Organizing for America | Danielle Clarke's Blog: 10 LGBT ARTICLES FOR OPPOSITION REBUTAL (LONG FOLLOW UP FOR COMPLETE RESEARCH)

Community Blogs

Post from Danielle Clarke's Blog:

10 LGBT ARTICLES FOR OPPOSITION REBUTAL (LONG FOLLOW UP FOR COMPLETE RESEARCH)

By Danielle Clarke USA Vietnam Vet - Nov 24th, 2007 at 2:00 pm EST

Also listed in: 9 groups

Comments | Mail to a Friend | Report Objectionable Content

Tags: barack-obama, Bill-Clinton, family, gay, hillary-clinton, jesus, Lesbian, transgender

THE FOLLOWING ARTICLES COVER MANY AREAS FOR USE IN REBUTING THOSE WHO WOULD ATTACK BARACK

1. OBAMA WINS LOGO GAY DEBATES

2. OBAMA ON D.O.M.A. = DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT

3. OBAMA ON NON BLOOD FAMILY VISITS

4. OBAMA ON UNTING AMERICAN FAMILIES ACT

5. OBAMA'S PAST WORDS 2004 RESEMBLES HIS PRESENT WORDS

6. OBAMA ON TRANSGENDER PEOPLE

7. OBAMA ON GOSPEL TOUR = MANY ARTICLES

8. OBAMA WON'T THROW GAYS UNDER THE BUS WILL HILLARY?

9. OBAMA ON PRIDE MONTH AND STATEMENT ON LGBT RIGHTS

10. GAY MAN CHARLES MERRILL TALKS TO ME ABOUT OBAMA CLINTON EDWARDS BY IM

TOO SEE LONG BLOG - CLICK - READ MORE

THE FOLLOWING ARTICLES COVER MANY AREAS FOR USE IN REBUTING THOSE WHO WOULD ATTACK BARACK

1. OBAMA WINS LOGO GAY DEBATES

LOGO GAY DEBATES Who got your vote? Any surprises?

http://visiblevote08.logoonline.com/2007/08/13/who-got-your-vote-any-surprises/#comment-1821

All through the weekend since Thursday, visitors to the site here have been asked to “Sound Off” and place a vote for the candidate they’re most behind.

Which could mean both who they thought performed well during the VisibleVote08 Presidential Forum on Thursday night (which you can watch again tonight at 9pm ET, if you missed it), and just who they support the most in general.

And the results may surprise you… As of 1:50pm today, here are the numbers:

WHO’S YOUR CANDIDATE?
Barack Obama 45%
Dennis Kucinich 25%
Hillary Clinton 14%
Mike Gravel 8%
John Edwards 5%
Bill Richardson 3%

Surprised? Obviously, Obama inspires and comes off amazingly well. And people respond to him as a maverick and a fresh voice. But is it surprising that he fares so much better than his biggest rival, Hillary Clinton? And would you have expected higher numbers for her?

Kucinich and Gravel benefitted from their warmly received, pro-gay performance on Thursday, but it’s hard to know whether Kucinich’s vast jump in the rankings here (he sort of trounced Clinton) translates to any real boost for him. More so, it demonstrates how enthusiastically gay voters respond to a candidate who embraces them and vows to fight for them.

And it looks like neither John Edwards nor Bill Richardson won themselves much of a gay boost in support… But might that change?

.......................................
It seems right to me with how Barack wants to repeal DOMA and has since 1996. Why clinton won't do this is beyond me. Or Edwards for that matter. Also barack has a forum on his site which is open to discussion whereas the others don't

go to http://my.barackobama.com see people scroll down to LGBT issues

http://pride.barackobama.com/page/content/lgbthome

2. OBAMA ON D.O.M.A. = DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT

THE following are HRC statements the top three gave a
few months ago:

Clinton says

""I would like to see federal benefits extended to
same sex couples that meet certain standards.""

""I support repealing the provision of DOMA that may
prohibit the federal government from providing
benefits to people in states that recognize same sex
marriage. ""

""I strongly support ensuring people in stable,
long-term same sex relationships have full equality of
benefits, rights, and responsibilities.""

Clintons above three statements have me concerned
she is side stepping in what she says as not
to commit to anything officially.

she would amend the provisions of DOMA in certain
standards. Her husband and her were the ones who got
us DOMA which Barack has wanted to erase ever since
the clintons had it installed as law. Barack obama
and John edwards want to repeal DOMA which is good for
us.

"Obama is the only candidate who supports long-term,
same-sex relationships regardless of length of time
those couples have been together.

Edwards
""I believe that couples in committed, longterm
relationships should have the same rights,
benefits, and responsibilities, whether they are
straight couples or sameSex couples.""

Edwards above statement, is the only one in the area
of
civil unions i am concerned about. Because straight
people don't have to be in long term committed
relationships to get married / civil unions.
However, edwards does want to repeal the DOMA bill
that the clintons levied on us in the 90's, which is a
good thing for edwards.

JOHN EDWARDS
http://a4.g.akamai.net/f/4/19675/0/newmill.download.akamai.com/19677/anon.newmediamill/pdfs/edwards.pdf
HILLARY CLINTON
http://a4.g.akamai.net/f/4/19675/0/newmill.download.akamai.com/19677/anon.newmediamill/pdfs/clinton.pdf

BARACK OBAMA
http://a4.g.akamai.net/f/4/19675/0/newmill.download.akamai.com/19677/anon.newmediamill/pdfs/obama.pdf

In a June 1996 interview in the gay and lesbian
magazine The Advocate, Clinton said: " I remain
opposed to same-sex marriage. I believe marriage is an
institution for the union of a man and a woman. This
has been my long-standing position, and it is not
being reviewed or reconsidered." [4]

""I opposed the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996. It
should be repealed and I will vote for its repeal on
the Senate floor. I will also oppose any proposal to
amend the U.S. Constitution to ban gays and lesbians
from marrying." - Barack Obama""

Oppose a Constitutional Ban on Gay Marriage: Barack
Obama voted against the Federal Marriage
Amendment in 2006 which would have defined marriage as
between a man and a woman and prevented judicial
extension of marriage-like rights to same-sex or other
unmarried couples. “We are better than this. And we
certainly owe the American people more than this. I
know that this amendment will fail, and when it does,
"""I hope we can start discussing issues and offering
proposals that will actually improve the lives of most
Americans.”""" (Barack Obama on the Senate floor
regarding the Federal Marriage Amendment, June 5,
2006)

Which LGBT campaign issue
is most important to you?

