The first amendment"all men are created equal"
So to all those who think bigotry is over let me remind you, that if you voted in CA,FL or AZ and voted against gay rights YOU NEED TO CHECK YOUR CONSCIOUS....
Especially after watching the people crying on TV saying I cant believe this finally happened about Barack being elected...HOW DID YOU VOTE IN CA OR FL... I guess gay people are not considered people to you.....
Religion is not part of the constitution and after 200 years of waiting for a black president its mind boggling how so many of you had no problem discriminating against another minority..
We are NOT one......yet .... as Barack has hoped .... it is truly staggering to me how one minority can discriminate against another as the vote showed in CA and FL..... when the black vote was 70-30 to take away gay rights on the props....
yep .... how soon people forget what they are voting for ..i guess they cant even remember after they voted for the president, in the election booth....
For all of you who feel gays are not people according to the first amendment....remember how you feel when you are discriminated against and the thoughts that ran through your own minds on why you weren't considered as good as anyone else....
Im white... alot of my friends are white and we all voted for Barack and never even considered race..... but after the election it really became evident amidst all the hoopla on TV that these same people I watched crying in happiness had no problem taking away the rights of another minority....
Its truly amazing....listening to all the people on TV so happy when there is another minority who was thrown under the bus without a second thought...
Support Full Civil Unions and Federal Rights for LGBT Couples: Barack Obama supports full civil unions that give same-sex couples equal legal rights and privileges as married couples. Obama also believes we need to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and enact legislation that would ensure that the 1,100+ federal legal rights and benefits currently provided on the basis of marital status are extended to same-sex couples in civil unions and other legally-recognized unions. These rights and benefits include the right to assist a loved one in times of emergency, the right to equal health insurance and other employment benefits, and property rights.
With more and more states changing their constitutions to define rights to only married couples consisting of a man and a woman. We need the backing and federal protection for our civil unions and partnerships to obtain the same equal rights as any other partnered couple. We supported and gave now lets see some federal action.
The differences were clear in the VP debate, as it relates to civil rights for GLBT people and their families.
Don't Forget to Vote No on Amendment 2 ...
there is not doubt that obama offers the honest, CONSISTENT, more progressive record of leadership as well as policy toward LGBT issues. in fact, i have three blogs saying so! what i doubt is no targeted activity or reinforcement of prior messaging to capture LGBT votes in ohio, considering the dense population in franklin county. clinton, technically weaker on the issues, acted quickly in a targeted message which is one of the stark differences in support of obama. (point #2 of my last blog) late january, clinton distributed an open letter and it was quickly disseminated among individual voters via social networks and email distribution lists. lead like sheep into the slaughter house. in turn, i published my rebuttal in blog form on february 6, and then scripted an abridged version which i sent to my personal contacts and OHIO HQ. however, i did not see an open letter from OBAMA FOR AMERICA until just before the ohio/texas primaries. yes, obama has given many speeches and made better proposals... but this time, somehow, clinton was beating obama via peer contact and new media. how can this be... or more importantly, why are lesbians and homos quick to fall in line under clinton? it's a misitake by gays, and i am only human to speculate that a significant percentage of lesbians are also feminists and that a significant percentage of homos are associate with a mother-figure.
