gays must continue to wait for the freedom to marry who they want, the right to adopt a child, or the privilege to serve with the U.S. military. But change takes time and a lot of fighting before it happens. If you want it, fight for it, take what small victories you can, then fight some more. There is no instant gratification in civil rights.

was able to wage political war against the Vatican and bring about marriage equality in a democratic country that arguably is more socially conservative than our own.

With a very conservative culture, even well after the Perons have passed and their Nazis have died off.

Now, did she do that from her living room, without risk?

How long has Argentina been without such laws?

Why weren't they enacted 10, 50, or 100 years ago?

Could it be that nobody had the courage to be willing to take on the Vatican as well as societal norms until President Kirchner? That most of Argentinian society did not think it was acceptable until now.

My comment did not say gays or anyone else should lay down and wait for change. What I said was that this is not a quick process, and if you want it you must fight for it, you must sacrifice, and it will take time.

Finally, this is not Argentina. We are a very different and highly polarized society and there is no single person that can grant civil rights by decree.

My support goes to people here in California that have fought to make marriage legal for everyone. After being slapped down by the court and even other liberals who were happy to vote against equal marriage in the privacy of the voting booth, are still fighting and won't stop until they get what is their right. They are not waiting. They are not sitting back on their ass and saying, "well someone will get around to it sooner or later." But it will take time.

So if you don't want to wait, protest, scream, write your congressman, march on Washington, but it will still take time. There is no instant gratification in civil rights.

We don't have leadership in this country at the highest levels willing to do what she did. We don't have a President who is willing to take on the religious rightwing full throttle and expose their hollow agenda for what it is. What is needed is leadership. And yes, we are all partly responsible for that and I think you will see our votes and our cash increasingly being used as leverage within the Democratic party.

These analogies can only be taken so far. Our legal framework is different. The SCOTUS determines what is a right under the Constitution.

Our legal framework is not the same as that in Argentina. States have most of the powr concering marraige.

Massachusets has successfully enacted Gay Marriage. California has tried, succeded, failed, tied, failed.

A judge just recently threw out the defense of marriage act. That successful case will probably have to be taken to the Supreme court, argued, and won; just like Loving V. Virginia. This issue will be hashed out in courts, and eventually Marriage will be open to all American citizens who can enter into a legally binding agreement. It will be determined by the courts, not enacted by the U.S. Senate.

which would mean:

a) The married couples in the five states that now have marriage equality would also be married in the eyes of the Federal government, along with all the rights and benefits that accrue from such recognition.

b) Married couples from those aforementioned five states could also transport their marriage to other states (unless those other states had specific statutes forbdidding such recognition - in which case the courts would evetually decide.)

A repeal of DOMA would demonstrate the commitment of both congress and the White House to full equality - that coupled with White House forceful use of the bully pulpit would move us all much further down the road to equal citizenship.

There is a tremendous amount that could be achieved at the federal legislative and executive level. The problem is the lack of leadership.

Instead of searching for excuses for our leaders, we should be holding their feet to the fire.

Hell, the US isn't even as "liberal" as Mexico City, which has legalized same sex marriage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Mexico_City).

I'm starting to think that "... the land of the free and the home of the brave ..." line from the Star Spangled Banner ought to be changed. " ... the land of the micro-managed and the home of the risk-assessment dilettantes ..." has kind of a nice ring to it, don't you think?

Imagine that marriage were a federal issue in the US, as it is not. Do you really believe that the US Senate and House would pass a same-sex marriage bill--even without the filibuster?

Social conservatism is not an undifferentiated norm; Argentina is more socially conservative than the US in some respects (like abortion), and not others (like gay rights, clearly.)

They get fired for being gay, they get raped for being gay, they get killed for being gay, they get shinned for being gay, and having the Administration and pretty much the rest of the Government, except for the Civil service, to not only allow that but support it, directly leads to people having to live a lie and/or live in fear.

Homophobic is taught (except for sociopaths).

ENDA should have been passed and DADT repealed. Both actions have a SuperMajority of Americans behind them. And, at the very least, the DOJ should;dn't declare same-sex relationships the same as incest.

And to this, "If you want it, fight for it, take what small victories you can, then fight some more. There is no instant gratification in civil rights."?

WTF DO YOU THINK WE HAVE BEEN DOING SINCE EVEN BEFORE STONEWALL!

Keep your patronizing words to yourself, please. This is part of the problem, that you feel free to say this to us.

There were no gay bars, anywhere. They were shut down and their patrons were sent to prison.

Yes, there are places where gay people face prejudice. That is also true, by the way, for black people, Hispanics, Muslims, women, and many others.