35% Gay Marriage

20% Employment Non-
Discrimination Act (ENDA)

15% Health Care/Partner Benefits

9% Hate Crime Protection Laws

5% Transgender Rights

4% HIV/AIDS Prevention/Funding

""""also a question for everyone"""How did Hillary Clinton know in 1996 that she would be
fighting a Federal marriage protection action with
carl rove and george walker bush in 2003 - 2006?

See her statement at the gay debates.

See how it makes it appear to be that she knew
something in 1996 that hadn't even been considered
until 2003?

Did Hillary Clinton "know" George walker Bush would be
president?

Something is terrible wrong here.

Please help me see the truth or am i right on with the
truth?

Danielle Clarke

NOTE: I realized something was wrong when i had
received this following email from gaycity news

..............................................

Clinton on DOMA at LOGO bush wasn't president in 1996
gay city news is wrong
To: "GLBT for OBAMA"
<glbtforobamagaylesbianbisexualtransgende@my.barackobama.com>

CC: "and Transgender Voters for Barack Obama"
<lgbtvotersforbarackobama@groups.barackobama.com>

GWBush wasn't president at the time DOMA was passed
this article portrays Clinton as doing the right thing
when Bush jr wasn't even president.

OR DID CLINTON KNOW BUSH WOULD BE PRESIDENT NEXT???
HMMMMMM

Please tell gaycitynews they are wrong supporting
clinton

http://gaycitynews.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=18715167&BRD=2729&PAG=461&dept_id=568864&rfi=6

She supports the repeal of the section of the 1996
Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) that allows federal
recognition only of marriages between one man and one
woman and defines a spouse as only "a person of the
opposite sex who is a husband or a wife."

A repeal of that portion of DOMA would allow the
federal government to recognize same-sex couples in
marriages sanctioned in states where they are legal.
Repealing only that section would allow other states
to continue to not recognize unions other than legal
marriages between one man and one woman.

Clinton, who as a candidate finds herself called upon
to defend her husband's record in the White House,
said DOMA made it possible to defeat efforts by
President George W. Bush to advance an amendment to
the U.S. Constitution that would have defined marriage
as between one man and one woman.

"I don't know that we could have defeated it if we did
not have DOMA," she said. President Bill Clinton, who
served from 1993 to 2001, signed DOMA into law.

.....................................................
""""if we had not had DOMA. That, if anything, has
provided a great protection
against what was clearly the Republican strategy
blessed by George Bush, led by the congressional
Republicans, to just cynically use marriage as a
political tool."""

.....................................................

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Marriage_Amendment

Proposed amendment
The original proposed Federal Marriage Amendment was
written by Alliance for Marriage with the assistance
of Judge Robert Bork, Professor Robert P. George of
Princeton University, and Professor Gerard V. Bradley
of Notre Dame Law School.[2] It was first introduced
in the House of Representatives by Rep. Marilyn
Musgrave (R-Colo.) in May 2003 and consisted of two
sentences.[3]

When the 2003 version of the FMA failed to pass, Rep.
Musgrave re-introduced the Amendment in 2004 with a
revised second sentence. The FMA was concurrently
introduced in the Senate by Senator Wayne Allard
(R-Colo.) in both 2003 and 2004. In 2005, Senator
Allard introduced the "Marriage Protection Amendment"
which was the 2004 Federal Marriage Amendment
verbatim. In 2006, Rep. Musgrave introduced the
Marriage Protection Amendment in the House.

................................................

gay debate transcripts:

http://www.cqpoliti cs.com/pdfs/2007_8_9debate.pdf

SOLMONESE:
Changing tracks, talk to us about what is at the heart
of your opposition to same sex marriage?
CLINTON:
Well, Joe, I prefer to think of it as being very
positive about civil unions.
(LAUGHTER)
It's a personal position, and you and I have talked
about it. I've talked about it with a number of my
friends here and across the country.
And for me, we have made it very clear in our country
that we believe in equality. How we get to full
equality is the debate we're having. And I am
absolutely in favor of civil unions with full
equality, full equality of benefits, rights and
privileges.
And I've also been a very strong supporter of letting
the states maintain their jurisdiction over marriage.
And I believe that was a right decision for a lot of
reasons, because it's easy, again, to forget that just
2.5 years ago, we were facing all of these referenda
that were enshrining discrimination in state
constitutions.
And a lot of people tried very hard to fight against
them and prevent them from being passed, but
unfortunately, they were.
Now, 2.5 years later we're beginning to see other
states take different approaches. And what we were
able to do -- and I really give HRC a lot of credit
for
your leadership on this -- in stopping the federal
marriage amendment gave the states the breathing room
to make different decisions.
So I want to proceed with equalizing federal benefits.
I want to repeal Section 3 of DOMA, which stands in
the way of the extension of benefits to people in
committed same sex relationships, and I will be very
strongly in favor of doing that as president.
SOLMONESE:
I wonder, Senator, if you can sympathize with the
frustration of this argument that it's a states'
rights issue. In the civil rights struggle, this
argument that it
was a states' rights issue was something that was
typically used against people working against us as
sort of a red herring. And so can you see where this
argument of marriage as a states' right issue would
resonate the same way in our community?
CLINTON:
Absolutely. And Joe, not only that, I really respect
the advocacy that the community is waging on behalf of
marriage. I think you're doing exactly what you
need to do and should do, and I really am very much
impressed by the intensity and the persistence of that
advocacy. But this has not been a long-term struggle
yet.
And I think it's really clear that people in the
states are moving much more rapidly to deal with the
inequality than you would find at the federal level.
When you and I were plotting strategy to beat the
federal marriage amendment, the reason we were
plotting strategy is we were worried it was going to
pass.
And, again, this was a terrifying prospect that we
would have enshrined in the Constitution for the first
time ever discrimination.
And we were very clear about what we needed to do to
get the vote in order to prevent this mean-spirited,
divisive effort led by Karl Rove to politicize the
hopes and dreams of so many of our fellow Americans.
And we were able to defeat it, but I don't know that
we could have defeated it """"if we had not had DOMA.
That, if anything, has provided a great protection
against what was clearly the Republican strategy
blessed by George Bush, led by the congressional
Republicans, to just cynically use marriage as a
political tool."""

