Why the LGBT Community Should Embrace Obama

[Khaotic]

Least We Forget the background of the individuals running for president and the groups at large they affiliate themselves with.

Somehow, Hillary has been branded as the candidate who the LGBT Community should support.

But it's Barack Obama who belongs to the United Church of Christ. A denomination that has been stark and outspoken about their open door policy that welcomes everyone to their church.

Their commercials promoting their church are so open that the MSM won't even play them (sadly they've been banned by many networks).

I guess Obama's denomination's LGBT support has been forgotten? Have you forgotten the images of this commerical:


This image is from the commerical and is there to make a point about what other churches are like and how open the UCC is.
Commerical at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iH04hj1Q_IM

There's a fairly new one out as well (also banned on numerous networks): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KRcv9u9x3z8

In case you think the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago is somehow different than the United Church of Christ, I'd say that while a pastor like Wright doesn't reflect the church at large, the foundation of the church's doctrine is universal to every one of the churches regardless of where they're located.

Bottomline, Obama's denomination of Christianity is VERY open to the LGBT community.

I mean, look at their logo:



John Thomas, the general minister of the church, just put out a video today explaining the church. He knows there are a lot of people talking about the church.

Watch the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e4NiU_9REYE

When it comes to affiliation, which politician belongs to a denomination that embraces the LGBT community???

Hillary's United Methodist Church?

McCain's Episcopal Church?

How about Huckabee's Southern Baptist Church, or Romney's Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints?

I don't think there's much of a discussion here. Hands down, the United Church of Christ is one of the most accepting churches of anyone regardless of who you are.

It comes down to this ... who is the candidate that draws the best characteristics from their person faith? Who is the candidate that will use that faith to make wise discisions, but will not seek to legislate it?

Who's political speeches reflect the kind of openess the United Church of Christ has in regard to who is accepted into their congregation?

Take a look at this speech and you'll find the answer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWjR-N0QZ14

While I know there are huge problems with the likes of Rev. Kirbyjon Caldwell; I know that Obama will be very accepting of the LGBT community and should receive their consideration.

Leaders inside the LGBT community have given him their endorsement: http://advocate.com/exclusive_detail_ektid52635.asp

The question is ... will you, and if not, why?

[maddiejoan]

1. Two things

1) Hillary's church --"The Foundry" in Mt. Pleasant IS accepting of same-sex couples.

2) Despite the UCC's acceptance of same-sex marriages, Obama does not share that view. Curiously, he has stated he has personal religious objections to same-sex marriage.

Hope that helps.

[Khaotic]

2. Same Sex Marriages

So Hillary has stated that she will make same sex marriages legal nationwide?

I don't remember hearing that.

I thought they were both for civil unions?

Obama has stated that when it comes to government and church there should be no mixture. He as stated that marriage is a creation of the church, and thus government shouldn't get involved.

Civil unions, on the other hand, are couples having the same rights as married couples when it comes to legal terms, taxes, rights to possessions after a spouses death, etc.

I think Obama has explained himself well.

He's not going to legislate to intervein between government and churches.

You can, however, guarantee that under President Obama there will NOT be an amendment to the Constitution in regard to same-sex marriage. I think he'll let states decide that if they elect.

The only federal laws that might be passed under President Obama would be to dictate to states that they must recognize civil unions across the board with no exceptions.

Even Edwards had the same position. The difference was that Edwards attributed his position to personal faith, and Obama attributes his position to keep church and state seperate.

I'll take Obama position because I stand beside the seperation of church and state. Edwards came off as a flip flopper on that because he underscored how his personal faith would not dictate legislation, but then said he faith is why he believes in civil unions and not same-sex marriage.

Personally I think hetrosexuals shouldn't be the only ones cursed w/ marriage, homosexuals should share the burden. ;-)

All kidding aside, I share Kucinich's view and think same-sex marriage should be legal. If a person's church doesn't want to sanction it, so be it. But if a person's church does want to, then why not?

I see Obama's position though, and can see why he wants to keep any notion of combining church and state out of the picture.

To that end, I have to wonder if he'll dissolve the Department of Faith Based Iniatives??? I sure hope so!

I know for a FACT that Hillary embraces the Department of Faith Based Iniatives and it will flurish in a Hillary administration.

Very sad, and I'll tell you that the LGBT community should worry about any candidate who embraces that department.

Obama won't speak about it, as well he shouldn't. The notion that he would dissolves would lose him votes. But he will get my praise if he does it if he gets the White House.

It's a currupt biased department that was created to cow down to evangelicals and uses a back door to give away our tax payers dollars to the current administration's base.

[maddiejoan]

3. From your post

I'll take it that you don't know how to read.

Cos I certainly made none of those claims.