You can in this nation live openly as a gay person and even, in some states, be elected to national office.

The places where that is not true will eventually disappear if people are willing to fight.

You just can't be sent to prison now for "gay sex." Very few states have laws protecting gay and TG folks. VERY few.

Tragically, it isn't true everywhere. But it can be done and that right needs to be extended everywhere.

for GLBT workers. And, there is NO FEDERAL protection. Like in ENDA.

I mean this sincerely: PLEASE quit telling us how the realities of most of our lives don't exist. Okay It is insulting and condescending?

and how appreciative I should be! Just pat me on the head, tell me to wash my hands for dinner and call me "Sport".:eyes:

that this straight guy has your back is of some comfort :hi:

And thanks for the support and comfort! :toast:

:toast:

People often think it is better to lay off a gay person, since it is often assumed they don't have a "family" to support. I hope your office never has to see that, but just because there are out gays where you work, it doesn't mean they wouldn't face discriminatory practices.

I never thought of that angle

what about people in Texas, Oklahoma, and Louisiana. You know, we have gay people here, too.

You can in this nation live openly as a gay person and even, in some states, be elected to national office.

The places where that is not true will eventually disappear if people are willing to fight.

Except you're not entitled to the same rights and protections as everyone else. And gay people and their allies have been fighting for a very long time. Stop being condescending.

People have a right to earn a living. A RIGHT.

Haven't seen you for awhile. :hi: :hug:

I'm still not too sure why I'm here, but since someone was generous enough to give me a star, i will stay around for a bit!

I've seen what happens to gay superintendents in this state. They are vilified, humiliated, and drummed out, losing their career, livelihood and reputation. You know nothing about our reality.

who wanted us to wait for the sake of MAINSTREAM POLITICS. Least of all by "proud incrementalists." (Big :eyes: to that one.)

That is the point you are missing here.

There aren't many gay recruitment programs out there, and we can't be counted like other minorities. That makes a big difference when trying to defend your rights.

you said it better than I. My sister is gay, and even in a metropolitan area like Dallas she is always in danger of being a target. The only thing she has on her side- she is a deputy sheriff, and thus, has to carry 24/7

"If you want it, fight for it"

Like Hillary really didn't want the Presidency hard enough in this video.

http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/palin-hillary-open/656281/

I'm not being condescending. That is just reality.

"Gay" is as old as humanity. How long do you think they need to wait?

but I will agree that scientific evidence points out that there have been gays in the humans species as long as it has existed, and most likely in earlier species from which we evolved.

There is no government that has overseen humanity and isn't one. So, no one has been waiting for all of time.

For most of human history, unless you were one of a very few leaders, you hand no rights. Human rights are relatively new in the human experience. The modern concept of Human Rights comes after World War II to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the United Nations in 1948.

Before that, those inalienable rights that we claim are granted by the Constitution, and originally only applied in full to male landowners, some of which were probably closeted gay men because, at the time, such behaviors were considered abhorrent to the general population. Rights have expanded throughout our history because people fought for them over generations.

When I say you may have to wait, I mean that there is no Magic Rights Wizard who gives this stuff to you with a magic wand. It must be fought out in legislation and the Courts. It is necessary to wait, because there is no authority that can grant you those rights. I think everyone must continue to demand equal rights, understanding that it will take time to force that change onto society.

You win!

:party:

You clearly understand nothing about our civil rights.

to make biased accusations.

I didn't say maybe next year. I say that there is no authority here to grant those rights with a magic wand. Obama can't do it. At most, he could give an executive order to no longer enforce don't ask don't tell. (Of course, since he is then violating the law he is open to impeachment.) As a federal law, it must be repealed by the House and Senate. There are not enough votes in the Senate to pass such a law. Republicans would filibuster,and there are enough Democrats who would vote against it that it would never come up for a vote. I doubt the blue dogs would allow a bill out of Congress.

Then, there is the fact that States would take such a bill to court as trampling on their rights under the Constitution. The Defense of Marriage act was just thrown out. "The ruling relied on two arguments: that the law interfered with the rights of states guaranteed in the 10th Amendment, and that it violated the Constitution’s equal protection clause." (http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/opinion/49937301-82/federal-marriage-state-court.html.csp) So any attempt to pass a sweeping law from the Federal government would likely die on those same grounds. So, in order to get recognition of a right to everyone to marry, it will be necessary to go the same route as Loving V. Virginia; take it to the SCOTUS and have them recognize that as a universal right.

What will that take, it requires that everyone wait.