................................................
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act

Legal history
In the 1993 case Baehr v. Lewin, The Hawaii State
Supreme Court ruled that the state must show a
compelling interest in prohibiting same-sex marriage.
This prompted concern among opponents of same-sex
marriage that the state might legalize it, and that
eventually other states would recognize same-sex
marriages performed in Hawaii. The Defense of Marriage
Act is designed specifically to "quarantine" same-sex
marriage and prevent states from being required to
recognize the marriage of same-sex couples in other
states.

The Defense of Marriage Act was signed into law by
President Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996, after
moving through a legislative fast track and
overwhelming approval in both houses of the
Republican-controlled U.S. Congress. Its Congressional
sponsors stated, "[T]he bill amends the U.S. Code to
make explicit what has been understood under federal
law for over 200 years; that a marriage is the legal
union of a man and a woman as husband and wife, and a
spouse is a husband or wife of the opposite sex." [3]

The legislative history of the bill asserts authority
to enact the law under Article IV Sec. 1, which grants
Congress power to determine "the effect" of such full
faith and credit. Proponents made clear their purpose
to normalize heterosexual marriage on a federal level
and to permit each state to decide for itself whether
to recognize same-sex unions concluded in another
state. Opponents variously question whether the power
asserted extends so far as to permit non-recognition
altogether, argue that the law is unconstitutionally
vague by leaving out essential details, assert a
constitutional right to same-sex marriage, or some
combination of the three.

Although Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act
into law during his re-election campaign in 1996 and
opposed same-sex marriage, he did not mention the law
(or the controversy surrounding it) in his 2004
memoir, My Life.

In a June 1996 interview in the gay and lesbian
magazine The Advocate, Clinton said: " I remain
opposed to same-sex marriage. I believe marriage is an
institution for the union of a man and a woman. This
has been my long-standing position, and it is not
being reviewed or reconsidered." [4]

Barack understands that religions DO have a right to
their beliefs. However, Barack also understands that
SOME religions accept gay marriage. Barack also says
in his youtube debate that as a president he is not
using his religous beliefs to deterimine law.

THE following are HRC statements the top three gave a
few months ago:

Clinton says

""I would like to see federal benefits extended to
same sex couples that meet certain standards.""

""I support repealing the provision of DOMA that may
prohibit the federal government from providing
benefits to people in states that recognize same sex
marriage. ""

""I strongly support ensuring people in stable,
long-term same sex relationships have full equality of
benefits, rights, and responsibilities.""

Clintons above three statements have me concerned
she is side stepping in what she says as not
to commit to anything officially.

she would amend the provisions of DOMA in certain
standards. Her husband and her were the ones who got
us DOMA which Barack has wanted to erase ever since
the clintons had it installed as law. Barack obama
and John edwards want to repeal DOMA which is good for
us.

"Obama is the only candidate who supports long-term,
same-sex relationships regardless of length of time
those couples have been together.

Edwards
""I believe that couples in committed, long‐term
relationships should have the same rights,
benefits, and responsibilities, whether they are
straight couples or same‐Sex couples.""

Edwards above statement, is the only one in the area
of
civil unions i am concerned about. Because straight
people don't have to be in long term committed
relationships to get married / civil unions.
However, edwards does want to repeal the DOMA bill
that the clintons levied on us in the 90's, which is a
good thing for edwards.

JOHN EDWARDS
http://a4.g.akamai.net/f/4/19675/0/newmill.download.akamai.com/19677/anon.newmediamill/pdfs/edwards.pdf
HILLARY CLINTON
http://a4.g.akamai.net/f/4/19675/0/newmill.download.akamai.com/19677/anon.newmediamill/pdfs/clinton.pdf

BARACK OBAMA
http://a4.g.akamai.net/f/4/19675/0/newmill.download.akamai.com/19677/anon.newmediamill/pdfs/obama.pdf

long version below

CLINTON EDWARDS SIDESTEP ON CIVIL UNIONS WHILE
BARACKOBAMA STAYS CONSISTENT

Here you can read the actual statements of these three
candidates given to HRC. Clinton Edwards both say only
those in "long term relationships" should be given the
rights to civil unions! Why do they say these words?
So they will have a LOOPHOLE when it comes to actual
voting on the topic of civil unions for gays lesbians
bisexuals and transgender

TO ALL WHO GET THIS MAKE SURE YOU READ THE WHOLE THING
AND THE REPORTS OF SUPPORT BY BARACK OBAMA AT THE
BOTTOM OF THIS EMAIL.

Senator Obama is the only candidate running for
president who urges legislation that asserts
recognition of all committed couples without applying
an arbitrary qualification to issue a license for
marriage. He believes that qualification and grants of
the privileged legal rights and benefits should be
applied equally, regardless of sexual orientation of
the two people involved.
Senator Obama has listened and advocates equal
marriage rights and benefits for all committed
relationships regardless of sexual orientation. Please
join me in working to elect Barack Obama as our next
president.

