Personally, I don't think that Hillary OR Obama will do much for GLBT folk.

[Danger Mouse]

I know that's really pessimistic, but that's the way it seems to me.
Time will tell, but I have a feeling that they will be thrown under the bus by either candidate when it becomes politically expedient...most likely during the General Election...at some point...
Watch for it.


on edit: sorry, i messed up the order of the letters. :banghead:

[Danger Mouse]

1. kick...

[Cant trust em]

2. How much attention can a president really pay to this?

Seems like this is something best left to the states.

[theHandpuppet]

4. Just like slavery and segregation

Worked really well for that too, huh, that old "state's rights" argument.

[Danger Mouse]

8. trouble is, as bush has shown...

it's NOT going to be 'left up to the states'...pressure is going to be put on the president one way or the other...
and you're right, leaving it up the states will not work for this issue. that's just shoving your head in the sand and refusing to take a side.

[NMMNG]

9. Yeah, like that. And abortion.

Screw black people and women. And those damn LGBTs. :sarcasm:

[Cant trust em]

10. I'm not sure that people are ready to go to war

over this yet. I don't quite know where I stand on this yet. I'd love for everyone to be treated equally everywhere, but I also know that it's not politically feasible. How do we bridge that gap?

[Umbram]

13. Education and avoiding the circular firing squad. nt.

[Cant trust em]

21. well said

I don't think that the "gay lifestyle" has been accurately portrayed to most people who are opposed to gay marriage. I guarantee that most people who are against gay equality think that the whole thing is about rainbow thongs and meth-fueled orgies. All of the gay people I know are totally stable and looking for the exact same things in a relationship that my straight friends are.

[Danger Mouse]

28. Exactly. We need to go to war against ignorance and hate.

[Umbram]

43. Part of that is avoiding the circular firing squad.

I think there are a lot of times where opportunities for education are missed here.

I learned yesterday that "Twinkie" is an offensive term in reference GLBTs. I had no idea - and am certainly glad I hadn't used the word after seeing the results of using it without knowledge. Rather than merely saying "Are you aware that that term has an offensive meaning?" there was a full on assault - a missed opportunity for education.

(Please don't attack me here for telling people what to do. I'm only suggesting how I COULD BE EDUCATED!)

Oh, and for people that didn't know - I did some research to find out why people were insulted (I'd never heard the expression 'Twinkie' used as anything other than the food product before) and apparently it is derogatory towards Asian people as well - so a word to avoid on multiple accounts.

[Danger Mouse]

44. No, you're right. Education is the best tool.

Launching a full-on assault is counterproductive, unless you know the insult was intentional.
Then open fire with all hands. :patriot:

[Cant trust em]

46. If there's anything I know

it's that yelling at people doesn't win arguments. It only builds walls.

[theHandpuppet]

53. So does continuing to use gay-bashing slurs

Even when you've been told it's highly offensive to gay people.

[Cant trust em]

54. No argument here, nt

[Cant trust em]

45. Twinkie in respect to Asians

or should I say disrespect to Asians, is actually for assimilated Asians (like me). Who have essentially forsaken their native culture for fitting into the American mainstream. Yellow on the outside, white on the inside.

[theHandpuppet]

52. Being gay is not a lifestyle

You support is appreciated, but please stop using that RW mantra.

[Cant trust em]

55. I apologize for the bad terminology

It's tricky finding the right terminology to discuss the subject without sounding totally homophobic.

[Danger Mouse]

61. lifestyle implies that it's a choice...

rather than simply what you ARE.
hmm...hadn't looked at the nastiness of the word 'lifestyle' in that way up to this point.
someone else pointed out on the radio not too long ago (and this guy is a rightwinger!) that he didn't like the word tolerance in reference to gays, he preferred acceptance...since to him, tolerance implies enduring something unpleasant. (i should add that, for a conservative, he's one of the most insightful people i've ever heard).
i hadn't thought of THAT before, either.
what do you think?

[Danger Mouse]

5. I do wonder...

I'm just putting this out there because both sides are hitting each other over the head with 'my candidate will do more for LBGT...my candidate "gets it"' etc...
i don't feel that either candidate really does, or will. just my personal feeling.

[LostinVA]

7. Human/civil rights are what a President SHOULD be paying attention to

As well as all Federal-level elected officials.

If human rights were left to the states, there would still be "Whites Only" drinking fountains in parts of the country, and Mr. and Mrs. Loving would have been forced to live in exile their entire lives.

*A special "thank you" to Mrs. Loving for being a GLBT ally.

[Radical Activist]

3. Obama has stood up for GLBT issues before

so he probably will again. He sponsored the bill adding sexual orientation to the Illinois Human Rights code.

[Danger Mouse]

14. anything you have for me...please keep me informed.

same goes for hillary supporters.
i'd like to be proven wrong.

[rug]

6. Therefore . . . vote Obama?

That really makes no sense.