If you don't like waiting, go to Massachusetts and get married. Go back to your state and demand the place where you work and your state grant you the rights of a married person. And if they say no, take them to court. That requires that your wait. It will take time.

And that is just the marriage part. The problem of equal rights in the workplace face the same enormous hurdles. There are not enough progressive votes in the Senate or the House to pass a measure. Elect more and better Democrats, or join the Log Cabin Republicans and take over the Republican party apparatus.

Waiting doesn't mean your not doing anything.

That is, if they let them on at all.

It's much more "politically expedient" these days to simply shove them under the bus. Well, right after that credit card campaign donation clears.

As long as one person is oppressed in America, we all are.

I agree that gay rights are equal rights and should be treated as such.

When I say wait, I mean that there is no authority to grant you those rights with a magic wand. It will have to be fought out in Legislation and in the Courts. That will take time.

we send them to the back of the bus. EVERY TIME.

>When I say wait, I mean that there is no authority to grant you those rights with a magic wand.<

That's quite a change from your initial statements on this issue. It's also erroneous. President Obama could end DADT TODAY, for instance. He chooses not to.

We're not wishing for some magical solution. We're demanding our due rights.

we have a majority in the House and Senate, and we have a democratic president. Historically, when a party manages to do this, they usually lose one of the houses in the mid-term elections. Bush's first term was one of the few exceptions. This is not a shot at the president, it is just a fact. Repeal DADT and DOMA right now, or the chance will slip away.

DOMA was found to be unconstitutional.

"The ruling relied on two arguments: that the law interfered with the rights of states guaranteed in the 10th Amendment, and that it violated the Constitution’s equal protection clause." http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/opinion/49937301-82/federal-marriage-state-court.html.csp

We will see if SCOTUS takes it or lets it stand.

A Democratic majority doesn't mean unity of thought. If you can find 60 votes in the Senate to allow the bill up for a vote, it might happen. There are 59 Democratic votes. Which Republican will allow it to go to a floor vote. I see every indication that DADT will come up for repeal, and I think that in spite of their stupid survey it will happen. But nothing happens fast in the Senate. It takes time. It will be easier to repeal DADT in the House, but it isn't by any means a slam dunk.

The reality of the House and the Senate is that nothing happens right now. Our system doesn't work that way.

You want to hurry it along, protest. Get a thousand people to chain themselves to the doors of the Capital. But it will still take time. That means, while the wheels turn, people will have to wait. It isn't fair. It isn't right. It is reality.

about needing 60 votes- bring back the real filibuster. Let the assholes prove how assholey they are by reading phone books. Funny thing is, repukes never had 60 votes to ram their shit through- guess some parties are just better at street fighting than others. Oh, and one more thing- would you have told MLK to just sit down and be quiet and wait for the proper time?

Unbelievable, the inertia of the privileged.

very well put.

That may perhaps be true in some of our "Ghettos of Enlightenment" - i.e.: cities and towns with a more or less liberal, welcoming sensibility. Gays are open in many of our big cities. But to say they can live openly as a universal statement demonstrates the ill informed nature of the person who says that.

Many gays *will* suffer for the singular act of admitting their gay.

DADT is but one example.

We will have to wait because that's the nature of our system??? Poppycock. Change the fucking system. How long do you expect millions of people to "wait"? Until past the time they fucking die?

Certain areas of VA are VERY Gay-Friendly: Charlottesville and Richmond City, for example. However, Virginia has THE most repellent and discriminatory anti-gay laws in the country. GLBT citizens have literally zero protection. You can't even buy a home together, have your partner be your POA, nothing. IT IS THE LAW. You are semi-protected in these blue areas, but not all the way. Go outside? Forget it. At the very least, ENDA and DADT would help that ALOT.

In most of this country, gay people can be fired or denied employment, evicted or denied housing openly and legally, with the only reason being that they are gay people. That you have the temerity to call that 'living openly in society' is really the very picture of what the OP is addressing. You don't know what you are talking about, yet you take the podium of authority.
The only reason that this takes time is the bigotry of the straight community, they are the pure source of this problem. It is they who demand a fight. Not us. It is they who demand that the conflict be as pronounced and drawn out as possible. Not us.

where we can't live openly

I am sure that Matthew Shepherd's mother will be comforted by that. :sarcasm: Seriously, when people are under threat of being beaten because of who they are the are NOT living openly in society.

I live in a "right to work" state and a boss can look at me and say, "You're gay and so I am firing you." And my lesbian ass would be on the unemployment line the next day. So who cares if I can't
go to jail for kissing my "not wife"! She has no equal rights here in Florida and if I am hospitalized, she is not allowed any say in my care. You have no idea waht you are talking about. And I am sick and tired of being told to wait!