holy freudian slip-up batman! but, before anyone sends me hate mail, let it be known i've heard many rebuttals in favor of clinton resorting to her gender and the idea of wanting a woman in office... all logic be damned. fortunately, obama won franklin county... home of columbus (dense LGBT population). yet, i am not convinced he won the gay vote. obama faired well in each metropolitan area, winning three of ohio's largest counties such as franklin. furthermore, i'm pretty disappointed in the official obama LGBT myspace. there's been no activity since before super tuesday. no one has approved comments or circulated the open letter among the thousands of people listed with the site. tragic oversight. that's how clinton set off a domino effect among gay-friendly ears. i get it. bigger fish to fry? but alas, perhaps this advocate article signifies better targeting in the future. ~ j
i sent this summary of my earlier blog to OHIO HQ and my contacts in february: CLINTON = political calculation to meet the popular opinionOBAMA = moral calculation to meet the consistent greater good _ _ _ _ _ _ _
presumably, you sympathize with equal rights, punishable hate crimes, and no discrimination.barack obama is your candidate! 1 . . . Defense of Marriage Act was signed by bill clinton and supported by the first lady. today, obama and clinton oppose federally sanctioned "gay marriage" but both support federally sanctioned "civil unions" providing identical rights. in fact, only obama attends a christian denomination that recognizes gay marriages!DOMA stands as the most significant legislative obstacle to achieving marriage equality. hillary still defends most of DOMA with a "states' rights" argument, allowing state discrimination.hillary clinton is on record for only supporting repeal of section 3 of DOMA. however, barack obama has been a leader in civil rights and fully supports a complete repeal of the DOMA.2 . . . obama speaks about civil rights and equality for the LGBT community in many highly visible speeches. these include obama's first presidential speech as well as the eloquent speech to thousands at ebenezer church on Martin Luther King Jr. Day.hillary has not brought LGBT issues to the forefront, waiting for gay-friendly ears.3 . . . it's true clinton co-sponsored bills like Early Treatment of HIV Act and increased funding for Ryan White Care Act. but, it's also true that obama lead on these and many others hillary could list.4 . . . hillary counts 8yrs as first lady towards "experience." she cherry-picks/disassociates with compromises or positions not popular today. they leveraged LGBT compromises to build christian support.5 . . . obama wants to repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." while clinton now agrees with obama, she supported it when her husband signed the law. hillary still asserts it was progress. bill clinton sanctioned as long as we are in the closet, we can serve. thus, bill and hillary's promises proved empty during the 90s.like barack says, it's important to be right on day one.6 . . . when hillary speaks of marching in gay pride parades, let's remember that obama has marched in his fair share also. after all, his state is home of "boys town." _ _ _ _ _ _ _ barack obama is clearly honest, CONSISTENT, and more progressive with the change he proposes for us. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ trust the below list of LGBT organizations and leaders who endorsed barack obama even before super tuesday! * Eric Stern, former political adviser to the John Edwards for President campaign, former National Stonewall Democrats executive director, former director of LGBT outreach for the Democratic National Committee (California) * David Mixner, writer, Democratic Party activist (New York) * Gloria Nieto, Former Vice Chair of DNC LGBT Caucus * Linda Elliott, member of the board of directors for the Human Rights Campaign (Arizona) * Evan Low, council member for the city of Campbell, Calif. * David Garrity, vice chair of the Maine Democratic Party; former DNC Member * Andy Szekeres, former Colorado Stonewall Democrats cochair, former Wisconsin LGBT field director, Kerry-Edwards (Colorado) * Kyle Bailey, former board member, National Stonewall Democrats, LGBT Caucus vice chair of Young Democrats of America, Chair of Atlanta Stonewall Democrats (Georgia) * Pam Cooke, National Stonewall Democrats board member; past president, Stonewall Democratic Club of Los Angeles (California) * Bill Hedrick, president of Central Ohio Stonewall Democrats * David Mariner, former Out for Howard Dean cochair (Maryland) * Jason Lansdale, past president of Central Ohio Stonewall Democrats * Daniel Hinkley, Nevada Stonewall Democratic Caucus president * Misty York, communications director for the Kentucky Fairness Alliance * Christopher Prevatt, chair of Eleanor Roosevelt Democratic Club (Orange County, Calif. ) * Jim Maynard, president of Memphis Stonewall Democrats (Tennessee) * Daniel Graney, past president of Stonewall Democrats of San Antonio (Texas) * Arthur Nunn, former Missouri for Edwards volunteer organizer and founder of LGBT for Edwards MySpace Group * Brad Reichard, public pelations executive (Massachusetts) * Michael Shannon, national security expert (D. C. ) * Les Krambeal, board member for the National Stonewall Democrats, cochair, Southern Arizona Stonewall Democrats * Robert D. Horvath Jr. , member of the board of directors for the Mautner Project (D. C. ) * Patrick J. Lyden, LGBT community activist (D. C. ) * Jeff Prang,West Hollywood City Council * Tom Ammiano, San Fran board of Supervisors * Rich Tafel, Formerly of National Log Cabin Republicans * Jeff Soukup, Board Member of Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, former President and COO, PlanetOut Inc. , and former Co-Chair National Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund * Jeff Anderson, former Co-Chair of John Kerry for President National LGBT Finance Committee * Bill Rosendahl, LA City Council * Susan Belinda Christian, Co-Chair of Alice B. Toklas LGBT Democratic Club * Patrick Shepherd, former President of Cleveland Stonewall Democrats; Board Member for the National Stonewall Democrats * Joseph LaMonica, former board member of the San Antonio Stonewall Democrats. * Brian Polejes,Vice President For Organizing Pride At Work