I like Obama's approach because it doesn't set up an
opportunity for judgement and treats gay couples the
same as straight couples. The duration and stability
of a straight couple's relationship does not come into
play when their rights are determined or granted. Why
should that be any different for gay couples? Why
should some bureaucrat be allowed to sit in judgement
over whether or not a gay couple's relationship is
"long-term" before granting the rights they seek for
their legalized relationship?

The fact that both Hillary and Edwards wish to create
that opportunity for judgement of gay relationships
that isn't present to qualify straight couples's legal
rights, is the telling factor in how insincere they
both are about the issue. Now, if Hilary and Edwards
want to enact a law requiring a probationary period
for straight couples before any of their lawful rights
and benefits are granted to them, then that's great!

Check out the specific candidate statements below."

John Edwards

HRC ASK
6. Currently, only Massachusetts recognizes equal
marriage rights for same sex couples. Do you believe
the civil institution of marriage (with absolutely no
requirements imposed on religious institutions) should

be
made legally available to two committed adults of the
same sex?

Support X Oppose Comments

HRC ASKS:
If you do not believe that civil marriage for
same‐sex couples should be made available to
same‐sex couples on the same basis as opposite
sex couples, is there any legal construct you do
embrace
that would extend legal recognition to same sex
couples?

HRC ASKS:
If a state has taken the steps to recognize same sex
couples and their families for purposes of
state‐based benefits, rights, privileges and
responsibilities (such as marriage in Massachusetts
and civil
unions in Vermont and Connecticut), should the federal
government recognize the state's legal
recognition of such couples and families for purposes
of federal benfits and tax treatment?

X Support Oppose Comments:

EDWARDS SAYS:
Yes. I believe that couples in committed,
long‐term relationships should have the same
rights,
benefits, and responsibilities, whether they are
straight couples or same‐Sex couples.
I support civil unions to guarantee gay and lesbian
couples the same rights as straight couples,
including inheritance rights, hospital visitation
rights, equal pension and health care benefits,
and all of the 1,100 other legal protections
government affords married couples.
I support the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act
provision that prevents the federal government
from recognizing same‐sex relationships. Gay
marriage is an issue I feel internal conflict about
and I continue to struggle with it. However, I
believe the right president could lead the country
toward consensus around equal rights and benefits for
all couples in commtted, long‐term
relationships.

HRC ASKS:
7. According to a 2004 GAO report, over 1,100
benefits, rights and privileges are provided to
married couples and their families in federal law that
are not available to same‐sex couples.
Do you support extending federal benefits, rights,
privileges and responsibilities to same‐sex
couples (and their children) provided the partnership
meets certain federal standards of
commitment and mutuality of interest?

X Support Oppose Comments:

HRC ASKS:
Specifically, do you support the expansion of the
Family and Medical Leave Act to cover domestic
partners and their children?

X Support Oppose Comments:

HRC ASKS:
Do you support modifying the Social Security System to
pay survivor benefits to the same‐sex partners
of gay and lesbian people?

X Support Oppose Comments:

HRC ASKS:
Do you support fair and equal tax treatment of same
sex couples on the same basis as married couples?

X Support Oppose Comments:

HRC ASKS:
8. Many gay and lesbian people serve in the federal
government but do not receive the same health
insurance and other employee benefits of married
couples. Do you support domestic partner coverage
for gay and lesbian employees of the civilian federal
workforce?

X Support Oppose Comments:

EDWARDS SAYS:
Yes. I support extending health care and other
benefits to the committed gay and lesbian partners
of federal employees.

Hillary Clinton

HRC ASK:
6. Currently, only Massachusetts recognizes equal
marriage rights for same sex
couples. Do you believe the civil institution of
marriage (with absolutely no
requirements imposed on religious institutions) should

be made legally available to two
committed adults of the same sex?

Support X Oppose Comments

HILLARY SAYS:
The question of marriage is one that historically has
been left to the states. I opposed
the so-called "Family Marriage Amendment" because this
issue has no place in the
Constitution.

HRC ASKS"
If you do not believe that civil marriage for same-sex
couples should be made available
to same-sex couples on the same basis as opposite sex
couples, is there any legal
construct you do embrace that would extend legal
recognition to same sex couples?

HILLARY SAYS:
I believe gay and lesbian couples should have the same

rights and responsibilities as
all Americans and that civil unions are the best way
to achieve this goal. As
president, I will work to ensure that all Americans in
committed relationships have
equal benefits – from health insurance and life
insurance, property rights, and more.

HRC ASKS:
7. If a state has taken the steps to recognize same
sex couples and their families for
purposes of state-based benefits, rights, privileges
and responsibilities (such as
marriage in Massachusetts and civil unions in Vermont
and Connecticut), should the
federal government recognize the state's legal
recognition of such couples and
families for purposes of federal benefits and tax
treatment?

X Support Oppose Comments:

HILLARY SAYS:
I have long been on record supporting equality in
benefits and eliminating
discrimination against gays and lesbians. I support
repealing the provision of
DOMA that may prohibit the federal government from
providing benefits to people
in states that recognize same sex marriage. I strongly
support ensuring people in
stable, long-term same sex relationships have full
equality of benefits, rights, and
responsibilities.

HRC ASK:
8. According to a 2004 GAO report, over 1,100
benefits, rights and privileges are
provided to married couples and their families in
federal law that are not available to
same-sex couples. Do you support extending federal
benefits, rights, privileges and
responsibilities to same-sex couples (and their
children) provided the partnership meets
certain federal standards of commitment and mutuality
of interest?

X Support  Oppose Comments:

HILLARY SAYS:
I support full equality of benefits, rights, and
responsibilities for individuals in
loving, stable, same sex relationships and in
principle, I would like to see federal
benefits extended to same sex couples that meet
certain standards. I would need to
examine the feasibility of implementing such a
provision and look forward to
working in partnership with the Human Rights Campaign
and others in the gay
rights community to determine the best path for
realizing this goal.