:hug:

If not, there will always be an aversion amongst the hetero masses, however slight, towards ya'll. The numbers dictate as much. I mean half the nation is constantly divided between the other political issues.

Additionally, what are the issues that need to be addressed to achieve full equality?

Right to marry: The govt should apply all the practical benefits of marriage to all same-sex couples.
Right to adopt: This is probably the thorniest issue. Not sure how to resolve that.

So, the way to go is slow and steady, and to tread lightly. If the cause is pushed aggressively, it stands to reason the effects will be adverse.

There are simple positive facts about the state of gay rights legislation in Congress: for instance, a DOMA repeal is not going to happen any time soon, and an ENDA passage is unlikely to get through the Senate. This means, as a matter of simple fact, that gay people "have to wait", and it is an indicator of the fact that "these things take time." But the only thing it "counsels" is an acknowledgement of reality. I don't think acknowledging reality is ever a bad thing, and I don't think it has any bearing on my or anyone else's support for full equality for LGBT people.

Then there are tactical questions, that perhaps face the question you present more straightforwardly. So, for instance, there are issues like, "Is this the right time to bring same-sex marriage to the Supreme Court in an upfront way?", or "Does it make sense to refuse to support any Democrat who is not a supporter of same-sex marriage?" Here there is a definite sense in which I would counsel "waiting", in both cases--but if my rationales, respectively, are "The Supreme Court will rule wrongly and only impair the struggle for equality" and "The effect, if any, will only be a government more hostile to LGBT rights", then my positions hardly have anything to do with a lack of support for "full equality for gay people", quite the contrary.

Certainly there are homophobic reasons to call for "waiting"--for instance, the suggestion that we should just ignore these divisive, implicitly trivial social issues and focus only on issues that "really" matter. But it does not follow that every disagreement about a tactic, or every call to acknowledge political realities instead of blaming a lack of will on the part of Obama and the Democratic leadership, stems from a homophobic reluctance to embrace full equality for LGBT people. (I do not mean to suggest that said lack of will is not a problem, merely that there is reasonable room to disagree over the extent to which it is responsible for the failure to move forward, and that taking one view or another on that question has little bearing on one's degree of support for the cause.)

and was brave enough to fight long and hard to not only repeal DOMA but used the bully pulpit to champion full equality.

Would that speed up the process?

You and I both know that it would.

It's not just a lack of will - it's a lack of leadership.

What you cite as "facts" are not immutable if we had strong national leadership.

I actually suspect otherwise, that an Obama attempt to that effect right now would work about as well as Clinton's attempt to end the gay ban in the military--probably worse, since it is far from obvious that there exists a compromise option in the manner of "Don't Ask Don't Tell", which is a pretty terrible compromise anyway.

The support in Congress for something like a DOMA repeal just isn't there. There is not even a Senate counterpart to Rep. Nadler's Respect for Marriage Act yet, and leadership figures like Barney Frank doubt the political prospects of that bill even in the House. Obama could probably get it brought to a vote, he might even be able to sway a few recalcitrant House members, but his effects would be felt on the margins if at all, and we are not at the point where a marginal difference would be enough to garner passage. This is a Congress that, to my amazement, cannot even pass a trans-inclusive ENDA. It would not embrace legislation tantamount, in the eyes of a great many, to accepting same-sex marriage.

I do not need to tell you that the fact that you and I would feel positively about a strong public embrace of equal rights from the White House is simply not representative of the broader reaction such a declaration would get. Right now, this is still the country of Prop. 8. It is not the country of Anita Bryant any more, and one day not too far from now it will be the country of Varnum v. Brien, but that day is not here. Obama could undoubtedly bring greater public attention to the issue of same-sex marriage if he wanted, but there is no reason to believe that he has the power to change hearts and minds on this issue. He has not been able to do it for anything else; I see no reason to believe that marriage equality is any different, broadly speaking.

All of that said, there is something to the criticism of Obama here, and I don't mean to deny that. He possibly could have made a difference in a state like Maine, where victory to the anti-gay forces was not so much a matter of determined public opposition as simple trends in turnout: it is hard to believe that a majority of a representative sample of Maine's voting age population would have voted "yes" on 1. Obama absolutely should have spoken out more strongly there, as should have the Democratic Party. It would have come at a minimal political cost, and his failure to do so is indicative of his broader excess of caution on LGBT rights issues. His long hesitation on DADT, reversed at the last minute, indicates a similar tendency, as is his unwillingness to push harder for ENDA. Obama is not an enemy, he might even be called an ally, but he is very far from a "fierce advocate", even a fierce advocate cognizant of political realities. He ought to be pushed on this issue. I just think the pressure ought to be properly focused, and made with consciousness of what can be reasonably accomplished and what might backfire.