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Urgent, Clear Choice For Gay Voters: ObamaAndrew Sullivanhttp://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"An interesting moment came when he was asked a question about LGBTrights and delivered an answer that seemed to suit the questioner,listing the various attributes -- race, gender, etc. -- that shouldn'ttrigger discrimination, to successive cheers. When he came to sayingthat gays and lesbians deserve equality, though, the crowd fellsilent."So he took a different tack: "Now I'm a Christian, and I praise Jesusevery Sunday," he said, to a sudden wave of noisy applause and cheers."I hear people saying things that I don't think are very Christianwith respect to people who are gay and lesbian," he said, and thecrowd seemed to come along with him this time.To hear someone defend gay and lesbian dignity and equality from aChristian perspective and to do so in the context of a largelyAfrican-American crowd, is much, much more than any candidate for thepresidency has ever done. It's a break through. If it were just words,it would be one thing. But he has now done this repeatedly in front ofblack crowds, when he didn't have to. And he has put his specificcommitments in writing in an open letter.It's time to be candid about this - because gay voters, in myjudgment, could make the difference in Ohio and Texas and Vermont andRhode Island. There are very large gay communities in Texas' cities,and Ohio has the sixth largest gay community in the country. A plea:Do not sleep-walk into that voting booth with vague good feelingsabout the Clintons. Walk into that booth with eyes open and see whatgay people have in front of them.Now you may have many reasons not to vote for Obama, and no gay votershould vote on one issue. But solely with respect to gay matters,there is simply no choice here. Obama's positions, candor, courage,generation and religious embrace of us are dispositive.What Obama is doing on the gay issue has the potential transform itand help us as a society to move past it. No, he's not a savior. No,we shouldn't expect miracles. No, we should never delegate the work ofour equality to anyone else. We, after all, are the ones we've beenwaiting for. But within the Democratic contest, the case for backingObama at this point in time is, to my mind, urgent, vital, historic.Gay Americans must not throw this chance away.
Barack Obama on Gay RightsBeing gay or lesbian is not a choice.
Q: You had one supporter on a Bible tour in South Carolina who said that homosexuality was a curse and that he had been cured by prayer. Do you believe homosexuality's a curse?
A: No.
Q: Do you believe that it is something that you are born gay or that you can change your behavior?
A: I do not believe being gay or lesbian is a choice. And so I disagree with [that supporter]. But part of what I hope to offer as president is the ability to reach to people that I don't agree with, and the evangelical community is one where the Democratic Party, I think, we have generally seen as hostile. We haven't been reaching out to them, and I think that if we're going to makes significant progress on critical issues that we face, we've got to be able to get beyond our comfort zones and just talk to people we don't like. I've tried to do is to reach out to the evangelical community and tell them very clearly where I disagree. Source: Meet the Press: 2007 "Meet the Candidates" series Nov 11, 2007
One of Obama's pragmatic stands troubling to progressives is on gay marriage. In the Senate debate, Obama opposed the right-wing Federal Marriage Amendment to ban gay marriage nationally and said: "I agree with most Americans, with Democrats and Republicans, with Vice President Cheney, with over 2,000 religious leaders of all different beliefs, that decisions about marriage, as they always have, should be left to the states." However, Obama also declared, "Personally, I do believe that marriage is between a man and a woman." At the same time, Obama has strongly supported civil unions, arguing that it is a way to protect equal rights without taking the politically risky approach of gay marriage. Source: The Improbable Quest, by John K. Wilson, p.114-115 Oct 30, 2007
Obama later said, "I don't think homosexuals are immoral any more than I think heterosexuals are immoral." Obama has taken a forthright stand calling for the end of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. He said, "It is time to review the 'don't ask, don't tell' policy and do what is in the best interests of our national security. At time when the services are having a tough time recruiting and training troops, it seems foolish to kick out good soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines who want to serve."