HRC ASKS:
Specifically, do you support the expansion of the
Family and Medical Leave Act to cover
domestic partners and their children?

X Support Oppose Comments:

HRC ASKS:
Do you support modifying the Social Security System to
pay survivor benefits to the
same-sex partners of gay and lesbian people?

X Support Oppose Comments:

HRC ASKS:
Do you support fair and equal tax treatment of same
sex couples on the same basis as
married couples?

X Support Oppose Comments:

BARACK OBAMA =

HRC ASKS:
6. Currently, only Massachusetts recognizes equal
marriage rights for same sex couples. Do you
believe the civil institution of marriage (with
absolutely no requirements imposed on religious
institutions) should be made legally available to two
committed adults of the same sex?

Support X Oppose Comments:

HRC ASKS:
If you do not believe that civil marriage for
same‐sex couples should be made available
to same‐sex couples on the same basis as
opposite sex couples, is there any legal
construct you do embrace that would extend legal
recognition to same sex couples?

OBAMA SAYS:
I believe civil unions should include the same legal
rights that accompany a marriage license. I support
the notion that all people – gay or straight – deserve
the same rights and responsibilities to assist their
loved ones in times of emergency, deserve equal health

insurance and other employment benefits currently
extended to traditional married couples, and deserve
the same property rights as anyone else.
However, I do not support gay marriage. Marriage has
religious and social connotations, and I consider
marriage to be between a man and a woman. If I was
President, however, I would oppose any effort to
stifle a state's ability to decide this question on
its own. Whether it was a
Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage or a
bill like the Defense of Marriage Act, I
would oppose such efforts. I think the President
should do all he or she can to advance strong
families. Whatever the make-up of the family, it is
the President's role to provide policies and
leadership that enable the family to thrive.

HRC ASKS:
If a state has taken the steps to recognize same sex
couples and their families for purposes of
state‐based benefits, rights, privileges and
responsibilities (such as marriage in Massachusetts
and civil
unions in Vermont and Connecticut), should the federal
government recognize the state's legal
recognition of such couples and families for purposes
of federal benfits and tax treatment?

X Support Oppose Comments:

HRC ASKS:
7. According to a 2004 GAO report, over 1,100
benefits, rights and privileges are provided to
married
couples and their families in federal law that are not

available to same‐sex couples.
Do you support extending federal benefits, rights,
privileges and responsibilities to same‐sex
couples (and their children) provided the partnership
meets certain federal standards
of commitment and mutuality of interest?

X Support Oppose Comments:

HRC ASKS:
Specifically, do you support the expansion of the
Family and Medical Leave Act to cover domestic
partners and their children?

X Support Oppose Comments:

HRC ASKS:
Do you support modifying the Social Security System to
pay survivor benefits to the same‐sex partners
of gay and lesbian people?

X Support Oppose Comments:

HRC ASKS:
Do you support fair and equal tax treatment of same
sex couples on the same basis as married couples?

X Support Oppose Comments:

HRC ASKS:
8. Many gay and lesbian people serve in the federal
government but do not receive the same health
insurance and other employee beefits of married
couples. Do you support domestic partner coverage for
gay and lesbian employees of the civilian federal
workforce?

X Support Oppose Comments:

MY CONCLUSIONS TO WHAT THEIR WORDS REALLY MEAN LEGALLY
STANDING.

Edwards
""I believe that couples in committed, long‐term
relationships should have the same rights,
benefits, and responsibilities, whether they are
straight couples or same‐Sex couples.""

Edwards above statement, is the only one in the area
of
civil unions i am concerned about. Because straight
people don't have to be in long term committed
relationships to get married / civil unions.
However, edwards does want to repeal the DOMA bill
that the clintons levied on us in the 90's, which is a
good thing for edwards.

Clinton says

""I would like to see federal benefits extended to
same sex couples that meet certain standards.""

""I support repealing the provision of DOMA that may
prohibit the federal government from providing
benefits to people in states that recognize same sex
marriage. ""

""I strongly support ensuring people in stable,
long-term same sex relationships have full equality of
benefits, rights, and responsibilities.""

Clintons above three statements have me very concerned
that she is side stepping in what she says so as not
to commit to anything officially.

she would amend the provisions of DOMA in certain
standards. Her husband and her were the ones who got
us DOMA which Barack has wanted to erase ever since
the clintons had it installed as law. Barack obama
and john edwards want to repeal DOMA which is good for
us.

"Obama is the only candidate who supports long-term,
same-sex relationships regardless of length of time
those couples have been together. In the
united states no heterosexual couple is ever
challenged to demonstrate length of relationship in
order to obtain the privileges of marriage.

By supporting Barack Obama, you can join me in
supporting the candidate who stands for providing
equal rights to same sex couples--with NO
qualifications."

NOTE: Lastly please send this to your friends who are
either gay or lesbian or supporters so they may know
the truth of these three candidates.

Anyway that is the way i see this one issue of civil
unions.

3. OBAMA ON NON BLOOD FAMILY VISITS

Obama: Jesus would allow gay hospital visitation (text and video) http://pageoneq. com/news/ 2007/Obama_ Hospital_ visitation_ for_gay_spouses_ is_not_a_ special_r_ 1121.htmlObama: Hospital visitation for gay spouses is not a 'special right' by PageOneQ

During an interview with the Christian Broadcasting Network's David Brody, Senator Barack Obama (D-IL), seeking the presidency in 2008, responds to a question on "special rights" for LGBT citizens. Obama disagrees with the notion that things like hospital visitations for same-sex spouses are "special rights.""How would Jesus feel about somebody not being able to visit somebody they love when they're sick?" the Senator asks. "Certainly, as a public official," he continues, "it's important for me to make sure that those basic rights--that basic equality--is available."Video of the exchange can be viewed below, as broadcast on The 700 Club on November 9, 2007.