[MadBadger]

11. As opposed to what?

[rug]

17. As opposed to spending energy and resources to stop this issue from being buried.

[Danger Mouse]

12. haha, i'm not trying to talk anyone into voting for Obama with my OP...

just trying to make people realize that the belief that Hillary or Barack are going to fight for LBGT rights is somewhat naive...unfortunately, the LBGT community is one of the most politically expedient groups of people to throw under the bus when the going gets rough, and though i've sided with Obama, i don't think he'll be particularly be good on this issue, which is one i feel storngly about.
i don't trust hillary on it, either.
in the end, the decision to support obama was a reluctant one.

[Cant trust em]

15. See why I don't have my candidate as my avatar?

People assume that everything that comes out of your mouth (or in this case, keyboard) is supposed to be prObama.

[Danger Mouse]

18. hmmm....good point. actually, if anything, i'm just as critical of Obama on this issue as Hillary.

i may be prObama, but i'm not uncritical of him...and i'd be more than happy to post something that isn't favorable to him if i felt strongly about it.
this being one issue.

[Cant trust em]

27. There's no such thing as a perfect candidate

If we aren't critical of someone on occasion then we're blinding ourselves to reality.

[Danger Mouse]

31. this is true. however, this is an important issue for me...

and the fact that neither of them really appeal to me on it make me uncomfortable in my support for both...i really like obama, i'd vote for hillary...

[Cant trust em]

36. I think that I agree with you too much on your OP

I know that neither of them will be able to do much on this. Knowing that POTUS has to appeal to such a huge range of people on this issue I can't imagine much leadership coming from Washington. If we want change on this it's going to have to come from the ground level first. In the civil rights era there was a massive organization of activists, marches, boycotts where there was a distinct figurehead for the movement. That's the direction we need to be moving.

Am I right on this?

[Danger Mouse]

39. I'm not sure. In the end, you may be right.

Then who can be the leader of such a movement?

[Cant trust em]

41. The chosen one will be born on the 7th day

when the stars align and....Seriously though, I don't know. That person will present themselves when the time comes and is forced to lead by necessity. Maybe my head is completely up my ass, but it doesn't seem like the urgency is quite there yet.

[MadBadger]

19. I think its blatantly obvious to anybody that actually reads the OP, that it isnt PrObama.

[rug]

20. California sucks.

:P

[Cant trust em]

24. Beards suck

:rofl:

[THUNDER HANDS]

16. depends on what your definition of "much" is

[Danger Mouse]

22. well...ideally, i'd like to see gay marriage in every state.

maybe it's a pipe dream...

[NMMatt]

29. Its not

It will happen, but it will probably take another generation - i.e. 20 or so years. Most people under 30 are on the right side of this issue. Most people over 50 are on the wrong side.

[NMMatt]

30. Its not

It will happen, but it will probably take another generation - i.e. 20 or so years. Most people under 30 are on the right side of this issue. Most people over 50 are on the wrong side.

[THUNDER HANDS]

34. that would have to be a state issue, not a federal issue.

and yeah, i think that is a pipe dream.

Maybe in 10 years half the states could have domestic partnership laws, though.

[NMMatt]

23. I'm doubtful as well

Neither of them have shown much political courage in the past.

[Danger Mouse]

25. Both are also very shrewd and calculating.

A line in the sand will be drawn during the General Election...I have no doubt McCain will use it as an issue to lure out the 'values voters'...
And then Obama or Hillary will have to show whose side they are REALLY on.

[zulchzulu]

26. I think Obama is going to push for civil unions/domestic partnerships

That's a first step. It HAS to be done.

[Danger Mouse]

32. based on what? i'm not trying to be snarky, i just would like to hear your reasoning.

i hope you're right.
i hope i'm wrong.

[IndieLeft]

47. He has said as much.

Over and over again. He wants equal rights. Go on youtube and type in Obama gay rights. You'll see everything... all sides.

Then make you judgement based on that.

[Danger Mouse]

63. I will do that when I have a few minutes...

I'd love to hear what he has to say.
Same thing with Hillary.

[IndieLeft]

65. Overall, I agree with you on this.

I don't really see much of a difference between the two. I wish I could find video of Obama schooling McClurkin on the bible though. It was really impressive.

He reminds me of Bill Clinton in a way. (Obama does) He seems to know something about everything.

[laconicsax]

57. That will cause more harm than good.

If we just go along with the idea that state-by-state civil unions/domestic partnerships are a good thing, then it will push back the issue of full equality under the law for decades. Civil unions/domestic partnerships have been billed as 'just as good' as marriage and not being equal to marriage in name only. They are however, not 'just as good' or 'equal to marriage except in name only,' and as long as the idea that they are just as good is widely accepted, equal rights will be seen as frivolous and unnecessary and anyone advocating equal rights will be dismissed out of hand. Additionally, rights given to a couple entering into a civil union/domestic partnership will vary from state to state, creating even more inequity.

Back in 2004, I remember quite clearly that Edwards stated that he didn't support equal marriage rights because he didn't think that the American people were ready for it. The American people (as a whole) weren't ready for independence from England, the end of slavery, for women to vote, or for desegregation. One of the only ways to affect meaningful change would be for the two candidates to say (maybe with more tact), "Equal rights are lacking, no array of half-measures will make up for that. This is a nation of laws and one of its laws is that no citizen shall be denied equal protection under the law. Marriage is a set of legal rights, and to deny part or all of them to a couple based on the sexual orientation is unconstitutional. There will be full equal rights for GLBT citizens in the United States, end of discussion."