Ok to expose 6-year-olds to gay couples; they know already
Q: Last year some parents of second graders in Lexington, Massachusetts, were outraged to learn their children's teacher had read a story about same-sex marriage, about a prince who marries another prince. Would you be comfortable having this story read to your children as part of their school curriculum?
A: My 9-year-old and my 6-year-old are already aware that there are same-sex couples. And my wife and I have talked about it. And one of the things I want to communicate to my children is not to be afraid of people who are different, and because there have been times in our history where I was considered different. And one of the things I think the next president has to do is to stop fanning people's fears.
Q: Have you sat down with your daughters to talk about same-sex marriage?
A: My wife has.
Has any marriage broken up because two gays hold hands?
The notion of gay marriage has been used to divide people in black churches. I pointed out that if there's any pastor here who can point out a marriage that has been broken up as a consequence of seeing two men or two women holding hands, then you should tell me, because I haven't seen any evidence of it. And if you think that issue is more important to the black family than the fact that black men don't have any jobs and are struggling in the inner cities, then I profoundly disagree with you.
We need strong civil unions, not just weak civil unions
It is my strong belief that the government has to treat all citizens equally. I come from that in part out of personal experience. When you're a black guy named Barack Obama, you know what it's like to be on the outside. And so my concern is continually to make sure that the rights that are conferred by the state are equal for all people.
That's why I opposed DOMA in 2006 when I ran for the Senate. That's why I am a strong supporter not of a weak version of civil unions, but of a strong version, in which the rights that are conferred at the federal level to persons who are part of the same sex union are compatible.
When it comes to federal rights, the over 1,100 rights that right now are not being given to same sex couples, I think that's unacceptable, and as president of the United States, I am going to fight hard to make sure that those rights are available.
Legal rights for gays are conferred by state, not by church
Q: You have said in previous debates that it is up to individual religious denominations to decide whether or not to recognize same-sex marriage. What place does the church have in government-sanctioned civil marriages?
A: It is my strong belief that the government has to treat all citizens equally. I don't think that the church should be making these determinations when it comes to legal rights conferred by the state. I do think that individual denominations have the right to make their own decisions as to whether they recognize same sex couples. My denomination, United Church of Christ, does. Other denominations may make a decision, and obviously, part of keeping a separation of churches and state is also to make sure that churches have the right to exercise their freedom of religion.
Disentangle gay rights from the word "marriage"
Q: If you were back in the Illinois legislature where you served and the issue of civil marriage came before you, how would you have voted on that?
A: My view is that we should try to disentangle what has historically been the issue of the word "marriage," which has religious connotations to some people, from the civil rights that are given to couples, in terms of hospital visitation, in terms of whether or not they can transfer property or Social Security benefits and so forth. So it depends on how the bill would've come up. I would've supported and would continue to support a civil union that provides all the benefits that are available for a legally sanctioned marriage. And it is then, as I said, up to religious denominations to make a determination as to whether they want to recognize that as marriage or not.
Gay marriage is less important that equal gay rights
Q: On the grounds of civil marriage, can you see to our community where [your stance of separating gay rights from the word "marriage"] comes across as sounding like "separate but equal"?
A: Look, when my parents got married in 1961, it would have been illegal for them to be married in a number of states in the South. So obviously, this is something that I understand intimately, it's something that I care about. But if I were advising the civil rights movement back in 1961 about its approach to civil rights, I would have probably said it's less important that we focus on an anti-miscegenation law than we focus on a voting rights law and a non-discrimination and employment law and all the legal rights that are conferred by the state. Now, it's not for me to suggest that you shouldn't be troubled by these issues. But my job as president is going to be to make sure that the legal rights that have consequences on a day to day basis for loving same sex couples all across the country.
Gay rights movement is somewhat like civil rights movement
Q: Would you put the fight among gays and lesbians for civil rights on a par with the civil rights movement for African-Americans?
A: My attitude is if people are being treated unfairly and unequally, then it needs to be fixed. So I'm always very cautious about getting into comparisons of victimology. You know, the issues that gays and lesbians face today are different from the issues that were faced by African-Americans under Jim Crow. That doesn't mean, though, that there aren't parallels in the sense that legal status is not equal. And that has to be fixed. I'm going to be more sympathetic not because I'm black. I'm going to be more sympathetic because this has been the cause of my life and will continue to be the cause of my life, making sure that everybody's treated fairly and that we've got an expansive view of America, where everybody's invited in and we are all working together to create the kind of America that we want for the next generation.