I simply don't. This is 2010 not 1992. A lot has happened in the last two decades, not the least of which is that children of straight parents routinely know and become friend with children of gay couples. The reverberations from those kinds of interactions, and the fact that the vast majority of the country now knows a gay person or has one in their family, has changed our society dramatically.

Prop 8 succeeded because of absurd amounts of Mormon money and because the No on 8 organization and media campaign was abysmal and ineffective.

Presidents, historically, can do a lot to sway people. If we had a leader who FRAMED the issues properly and effectively and adroitly marginalized the opposition, we might not repeal DOMA overnight, but it could have a profoundly positive effect on the overall progress of the movement for equality.

A President who eloquently and movingly makes a forceful and compelling argument for civil equality. What a concept.

It's possible that there would be an electoral backlash against Obama on this issue, largely through the fact that strongly religious voters (among whom he did much better than past Democratic presidential candidates) might be rallied to oppose him, but certainly I see no reason to believe that more people would begin opposing same-sex marriage because the president said to support it. It simply would have no effect on public opinion.

It's impossible to know for sure how much difference campaigning made in Prop. 8. I rather doubt a large effect. We had a nice test case in Maine, where No on 1 did a better job than No on 8 with substantially more favorable background conditions and a much better edge in funding, and we lost anyway, by an even higher (though not by much) margin. But in any case we are speaking nationally, not at the state level, and it is doubtful that any state outside of the Northeast and the coastal West would return a majority for same-sex marriage. If anything, my Prop. 8 analogy is too generous, because California is an outlier toward the gay-friendly side: it has domestic partnerships (theoretically) legally-equivalent to marriage, anti-discrimination laws, and a legislature that voted twice to legalize same-sex marriage.

I don't know about "Presidents, historically, can do a lot to sway people." Presidents can do a lot when they already have public and Congressional support. They can do precious little when they have neither. The simple fact of the matter is that people have already made plenty of good, compelling, properly-framed arguments in favor of same-sex marriage, that those arguments are obviously correct and the arguments of the opposition are impossible to take seriously, but nonetheless there remains intense opposition. No president, however rhetorically skilled, can ever control the contours of the public debate, or perfectly frame an issue in a way that favors him or her; the opposition will be trying to frame it at the same time, in which case you have a standard battle over public opinion, and it is one where, due to current public opposition (not to mention current public doubts about Obama), Obama would be at a decided weakness. Even if I had a higher opinion of presidential persuasion than I do, I think marriage is likely to be among the issues least capable of undergoing successful persuasion. It is not a complicated issue, it is not an arcane policy change that people are incapable of understanding themselves, and it is one deeply connected to things people feel strongly about, and have a direct connection to. The absolute most Obama might be able to accomplish is strengthen the polarization of same-sex marriage along party lines: bring some on-the-fence Obama-supporting Democrats into the support camp, while driving some on-the-fence Obama-hating Republicans into the oppose camp. I don't think this would do us much good; indeed, insofar as the best way of ultimately generating a stronger consensus on this issue might be attracting libertarian-leaning conservatives like Ted Olson, it might actually be counterproductive.

...support ending it.

And Obama's actions on this issue, which as I have said left much to be desired, had everything to do with Congress and not all that much to do with public opinion.

They are the most accurate and level-headed thinking on the topic by anyone I have seen.

I really have nothing to add.

I don't even know who are, apart from that outsized sig line thing ya got there.

If you didn't want your post to come off like an accusation, then you shouldn't have made it sound like one. I know very well you aren't talking about me personally; I'm simply pointing out the accusatory nature of your post.

BTW my sigline is within acceptable guidelines. It's under 20K.

As for who I am, I've been here for several years and even moderated the board for a year straight. What have you done, other than put up accusatory posts?

As I said, I have no idea who you are and really don't much care if you took this personally or not. There's an old adage about shoes, fitting, and wearing. Will S also wrote, way back when the first Liz was queen, about "doth protest" . . . . or some such.

I couldn't care less how big your sig image is except its sort of aesthetically overpowering. But that's a matter of personal taste. I guess that's why they make chocolate and vanilla ice cream.

I do, I happen to respect EP.

What does that have to do with gay rights, which is the focus of this thread, "EP" and your sidetrack diversionary tactic notwithstanding?

:boring:

:hi:

I remember making a deal that I'd eat my words about him if he did by Monday. Well, It's 5 days later.:shrug:

Knowing you were eating your bachelor's pasta instead of your words. For real.