4. OBAMA ON UNTING AMERICAN FAMILIES ACT

Obama and gay immigration rights FROM = chris@citizencrain.com

http://citizenchris.typepad.com/citizenchris/2007/09/obama-and-gay-i.html

September 06, 2007
Obama and gay immigration rights
Score another blow for readers of this blog. First
there was Christopher Hubble, who reacted to a
complimentary post I'd written about Bill Richardson
by dredging up his "maricón moment" on the Don Imus
show a year earlier. That resulted in a story on Gay
News Watch that was a first important hint that the
New Mexico governor's record on gay rights was more
impressive than his command of gay issues.

Now Danielle Clark, a Barack Obama supporter, has done
some sleuthing that sheds important light on her
candidate's qualified support for gay couple
immigration rights. She came across a couple of posts
I wrote back in June about how both Obama and Clinton
were hedging their support for the Uniting American
Families Act, which would extend to gay Americans the
same rights straight folks have to sponsor their
spouses for citizenship.

The Human Rights Campaign candidate "scorecard" showed
both Obama and Clinton supporting immigration rights
for binational couples even though neither had signed
on to cosponsor UAFA. It turns out that both of them,
in their more detailed responses to the HRC
questionnaire, had raised concerns about the risk of
fraud under UAFA as written. When I wrote a
less-than-complimentary second post tracking Obama's
evolution on the issue, in which he showed sympathy
but not full-fledged support, Danielle had had enough.

She fired off an email to the Obama campaign asking
for clarification and got this, rather detailed reply:

Danielle-

Barack believes that LGBT Americans with partners from
other countries should not be faced with a choice
between staying with their partner and staying in
their country. That's why he supports changing
immigration policy through the Uniting American
Families Act. He does, however, have some reservations
about the fraud provisions of the present bill.

Precisely because same-sex couples are not allowed to
enter into civil unions, domestic partnerships, or
other legally-recognized unions throughout the
country, he believes we need to make sure that we have
adequate safeguards against fraud.

He wants to make sure that immigration is possible for
a partner in committed relationships, but he also
wants to make sure there is a good mechanism for
determining who qualifies for that status. He would
like to see the Act get more specific with regards to
defining 'financial interdependence' and the
documentation required as proof in order to establish
relationships -- which could very well happen once the
bill reaches the Senate floor.

Hope this helps clarify.

Alex

Actually, Alex and Danielle, this does help clarify
quite a bit. The Obama camp is right that merely
extending immigration rights to gay Americans doesn't
level the playing field because heterosexuals are
required to marry (or at least be engaged) to the
non-American to sponsor him/her for citizenship. As
Alex rightly suggests, gay Americans can't enter into
that level of commitment because few states have
marriage or civil unions for gay couples, and the
Defense of Marriage Act (signed by Mr. Hillary
Clinton) blocks federal recognition of gay marriages
anyway.

So that makes the fraud provisions of UAFA that much
more important. Even though it's unfair we can't
marry, it is fair to require some additional level
proof than just our say-so that we are in a committed,
permanent relationship with the non-American we want
to sponsor.

As Alex/Obama also suggests, the UAFA strategy has
been to add on fraud-prevention provisions in the
horsetrading that would happen when the bill comes up
for consideration. Adding them now, it's reasoned by
Immigration Equality and other pro-UAFA groups, only
means vulnerability to some other, more painful
compromise when push time comes.

It's a judgment call to be sure, but I see Obama's
point here. Why shouldn't UAFA be written in a form
ready for passage, rather than holding off on
provisions that ought to be there but aren't. Other
countries that have dealt with this issue of how to
test the legitimacy of unmarried couples, including
Canada and the U.K., have required one year of
cohabitation in addition to proof of financial
codependence, etc. It's a draconian provision, as my
own vagabond life has proven, but I can't say it's
unreasonable.

So kudos to Danielle and, I have to say, I'm once
again impressed that Obama and the Obama camp don't
pander and have substantive responses on the issues.
Now it's Hillary's turn.

Subject: Re: DIRECT FROM THE LGBT DEPT AT
BARACKOBAMA.COM .............................
Date: 9/12/2007 2:14:41 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time
From: chris@.com
Reply To:
To: Danielegrl@.com

Here's the link.....

http://tinyurl.com/2vlel5

Chris Crain
chris@.com
On Sep 12, 2007, at 1:22 PM, Danielegrl@.com
wrote:
In a message dated 9/12/2007 1:19:11 P.M. Eastern
Daylight Time, chris@.com writes:
Danielle:
Sorry for the delay in getting back to you. Hope you
saw the post I did about the reply you received. It's
not the ideal answer, but I respect it anyway.
Thanks for pushing them for the info.
Chris

Chris Crain
chris@.com
Actually i am so busy doing events these days i
barely ever get back to my blogs. I will try to look
but please feel free to email it to me.

Danielle

5. OBAMA'S PAST WORDS 2004 RESEMBLES HIS PRESENT WORDS

Obama in 2004 on anti-gay supportersHis message is the same as his campaign's recent
letter.
*Obama Seeks U.S. Senate seat*
*by TRACY BAIM
* *2004-02-04*

WCT: One of the things that supporters of the state
gay-rights bill have
been saying is that some of the supporters of
certain Senate candidates,
yourself included, were not coming out full force
for the Senate bill this
time. Do you feel there's a litmus test for people
whose supporters aren't
fully 100%?

Obama: You raise an important point. Although your
initial question was
whether there's been a backlash against me, I see
none of that within the
Democratic Party. I think there are still
geographical differences in terms
of attitude toward gay and lesbian issues. I think
downstate, there is a
difference. On the Southwest Side, the Northwest
Side of Chicago, where the
Catholic Church is still a significant institution,
there is a difference.
And, to a certain extent, within the
African-American community, because of
the strong affiliation with the church, there is
still some resistance.