Let each denominations decide on recognizing gay marriage
Q: The laws banning interracial marriage were ruled unconstitutional in 1967. What is the difference between a ban on interracial marriage and a ban on gay marriage?
A: We've got to make sure that everybody is equal under the law. And the civil unions that I proposed would be equivalent in terms of making sure that all the rights that are conferred by the state are equal for same-sex couples as well as for heterosexual couples. Now, with respect to marriage, it's my belief that it's up to the individual denominations to make a decision as to whether they want to recognize marriage or not. But in terms of, you know, the rights of people to transfer property, to have hospital visitation, all those critical civil rights that are conferred by our government, those should be equal.
Supports health benefits for gay civil partners
On the Federal Marriage Amendment, Obama staked out his position on marriage rights for gays:
I realize that for some Americans, this is an important issue. I should say that personally, I do believe that marriage is between a man & a woman. But let's be honest. That is not what this debate is about. Not at this time. This debate is an attempt to break a consensus that is quietly being forged. It is a consensus between a majority of Americans who say, "Maybe some of us are comfortable with gay marriage right now and some of us are not. But most of us do believe that gay couples should be able to visit each other in the hospital & share health care benefits; and should be treated with dignity and have their privacy respected."
It is a consensus between a majority of Americans who say, "Maybe some of us are comfortable with gay marriage right now and some of us are not. But most of us do believe that gay couples should be able to visit each other in the hospital & share health care benefits; and should be treated with dignity and have their privacy respected."
Obama's position is sensitive to the rights of gay people. Health care benefits for partners is a huge issue. Keeping the federal government and the Constitution out of the marriage debate is a huge win for supporters of gay and lesbian rights.
Opposes gay marriage; supports civil union & gay equality
For many practicing Christians, the inability to compromise may apply to gay marriage. I find such a position troublesome, particularly in a society in which Christian men and women have been known to engage in adultery or other violations of their faith without civil penalty. I believe that American society can choose to carve out a special place for the union of a man and a woman as the unit of child rearing most common to every culture. I am not willing to have the state deny American citizens a civil union that confers equivalent rights no such basic matters as hospital visitation or health insurance coverage simlpy because the people they love are of the same sex--nor am I willing to accept a readingof the Bible that considers an obscure line in Romans to be more defining of Christianity than the Sermon on the Mount.
The heightened focus on marriage is a distraction from other, attainable measures to prevent discrimination and gays and lesbians.
Marriage not a human right; non-discrimination is
Q: Do you think marriage is a human right?
A: I don't think marriage is a civil right, but I think that not being discriminated against is a civil right. I think making sure that we don't engage in the sort of gay-bashing that, I think, has unfortunately dominated this campaign-not just here in Illinois, but across the country-is unfortunate, and that kind of mean-spirited attacks on homosexuals is something that the people of Illinois generally have rejected.
Include sexual orientation in anti-discrimination laws
Q: Do you believe that the Illinois government should include sexual orientation in Illinois' anti-discrimination laws?
A: Yes.
Q: Do you believe that the Illinois government should recognize same-sex marriages?
A: Undecided
someone sent me a message regarding my previous blog, "voters who support LGBT equality should vote OBAMA."
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
"I am kind of leaning toward Obama. But I'm disturbed by the Gavin Newsom thing and by Obama's previous reaching out for support from some very anti-gay evangelicals. Have you addressed those things directly? Other gay men I know tend to lean toward Hillary because she is perceived as more gay friendly, DOMA or not."