And, Obama's quickness to denounce other things very clearly shows his views on GLBT rights.

He quickly threw his Long time Pastor under the bus in the blink of an eye. This? Doop-dee-doo-dee-doo.:eyes:

The measure of a man...

under the bus just as quick. Two words- Rick Warren. That piece of filth should never have been allowed to be at the inauguration.

Sigh.

... but I was willing to give the benefit of doubt fro the rest of the week. Convenient for Obama that the bigotry in the survey is nothing worth talking about to str8 people.

Supporters of a President, born in 1961, to a white woman and a black man. A marriage that was still considered illegal and indeed "immoral" in many states at that time. (Thankfully, Hawaii was not one of them)

If the same approach to civil rights had been applied then as you ask gay couples to do now, Barack Obama would have never been born.

that gays should wait for the "right" time politically, say just after an election, but that trick has been pulled one too many times. Just as with the PO, Nafta repeal, EFCA, etc etc etc, these issues are totally forgotten or as in Obama's case we actually go backward on some of them.

I find myself wondering why it is never a good time for Goldman Sachs to STFU and sit down on their issues, or the health ins cos, or the MIC. Nobody ever tells the pentagram they can't have THEIR pony. Then I remember the reason: Obama was shining us on about alot of things.

and reality says that this is something that is inevitable and should happen but that can be delayed by all sorts of things and will require some delicate touches here and there to make it happen as soon as possible.

Simply demanding it be done yesterday and trying to ram it through will not succeed in it passing any quicker IMO and risks delaying it.

If repealing DADT were some multi-year process I'd be against it too, but we will likely have it gone before the next Spring thaw.

Is these are rights that should of happened a long time ago. I'm not talking about Bush, Republicans, or Obama. They all should all get in line and make the necessary legal changes for that to happen. I know the Republicans won't and significant numbers of Democrats won't either. Just saying that they should and IMO they are stalling.

Wow... I sometimes forget what some people think qualifies as serious thoughts on an issue.

"... reality says that this is something that is inevitable and should happen but that can be delayed by all sorts of things and ..." reminds me of the prose Nabokov used to show Humbert Humbert was out-of-his-head-drunk-and-incoherent in Lolita. Thanks for reminding me that life really does imitate art... ;)

And while I have frequently defended Obama against some accusations, this is one area where I think he's clearly wrong.

I'm a 54 year old gay man. When I came out, at 22, it was just 9 years after Stonewall. It was just 1 year after Anita Bryant and her despicable crusade for hate, which results in the defeat of the Dade County gay rights bill.

Of course, living in a small city in Downstate Illinois, those things were almost light years away from me. Hell, I was just trying to find out all of the information I could about being gay and homosexuality. I remember watching Phil Donahue's show, when he would occasionally do shows about gay people. I knew gay people were out there...there just weren't any in my life. No one to talk to about myself.

But the above is in the past. I AM amazed at the progress we have made, in being part of society as gay people. Marriage equality...my god, when I came out, the idea would have been utterly unimaginable.

Being entirely selfish, I know, but dammit, I don't think it's too much to ask to want full equality for GLBT people in my lifetime. My patience for waiting is gone. I'm not going to settle for the fierce advocacy of whenever. I am not going to settle for equality....sometime, at a date to be determined. And I can't bear to read, to listen, to the "well, wait until after the next election". And then, after that..."well, just wait until after the next election". It's a long, tired string of excuses. We're not little children waiting for that special Christmas present.

And if you think some middle aged guy like me isn't patient, try talking to a 20 year old gay or lesbian. The 20 year olds were the first to get PISSED after Prop 8 passed in 2008. They were the ones who mobilized the protests. I'll guarantee you, they will not wait for their equality.

and every day that he continues to oppose equal rights for gay marriage, adds to his enormous disgrace on this issue. Overall Obama is a very good to excellent president but his record on gay rights just makes me cringe.

It is always soooo amusing to see how the GLBT-rights threads are always ambushed. This should have 100+ recs by now.

about me.

I have a loyal following who visit all of my threads. But they suffer from a very rare and very limited form of duslexia. They can't tell the left rec button from the right unrec button. The net result is all my threads have at least 10 more recs than ever show. And for my more memorable threads, many more recs than that as the last of the loyal following visits me.

so it wouldn't happen again! You are just so mean!:cry:

:P

once you subtract the vote of everybody here who hated him.

All people are equals, under the law and in spirit.

...but I don't buy into the notion that the only right thing to ever do is insist on full and immediate implementation of whatever you think is right.