My attitude is that candidates for office, persons
in elected office, are
ultimately responsible for what they say and what
they do. I think the
question is, are they forceful, clear, strong
advocates on behalf of these
issues. Are they doing everything that they can to
lobby on behalf of these
issues. They're not always going to be successful,
even within the
Democratic Party. And there are going to be people
in this U.S. Senate race
who support me who may not feel the same way I do on
gay and lesbian issues.
That's going to be true of the other candidates as
well. The important thing
is, what do people see me saying publicly, how am I
acting publicly, how am
I voting publicly. Because what I do think is
unacceptable is saying one
thing in one forum, and saying something else in
another. What you do have
to expect is consistency, and not playing to a
particular audience.
http://outlineschicago.com/gay/lesbian/news/ARTICLE.php?AID=3931
NOTE: There is lots more at that article

6. OBAMA ON TRANSGENDER PEOPLE

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wn_report/2007/06/25/2007-06-25_transgender_may_ko_barack_dinner-1.html

When Florida Firefighter Jennifer Lasko told Barack Obama's campaign she wanted to have dinner with the candidate, she mentioned that she used to be an Army soldier and an active Republican who had become an anti-war Democrat.

The campaign, which loves to highlight support from former Republicans, picked her as one of four small donors it is flying to Washington on July 10 to meet Obama at a restaurant.

But Lasko, 42, didn't mention another big change: Until 2005, she was John William Lasko.

Now, after the Palm Beach Post unearthed her past life, Lasko thinks she should skip the dinner.

"I'm just a citizen who wants to discuss issues. I was foolish to think I could keep it under wraps," she told the paper. "There are a lot of close-minded people who'll make an issue of this."

Lasko, who underwent the sex change while working at Delray Beach Fire-Rescue Department, says it's not a secret, but she doesn't want to cause trouble for Obama.

A campaign spokeswoman said if they had known she used to be a he, it wouldn't have mattered.

"Sen. Obama would love to have her attend the dinner. If she chooses not to attend, Sen. Obama looks forward to meeting her and hearing more about her thoughts on how we can change this country," said spokeswoman Jen Psaki.

7. OBAMA ON GOSPEL TOUR = MANY ARTICLES

Barack Obama defends gospel-tour decisions

Friday, October 26, 2007 / 04:33 PM

SUMMARY: The senator talks with the Advocate on why a homophobic singer was invited on his tour and whether adding a gay pastor really balances things out.

When Sen. Barack Obama's campaign said Donnie McClurkin would be among the featured singers on the presidential candidate's gospel tour in South Carolina this weekend, it inadvertently stepped into the void between African-American Christians and gay men and lesbians.

McClurkin, an award-winning gospel singer who has struggled with his sexuality for years, has called homosexuality a "curse" and against "the intention of God."

The tour aims to up Obama's numbers among a crucial black demographic that made up 47 percent of South Carolina's Democratic primary voters in 2004 and among whom Obama and Sen. Hillary Clinton are running neck-and-neck in recent polls.

Rather than oust McClurkin, the campaign found a third way, adding gay minister Andy Sidden to the lineup Wednesday.

LGBT people might well ask, Weren't Obama and his campaign versed enough in the pain of those he calls his "gay brothers and sisters" to see the McClurkin land mine before they rolled over it?

And can Obama really, as he claims, create the "big tent" movement he's been selling -- among voters who disagree on something as fundamental as what constitutes love?

The Advocate: How did this happen? Was Mr. McClurkin vetted?

Sen. Obama: Obviously, not vetted to the extent that people were aware of his attitudes with respect to gay and lesbians, LGBT issues -- at least not vetted as well as I would have liked to see.

Having said that, we viewed this simply as an opportunity to have a gospel concert as part of our overall outreach, and since he was singing at a concert along with a number of other artists, as opposed to being a spokesperson for us, probably it didn't undergo the same kind of vet that someone who was serving as a surrogate for me might have.

Some black gay activists I've spoken to say this doesn't make them question Obama the senator, but it does make them question the campaign -- do they really understand the nuances of these issues, are they really sitting down and talking with gay folks, because it seems like this decision came purely through the lens of faith?

Look, these kinds of issues are going to crop up inevitably through the course of campaigns. It's important to recognize that these are issues that every Democratic candidate who has African-American ministers as supporters may have to confront. It just so happened that it popped up on the screen in this particular instance. But I assure you, I am not the only candidate who's got a black minister or a white minister who's supporting them prominently who subscribes to similar views.

Part of the reason that we have had a faith outreach in our campaigns is precisely because I don't think the LGBT community or the Democratic Party is served by being hermetically sealed from the faith community and not in dialogue with a substantial portion of the electorate, even though we may disagree with them.

Part of what I have done in my campaign and in my career is be willing to go to churches and talk to ministers and tell them exactly what I think. And go straight at some of these issues of homophobia that exist in the church in a way that no other candidate has done. I believe that's important. We can try to pretend these issues don't exist and then be surprised when a gay-marriage amendment pops up and is surprisingly successful in a state. I think the better strategy is to take it head on and we've got to show up. These people of faith may be operating in part out of unfamiliarity, or they may be insular in terms of how they're viewing LGBT issues, they may not understand how what they say may be hurtful, and the only way for us to be able to communicate that is to show up.

I know you're in a difficult position here trying to balance these two constituencies -- but by keeping McClurkin on the tour, didn't you essentially choose your Christian constituency over your gay constituency?

No, I profoundly disagree with that. This is not a situation where I have backed off my positions one iota. You're talking to somebody who talked about gay Americans in his convention speech in 2004, who talked about them in his announcement speech for the president of the United States, who talks about gay Americans almost constantly in his stump speeches. If there's somebody out there who's been more consistent in including LGBT Americans in his or her vision of what America should be, then I would be interested in knowing who that person is.