dimwits, they are. oops... did i go on the record with that? as far i know, there has only been one "evangelist" figure who in addition to being a well-known award-winning gospel singer popular in the religious black south... he is also a reformed homosexual and is active in one of the organizations that try to reform homos. obama's camp asked him to entertain and assure fans that obama was a man of faith last year when there were rumors thanks to racism and narrow minds... and fox news... that obama was not christian and went to a muslim school. the "reformed homo" was not there to talk about gays, but before the rally LGBT activists made obama's camp aware of this man's past and present anti-gay rhetoric. yet, the decision was not to divide based on opposing paradigms. and, as a man who enjoys laying with other men, i admire obama for his courageous stance. you don't have to agree with everything i believe, as long as you support obama and his platform, given that his platform is progressively in support of civil equality of LGBT people in comparison to clinton who has a history of comprising on matters specifically impacting us... in spite of the successes she might point to in funding research and prevention. so yes, obama discovered that the guest speaker/entertainer was also one of the guys that reforms homos. however, i stand behind obama in his decision. yes, his organizers made an error by not thoroughly conducting a background check. you wouldn't think you would need a background check on an evangelist or popular gospel singer.. right? again for anyone living under a rock: obama's movement is about bringing together people of all backgrounds and beliefs to unite for positive change based on the platform obama has outlined. obama's platform is more progressive on behalf of LGBT equality than clinton. i am more than happy to work along side the KKK or a homophobe if it means that the platform obama has outlined will finally change our country on civil equality, health care, the environment, foreign diplomacy, etc. keep in mind, homos are just as guilty when they ask for obama to exclude a homophobe who speaks in his area of expertise and offers necessary credibility to obama's religion. in fact, not only is obama and his family christian and have attended the same church for (i think) for more than a decade... unlike clinton's denomination, obama's church does recognize gay marriage. if the homophobe will speak in favor of my candidate knowing that my candidate is the most progressive on LGBT civil rights... i welcome him. if you would like to fact check me, refer to the advocate issue from early fall. your friends are wrong to think clinton is more progressive or has a record that suggests she will fight harder for them without compromising her convictions... only one candidate has a track record of leadership like that... and obama brings us to the forefront in his speeches in front of all listeners... not only those with a gay-friendly ear. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ REGARDING GARY NEWSOM: newsom numbnutts story is nothing more than a community rumor given that the story is circumstantial and NOT collaborated by obama or his spokespeople. the articles printed in the alternative press and mainstream media in california are editorially-written and quote people whom "think" they know what obama was thinking. most dub that unsubstantiated opinion and hearsay. shame on any "news" organization that would put paper sales or internet hits above our community and its best chance for uncompromising change. the articles i have seen each point to an alleged snub and the only credibility they offer are interviews with people connected to the mayor's office who think they know what obama was thinking... notice those articles do not interview or quote obama's team in the matter. remember when obama supposedly snubbed clinton after the state of the union? she reached out, but he had his back turned to her because he was talking to someone on the other side of ted kennedy. not a snub. but fun to talk about for a week. newsom numbnutts is nothing more. if it were a snub, which i allege is unlikely, we can rest assured the reaction has nothing to do with sexual preference. obama is too progressive and outspoken on our behalf to decide to disrespect or hate one homo based on the homo liking cock. i'm not connected to obama's camp, but i would like to suggest that perhaps the lack of picture has something to do with newsom numbnutts having bad B-O. it could be that simple. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ i guess your friends believe "don't ask, don't tell" was progress as hillary still asserts. the truth is that bill clinton sanctioned something that was already happening. as long as we are in the closet, we can serve. with that and things like the DOMA, bill and hillary clinton's promises proved empty. sure, bill and hillary have been great advocates for things like AIDS... etc... but let's be mindful that AIDS is not a "gay-problem" and, while an issue that does impact the LGBT community, AIDS also impacts communities around the world. ~ j
we are the ones we've been waiting for:this campaign for presidency of the united states of america is different
presumably, many of my friends are concerned with LGBT civil rights or sympathize with the idea that homosexuals are owed equal rights, hate crimes should be punished, and discrimination should come to an end.
if that describes you, then please research the candidates accurately. barack obama is your candidate. please read hillary clinton and barack obama's seemingly identical responses to the human rights campaign questionnaire for LGBT issues.
ultimately, it comes down to a single issue and the dedication to bring these rights to the forefront. the Defense of Marriage Act signed by bill clinton and supported by then first lady, hillary clinton. both candidates oppose federally sanctioned "gay marriage" but both candidates do support federally sanctioned "civil unions" providing the identical rights.