[Danger Mouse]

62. Agreed. No half-measures.

Full civil rights for all.
Besides, I'd love to hear the reaction of Fred Phelps and his sleazy brood to something like this. :evilgrin:

[laconicsax]

64. Possibly some sort of loud popping sound with lots of splatter.

[Danger Mouse]

71. I would pay cash money to see that.

:evilgrin:

[mondo joe]

33. I don't expect a lot either - so I need to look to who will do the least harm, or if things

go well, will make small improvements.

[Danger Mouse]

37. A very honest and thoughtful reply.

Do you think ANY of the candidates would've been any good on this issue? I'd like to say Kucinich...but I'm not sure.
Also, if you think Hillary is the lesser of two evils on this issue, how'd you reach that conclusion?
The McLurkin thing with Obama is pretty troubling...there's that at least...

[mondo joe]

40. I only ever considered Clinton, Obama and Edwards as serious contenders.

I don't have a formula I can share that concludes Clinton is the better bet. I just consider everything I know and make a holistic determination.

I would say the McClurkin thing was very troubling because it highlighted what IMO looks like Obama's tendency to bend over a little more backwards for religious bigots than I think will be helpful.

I look at Clinton showing up at the Pride parade, at her statements to young GLBT people about being valued, at the way the Clintons included us in Bill's presidency which was a historic first. Then I look at Obama and McClurkin, at his comments about sinners, about a set of "basic rights", and the endorsement of Bush's spiritual adviser.

If you consider GLBT person and anti-gay religious persons as two directions, my gut says Obama leans a little more toward satisfying te latter rather than the former.

[Danger Mouse]

42. Hmm...sounds pretty reasonable to me.

It still doesn't convince me that Hillary would do much, but it does make me wonder if Obama would actually be harmful.

[Iktomiwicasa]

35. As I said in another thread....

I'm glad I'm from a culture that doesn't discriminate against gays.

[Danger Mouse]

38. I wish I were from a culture that doesn't discriminate against gays.

It's embarassing...to be associated with such neanderthals.

[NMMNG]

69. I love the notion of "two spirit people"

It's such a shame that others came along and tried, in some cases successfully, to browbeat it out of indigenous peoples.

[Cant trust em]

48. I'd like to thank every poster on this thread

for a forthright conversation on a sticky subject.

[Umbram]

50. Reasonableness is the most effective troll-repellent. nt.

[cbayer]

51. Isn't that the truth. It works like a charm. nt.

[Danger Mouse]

60. I was expecting to be torched.

But...I've been amazed at the thoughtful responses.
See, GD: P CAN be productive and civil. :hi:

[Cant trust em]

66. You didn't pick a side.

I'm sure that if you promoted one candidate over the other then it would have been unmerciful.

[cbayer]

49. I agree. It will be low on their list of priorities.

But it will be a great relief to have ANTI-GLBT forces out of the White House and this will hopefully open the door for the real activists to actually get something done at both the state and national level.

[Danger Mouse]

59. This is also true...I'm presuming (and hoping I'm right) that at the very least...

they will NOT be hostile.

[Forkboy]

56. I suspect you are pretty much correct on this.

I'm so pessimistic I doubt either will do much for anyone. Status Quo version 1,397.0.

We must think somewhat alike. We have dueling Alice In Wonderland sig lines. :)

[Danger Mouse]

58. Haha, well now. Hadn't noticed that =)

I figured mine was quite DU-appropriate, don't you think? :hi:

[rinsd]

67. I don't either. I do not see gay marriage as part of either's agenda.

It will be up to the states.

[Danger Mouse]

74. Can we trust the states to do the right thing?

:shrug:

[ProgressIn2008]

68. I think you're correct - throwing GLBT under the bus plays well to the crowd, unfortunately

I wish it weren't so, because more to the country's shame that it is.

[Danger Mouse]

73. well, like i've said before...McCain will make it an issue...

it will be up to Hillary/Obama to respond appropriately...

[NMMNG]

70. I don't think we'll have great advances should Hillary become president

I don't think she'll usher in some Golden Age for LGBT rights. I'm not an idiot. But I trust her far more in that respect than I do Obama.

[Danger Mouse]

72. Why is that? Because of McLurkin, or for other reasons?

[NMMNG]

75. McClurkin, Kirbyjon Caldwell

Obama's personal religious views regarding LGBTs and same-sex marriage as "between a man and a woman", his incessant use of "code-speak" when speaking about LGBTs to religious audiences (whether he does this actively or instinctively I don't know but either way it is troubling), his seeming discomfort with LGBT issues and LGBT people, the fact that he openly abhors racism and calls for racists to be fired but uses homophobes for his personal gain (not to mention that he refuses to tolerate racism in any way/shape/form but calls for "reaching out" to homophobes--utter hypocrisy).

I could go on but I think that's enough for now.