One of the things that always comes up in presidential campaigns is, if you've got multiple supporters all over the place, should the candidate then be held responsible for the every single view of every one of his supporters? And obviously that's not possible. And if I start playing that game, then it will be very difficult for me to do what I think I can do best, which is bring the country together.

Look, when I went to Rick Warren's church at Saddleback, he was under enormous heat because, among his constituency, my position on LGBT issues and my position on abortion is anathema. So his position could have been, we will not have Obama speak because he does not subscribe to our views on these two issues. To his credit, he allowed me to speak, in his church, from his pulpit, to 2,000 evangelicals. And I didn't trim my remarks, I specifically told them, "I think you guys are wrong when it comes to issues like condom distribution. " And by the way, I got a standing ovation.

My views on gay issues and on choice issues are well-known. I did not trim my sails in the conversation I had with them. And I think as a consequence of appearances like that, I am helping to encourage understanding that will ultimately strengthen the cause of LGBT rights.

At some point, if we are going to have a conversation on these issues, what I expect to be judged by in the LGBT community is, have I been a strong advocate, have I been a forceful advocate, have I avoided these issues in any way. And If I have not, then that's how I expect to be judged.

Does this tour mark a turning point in the campaign where you're more focused on wooing voters than fund-raising?

I recognize why this has attracted attention in the LGBT community, (but) in terms of our overall campaign strategy, it's just one among multiple things that we've been doing in South Carolina. People in South Carolina listen to gospel music, so we have organized some gospel concerts. Black folks in South Carolina frequent barbershops and beauty shops, so we've had a barbershop-beauty shop strategy. And by the way, I can't vouch for the opinions of every barbershop and beauty-shop owner in South Carolina. But that is where people go, and so we've organized a particular way of reaching out to African-American voters in the barbershops and beauty shops. So this is just part of an ongoing strategy with multiple parts.

You have intimated that Sen. Clinton is perhaps declaring victory too soon. Looking at the polling, things don't look good for you in New Hampshire, Iowa's iffy, South Carolina doesn't look great . . . If you don't win one of those three states, where does your campaign go from there?

Well, I wouldn't agree with the characterization -- we are basically tied in Iowa, we're down in New Hampshire, and in South Carolina it's highly competitive. We have always known that in order to do well we've got to do well in the early states, and we expect to do well in the early states because that's where we're focusing our attention. We never expected to be able to compete in national polls two months before the first vote was cast because we're running against the dominant brand name in the Democratic Party over the last 20 years.

But for your audience, your readership, the one thing that I do want to make sure is included in this article is that on issues from "don't ask, don't tell" to DOMA to the gay marriage amendment to the human rights ordinance in Illinois that is the equivalent of what we've been attempting to do at the federal level, and that I was a chief cosponsor of, and then passed -- there has not been a stronger and more consistent advocate on LGBT issues than I have been.

And it is interesting to me and obviously speaks to the greater outreach that we have to do that that isn't a greater source of interest and pride on the part of the LGBT community. (Kerry Eleveld, The Advocate)

African Americans and Gays,Lesbians,Bisexuals,Transgender unite under Obama TentPosted by dclakke Oct 25, 2007

Obama Campaign Releases Open Letter From Supporters On Controversial Reverend

Senator Barack Obama's campaign has been struggling with its decision to hold a gospel tour in South Carolina with an anti-homosexual pastor, Donnie McClurkin.

After much criticism from gay rights groups and others, they tried inviting an openly gay minister to appear before McClurkin. But that didn't work - the Human Rights Campaign's Joe Solomonese expressed more disappointment in having the pastor on the stage and only said he hoped Obama "will move forward and facilitate face to face meetings with religious leaders, like Rev. McClurkin, and the GLBT community to confront the issue of homophobia."

Now the senator's campaign is trying to show that he's doing just that. An open letter signed by 16 LGBT and black religious leaders says that Obama is reaching out to bring blacks and homosexuals together. But Obama makes clear that even if he disagrees with African-Americans who are anti-gay, he still wants their votes.

"We believe that Barack Obama is constructing a tent big enough for LGBT Americans who know that their sexual orientation is an innate and treasured part of their being, and for African American ministers and citizens who believe that their religion prevents them from fully embracing their gay brothers and sisters," the letter states. "And if we are to confront our shared challenges we have to join together, build on common ground, and engage in a civil dialogue even when we disagree."

Update: AmericaBlog's John Aravosis, who has been driving this story, reacts to the letter here.

The full letter with its signatories can be read after the jump.

To Whom It May Concern:

As representatives of Barack Obama supporters from the African American religious community and the gay community, we are issuing a statement together for the first time. Our letter addresses the recent issue of Pastor Donnie McClurkin singing at Senator Obama's "Embrace the Change" concert series. In the midst of division, we hope and believe that this is a moment to bring together communities that have been divided for far too long.
A few things are clear.

First, Pastor McClurkin believes and has stated things about sexual orientation that are deeply hurtful and offensive to many Americans, most especially to gay Americans. This cannot and should not be denied.

At the same time, a great many African Americans share Pastor McClurkin's beliefs. This also cannot be ignored.

Finally, we believe that the only way for these two sides to find common ground is to do so together.

Not at arms length. Not in a war of words with press and pundits. Only together.

It is clear that Barack Obama is the only candidate who has made bringing these two often disparate groups together a goal. In gatherings of LGBT Americans and African Americans of faith, Obama has stated that all individuals should be afforded full civil rights regardless of their sexual orientation, and that homophobia must be eradicated in every corner of our nation. If we are to end homophobia and secure full civil rights for gay Americans, then we need an advocate within the Black community like Barack Obama.

At the same time, while Obama has said that he "strongly disagrees" with Pastor McClurkin's comments, he will not exclude from his campaign the many Americans including many in the African American community who believe the same as Pastor McClurkin.

Show 6 Reader Comments	Comments RSS
Comments are closed for this post.

Content on blogs in My.BarackObama represents the opinions of community members and in no way should be interpreted as endorsed or approved by the campaign.