DOMA stands as the most significant legislative obstacle to achieving marriage equality in the future. hillary's argument is essentially a "states' rights" argument, allowing states to discriminate on what the supreme court said 40 years ago is a basic civil right.
hillary clinton is on record for only supporting the repeal of section 3 of the DOMA. however, the candidate that has been a leader in civil rights, barack obama, fully supports a complete repeal of the DOMA because it discriminates against our community not just in section 3.
i suspect this comes a suprise to many gay/lesbian clinton supporters who tend to rally behind the clinton dynasty mainly based on name recognition or nostalgia. what may also surprise you is that from obama's first presidential speech to the eloquent speech made in front of thousands at ebenezer church on martin luther king jr. day and many speeches in between and since then, obama is the only candidate left in this race that regulary speaks about civil rights and equality for the LGBT community.
hillary shares many of obama's views, but she only shows support when directly asked or speaking in front of gay-friendly crowds. she does just enough to get by "for the record" and maintain the undeserving support of many of my friends and many gays/lesbians elsewhere. she manages this allusion based on her experience in "fighting" for LGBT rights.
it's true that she has co-sponsored many bills such as the Early Treatment of HIV Act and increased funding for the Ryan White Care Act. but, it's also true that barack obama has equally shown leadership on the same acts and many others that hillary could speak in favor.
rememeber the "2 for the price of 1" campaign taglines from bill and hillary that helped them win the whitehouse originally? hillary wants us to count the eight years as first lady as "experience," then it is important for voters to understand what type of experience she has offered like i state in my blog "i'll vote republican before i'll vote clinton."
both clintons made hefty progressive promises, and among the compromises of their administration, one could assert that the LGBT community was betrayed first. as senator clinton has done on many of the issues, she cherry-picks/disassociates with compromises or positions not popular today. the LGBT community should remain cognizant that the clinton administration, being politically calculating, leveraged LGBT compromises to build christian support in the 90s. hillary could alledge that she secretly opposed "her husband's" questionable judgment, but then is it, in the same breadth, fair to lay claim to what we still view favorably?
at least some of the gay-related mud of the clinton years has to stick to her, too. in fact, hillary was the first lady when her husband signed the discriminating DOMA which even today she only wants to partly repeal. clinton was very outspoken in favor of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" as a "necessary transitional measure," although she now favors its repeal. obama has long supported it's repeal citing evidence and testimony proving his judgment is right on this matter like in many others.
like barack says, it's important to be right on day one.
oh, and when hillary speaks of marching in gay pride parades, don't you think obama has marched in his fair share as a proven leader on these issues and community organizer? after all, his state is home of "boy's town."
so why would anyone in favor of equality for the LGBT community vote for hillary clinton when barack obama is clearly the candidate who is honest, CONSISTENT, and more progressive with the change he proposes for us?
if you don't trust me... trust the below list of LGBT organizations and leaders who endorsed barack obama even before super tuesday!
~ j
Of all the politicians I've seen, Obama has presented the most reasonable compromise in the Civil Unions vs. Gay Marriage vs. Ignore Them Debates (so to speak).
However, I have an alternative option. In our country, we believe in the seperation of the church and state, for the most part. Marriage, however, intricately intwines the two. Wouldn't it be easier, then, to have civil unions for everyone, and allow each individual or church to decide on their own about the word "marriage"? I understand the need for laws, especially those pertaining to healthcare, death, and children, to be in place when two people join together in a relationship like a marriage.
Obviously, however, the word marriage is simply too loaded, because it has a religious connotation. If we used some different word, we could avoid that without singling out gays. Because I'm here to tell you, I know gay married folk. Those who had a ceremony in a church, before the eyes of God, their family, and their friends, just like everyone else. So the only system refusing to accept this marriage is the state. The state is enforcing a religious definition of a word, not the church. That seems a little backwards.
A few days ago I had "the talk" with Zachary, my seven year old. NO, not the "birds and the bees" talk, but a talk about homosexuality and what being gay means.
While you all are aware of who I am supporting for president, so are my children. Both Zach and Andrew are huge Obama supporters (well, as huge as you can be at 7 and 5). Recently, I have overheard Zachary making statements like "I hate Mitt Romney" or "Mitt stinks".
Now, I am not a Romney fan, but I don't want my kids walking around saying things like that. If, by some crazy chance, Romney does get elected, I want the children to respect him as our president. I don't want their views of him tainted by the things that I believe.
Anyway, back on track here.....
I felt that it was time to talk with Zachary about the differences between the candidates. I want him to understand that I don't HATE Mitt (or any other candidate) I just might not agree with them on some issues. Of course, this means I have to discuss the issues. And while discussing these issues I need to keep it on a seven year old level.