Can you imagine what would have happened if Lincoln had run for President on not merely stopping the spread of slavery, but the immediate end of slavery? And, for good measure, if he loudly proclaimed black men must immediately be allowed to marry white women, and he'd make sure he ended laws against mixed race marriages in his first year as President?

It would have been way, WAY too much to expect of the American public of 1860 to respond to that message. No matter how wrong and evil slavery is, no matter how we can obviously accept in our current times that race shouldn't make a damn bit of difference when it comes to who can marry whom, the yawning chasm between public attitudes of 1860 and the moral high ground was simply too huge to cross. No amount of righteous idealism could have fixed that.

When it comes to gay rights, were just now reaching the point where idealism and the politically possible are close enough that the energy of idealism is more helpful than harmful. We haven't always be there, however, so I do not outright condemn anyone for having promoted compromise over perfection.

to be a "given" for women.It is even the settled law and look what has been done to it. Civil Rights apparently only apply under certain circumstances.

History has proven that. The Emancipation Proclamation did not make blacks equal to whites immediately. It happened hundreds of years later--well for the most part. Just because we recommend patience does not mean we don't support gay rights. It's just being realistic. Feel free to fume and get angry. You're only hurting yourself.

After a ringing endorsement like that I'm convinced that human rights is something high on your list of things to care about.

"You're only hurting yourself."

You'd make a great fierce advocate.

Obama isn't losing sleep at night over it. He's just calmly and gradually working toward repealing DADT while you scream hurry up.

I've never been told "fuck you" so nicely.

I'm not hurting myself, by the way. I'm a hetero male who could no more be gay than a gay person can be straight. This isn't about me.

Oy vay.

:cry:

:cry:

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

Are you some kind of Yankee?!

Why, thanks, O Fierce Advocate!

I am AMAZED that posters think they have a right to talk to GLBT DUers like this. It is mindboggling.

straights that thinks gay rights can be granted by flipping a light switch. On the other hand, there are those advocates that understand social change by looking at its history. MLK knew that obtaining civil rights for blacks would not happen over night. No. It took years of struggle and progress, but if you think gay rights can be achieved immediately, so be it. When you don't get what you expect, you end up hurt (angry, sad, etc.) while politicians just go about their business. It's funny how you demonize those that support your cause just because they take a realistic approach to reaching the same goal you have. But hey, democrats and progressives are known for eating their own.

that is a strawman argument.

However, many of us would like to have a President who calmly and effectively and skillfuly makes the case to the nation for marriage equality.

Until that occurs, it is smart politics for us and our straight allies to keep pushing the matter as loudly and clearly as we can.

literally. Obama already knows what you want, but if repeating it makes you feel better, hey.

Hence, he gets quite a lot of the pressure. If the next one also doesn't carry the torch for equality, he or she will be the object of much pressure as well.

That's the way rights movements have historically worked in our nation. Even strong leaders who fully allied themselves with a cause still were under relentless pressure to push for an enactment of the political agenda. I'm puzzled that you seem to believe otherwise.

And whether you meant overnight literally or figuratively, it is still a strawman.

You're welcome.

:)

“Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed.”

With any of his famous quotes I don't recall one where he said we must be patient or it's not politically popular at this time. He and others continued to demand. It didn't happen over night but him and other leaders of that era sure made it happen a lot quicker. So I don't see anything wrong with GLBT and their supporters for demanding changes in these policies. I will add Truman tried to get civil rights legislation passed and he was an early pioneer of civil rights when it wasn't politically popular.

rights policies. My problem is that many of us want it done "yesterday". Many posters have spit a lot of venom at the president because he has not overturned DADT and legalized gay marriage in less than two years into his term. They are angry and sad people hence my earlier comment about them hurting themselves.

to continue to demand. It is not GLBT hurting themselves, its the politicians are moving very slowly on this. I would like the Senate and the House of Representatives to get this done as well as other things like gay marriage. Believe it or not I'm much more angry with blue dogs in both houses about this as well as Republicans most of all(but that includes for every platform). It is a good thing that the house did add it as amendment to the Defense bill and the Senate for getting a similar amendment out of Armed Services Committee. However I have yet to see Obama use the "bully pulpit" for gay causes. He does deserve constructive criticism with his lack of action in not only DADT but in other departments such as urging "States to treat same-sex couples with full equality in their family and adoption laws,". Certainly not most of it. The Republicans and the blue dogs deserve that but I'm sure GLBT expect more of a "fierce advocate" from someone who has said they are on their side. We'll see at the end of this year and the end of his term and I do hope everything that was promised happens.

We have different paths, but we share a common goal. That must be repeated. That being said this is a question for anyone reading this thread. Can you name one other president that has done more for gay rights than President Obama?