I started by explaining just that. That I just don't agree with Mitt on the issues. Of course, my brilliant little man wants to know more. Like "what issues".
Me: "You know 'X' right? What do you think of him?
Zachary: "I think he's a good guy."
M: "Do you think he is married?"
Z: "Yeah"
M: "Well, actually, he isn't."
Z: "But he probably has a girlfriend, right."
M: "Actually, no, he doesn't. He's gay. Do you know what that means?"
Z: "No."
M: "Well, it means that he falls in love with boys."
Well, Zach CRACKS UP! He thinks that this is the funniest thing that I have ever told him...either that or he is SO embarrassed that he doesn't know what else to do. Eventually, he pulls himself together (as much as a 7 year old can) and we move on.
M: "Right now, because of the laws, 'X' can't get married like boys can get married to girls. This is one of the reasons that I am voting for Obama. Mitt Romney doesn't believe that he should be allowed to." - Keeping it on his level I decided not to explain the difference between civil unions and marriage...
Z: "Well, if he just changed his mind, then he could get married."
M: A little giggle on my part...."It doesn't work that way, man. Gay people are born that way. 'X' was born to like boys, not girls. You can't change being gay, because you are born that way."
Z: "Well, you weren't born that way and Daddy wasn't born that way and I.......was I born that way?"
And now it's my turn to laugh that nervous laughter...
M: "Well, I don't know, baby. I guess that is something you will figure out as you get older."
We went on to discuss a few more of my friends that are gay and eventually, the conversation turned to civil rights (which I compared to what MLK Jr did for African Americans because that is what he knows).
Then he asked me about more issues...and I did my best to explain my thoughts on the war and social security on seven year old terms.
It was not an easy conversation but in it I realized something: my parents never had this conversation with me. This is not because they were homophobic (actually quiet the opposite, they were always comfortable with my gays friends and never discouraged my relationships with them). But the world is changing.
Part of this every changing world terrifies me - it terrifies the mother in me. The other part of me is SO excited about this changing world - the part of me that loves "X" with all my heart, the part that wants for "his" world and "my" world to be equal in so many ways, the part that has never understood why EVERY human being is not treated equally.
Children today seem to be oversexualized (ask me someday about the time I took Allyson school shopping while trying to keep the school dress code in mind) and never seem to get enough attention. I wonder about this...
Recently a person from an online forum that I am part of blamed all this change on "the pill" - as in the birth control pill. He claims that due to the ease of pregnancy prevention women have stopped having children, raising children and the world has been in a downward spiral ever since.
Now, I don't agree with this person but I wonder how close this is to true...
I wonder when we (and I am not talking just women here, men too) lost sight of what is important. I wonder when we stopped worrying about so much abut who was raising our children and started worrying more about keeping up with the "Joneses". I wonder when we changed so much and what brought us to this.
I digress....
I was so happy with the outcome of Zach's and my conversation. It was such a big boy conversation and he handled it so well. We saw "X" this weekend and it was like nothing had ever been discussed.
While it terrifies me to have a conversation like this with my little man, I am so proud of him. No matter how hard it is to have these conversations - it is so important that he learns to be open minded, openhearted and kind and children learn that in their home. I am so proud that he has never once judged someone by their skin color, sexual orientation or otherwise.
This is what I want my boys to be! These are the men I want to raise! What better way to raise these young men than by having a president that encourages this as well? I hope that Barack realizes (whether he wins the nomination or not - though I am doing my best to be sure that it happens) how many lives he has changed and will continue to change as long as he keeps fighting the good fight!!
Evan Wolfson on why candidates should support marriage equality - and how they can do so and remain politically safe ...
Why Obama Matters to Florida GLBT Voters
The states should not have a free license to bar its citizens from the constitutional freedom to marry.
I’m new to the political arena so there’s a lot that I’m unsure about … I’m learning as I go. So please tell me … am I missing something here?
1) There is no constitutional basis for the banning of gay marriage because if there were …
2) … there would have been no need to propose a constitutional amendment that would have actually banned gay marriage which by the way …
3) … was not ratified … and therefore leads us back to square 1 which is …
4) There is no constitutional basis for the banning of gay marriage.
So … can somebody please tell me, constitutionally speaking, why we are still banning gay marriage?
And can someone please explain to me the reason and rhetoric behind just “letting the states” decide the issue?