To answer your question I honestly can't think of one. I do think that all the Presidents before him didn't set the bar very high but I will concede that if a piece of legislation concerning gay rights hits his desk, he would sign. That is why I'm concentrated on 2010, electing progressives at the state and federal level because that would be biggest key to getting more progressive legislation passed. I've seen far too many bills that I like fail in the Senate because of Republicans and blue dogs which I'm sure Obama would sign. With that said there is things in his power that I'm not happy with but that is a discussion for another thread.

to where we were after, I think a strong case can be made that Clinton actually did more. Clinton did all of the following. Ended anti gay discrimination in every single federal department save the uniformed military (where he tried and was beaten back). He got the first openly gay appointee through the US Senate (Roberta Actenburg). He appointed the first gay US Ambassador. He was the first President to speak at an HRC dinner. First to do Pride proculmations. Funded AIDS research and care to the extent that AIDS became a disease that can be managed like diabetes instead of a death sentence. Before Clinton gays were completely out of the federal loop with no real hope of getting in. After Clinton we were in the federal loop to such an extent that Bush couldn't kick us out. Obama has been the beneficiary of a whole lot of work done by the gay community allowing him to have a greater pool of openly gay appointees (and even then we didn't get a cabinet spot despite in the case of Labor having a more qualified candidate), hate crimes passed almost without help from Obama, and Obama has been tepid in using his executive power to help gays. Obama has more impressive sounding achievements if you ignore starting points. He is like the teacher who gets an AP Stats class being compared to one who gets an Algebra 1 class. If you look at what the teachers managed to get taught the AP stats teacher will win hands down. If you look at the raw material though, it is a different story.

take a survey before desegregating the military? No, he did it and told people to fucking deal with it. It is called "leadership". They call the president "Commander-in-Chief" for a reason. People have to be forced to raise their standards, most don't do it willingly.

And I sure as hell don't remember him snarking about it.

Yeah it does.

As if this is necessary: :sarcasm:

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

dupe

Horrible values you have, horrible.

Man, our educational system is not doing so well...

if it's posting from 2060, the science classes must be working; there are time machines in the future

Especially when they are not facing brutal discrimination. Many of us lost jobs in this depression and are now facing loss of unemployment benefits because the Democrats are too weak to stand up to the Republicans. It's tough to find a job in this economy - especially if you are gay (or another minority for that matter). You urge patience, while we worry about whether I will have a roof over my head next month.

Just like I'm in favor of ending wars of empire.

Just like I'm in favor of Universal, single-payer, not-for-profit health care.

Just like I'm in favor of election reform that includes 100% public financing, with no private donations allowed, real, authentic debates where all candidates get equal talk time and answer all questions, and some version of IRV.

Just like I'm in favor of re-regulating and de-privatizing all public services, utilities, airwaves, etc..

Just like I'm in favor of a new, updated fairness doctrine, or something else that protects free-speech but severely limits propaganda.

The end of NAFTA. Better, or better-enforced, anti-trust laws.

A stronger safety net.

I'm in favor of all of those things, and I don't think I should have to be patient for any of them, either.

Never counseled anyone to wait, to be patient, that these things take time here on DU or anywhere else.

Not exactly sure what your are referring to?

Don

Why did you feel the need to ask me? :shrug:

:scared:

Guess I just wanted to clarify I wasn't part of the problem you were discussing in your OP.

Don

. . . . you are. I can't know that. But you do.

No need to tell us. I'll accept your proffer at face value.

have the stones to walk up to a GBLT person in real life and say that to their face. If I were the owner of this website, there would be changes to the rules on this subject that would reduce the membership by a lot. And that's all I'm going to say on that.

Gay people have been oppressed for CENTURIES! People need to get that through their thick skulls and then see if they still talk "patience". Every other form of oppression is made even worse if the person is also GBLT. If the rights of GBLT people are not addressed, then not a single other loving thing that people find important is ever going to get fixed in this country. This is the canary in the coalmine.

It's so nice to see you here! This website needs all the BH's it can get. :D

done in one day if it weren't for those standing in the way. If there's enough standing in the way that are in the current Dem majority, they should be voted out in favor of a candidate that supports not only gay rights but equal rights for all.

Equality shouldn't have to wait for when people are all ready to hear it. In fact, waiting does nothing except ask people to continue to be discriminated against.

*now*.

I've always found this to be one particularly important section in a letter that is full of them.



As someone who has full rights, it is not for me to counsel others as to how long they must wait for theirs. The only time is now.

Thank you for posting that.

And welcome to DU.