[Khaotic]

4. Claims

I wasn't particularily speaking about personal claims.

I'm curious though ... do you think Obama would be bad for the LGBT community?

[maddiejoan]

5. Bad --no

I don't think he'll do a damned thing for or against LGBT rights, and I think Hillary will do only a very small amount for LGBT rights.

Both are better than McCain who might actually take away what few rights we still have.

[Khaotic]

6. You're pretty close to spot on

From my perspective, I put a lot of value on Obama's commitment to secular government.

I don't believe there's any room in government for morality legislation.

I think that out of the three candidates that Obama is the most likely to dissolve the department of faith based iniatives.

I think that move is not only a benefit to the country at large, but especially the LGBT community because the current taxpayers $$$ that goes to the evangelical community is used to discriminate against the LGBT community.

I think you have to look at the forest for the trees here.

The negative and hateful evangelcial variable needs to have zero impact on government, legislation, and elections.

I think Obama is the candidate to put in the White House to make that come true.

Keeping the anti-LGBT evangelical community on the "team" is bad.

Keep church in church, government in government, church out of government, and government out of church.

It's pretty simple.

While Clinton might have marched in Gay Pride parades and both Obama and Clinton will reinstitute the return and proclamation of making June Gay & Lesbian Pride Month; I think it's the firm seperation of church and state that will benefit the LGBT community the most.

Obama is the best opportunity to make it happen.

[maddiejoan]

7. I put very little value

on anything Obama says and I think he is the LEAST likely to have a clear separation of Church and State.

[Bluebear]

11. 'I trust women to make a prayerful decision about (abortion)'

You know who.

[Khaotic]

16. What are you smokin'?

You mean you can watch this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWjR-N0QZ14 and say that he's the least likely to have a clear separation of church and state.

You're whack.

He's about the constitution. He voted against the anti-flag burning amendment. He knows it's about the freedom, not the fabric.

"We live in a country of laws. Laws are what stop people from resorting to physical violence to settle disagreements, and laws are what protect free speech. And when I became a Senator, I swore an oath to protect the Constitution. Under that oath, my first allegiance is not to a political party, or to an ideology, or to a president, or even to popular opinion, but to the Constitution and to the rule of law." - Barack Obama, June 27, 2006

Hillary has been the one who wants to legislate her beliefs and morality. She's the one who co-sponsored an anti-flag burning amendment to the constitution. She's the one who went ape shit about the violence in video games and is an advocate for government intervention.

I'm telling you ... she EMBRACES the Department of Faith Based Iniatives. Period.

Hillary is ready to use government intervention to enforce morality, not Obama.

[maddiejoan]

22. If he's elected POTUS

feel free to PM me in 4 years --and we'll review.

[dsc]

28. you are either misinformed or out and out lying

Hillary Clinton didn't vote for, much less sponser, an amendment to the Constitution banning flag burning.

[Justitia]

48. Were you aware Hillary introduced a bill to outlaw flag burning?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/14/AR2005121401887.html

[dsc]

56. yes

but that is quite different. The law is stupid but it is a quite different level of stupid from the amendment.

[libnnc]

23. The United Methodist Church refuses to ordain LGBT pastors

who are "practicing homosexuals". Those pastors who were in the closet and were ordained, the minute they "out" themselves they run the risk of losing their credentials, their retirement and their health insurance.

Google Beth Stroud.

The UMC still terrorizes its clergy.

[maddiejoan]

24. I was talking about Hillary's actual church

[libnnc]

25. Hillary's congregation is welcoming

The United Methodist Church is not.

And because the UMC is not a denomination that thrives on "independence" among its churches, this point is quite valid. There are no autonomous churches in the UMC. It has a very centralized hierarchy and governance.

[maddiejoan]

26. which is ironic

since the UCC accepts the idea of same-sex marriage --and Obama doesn't.

[libnnc]

27. At least the UCC won't defrock LGBT clergy

Is Hillary for gay marriage?

And where exactly did Barack Obama say he was against gay marriage?

[dsc]

29. He has stated it repeatedly

In his debates with Alan Keyes in 2004, on MTP last year, at the LOGO/HRC forum last year, and at the CNN/Youtube debate last year. Also on the 700 club. Do you need any more citations?

[libnnc]

32. Okay he hates us. So let's all jump aboard the sinking SS Clinton

So we can lose the White House.

But I remained a loyal lesbian didn't I? Does that count for something?


I'm sick of this fucking primary.

[dsc]

35. Now you hold on

You stated you hadn't heard him oppose gay marriage, with the clear implication he supports it, I merely pointed out that he did. Get the hell of your high horse. It isn't my fault you didn't know what your candidate supports nor is it my fault you apparently don't like the fact he doesn't. You asked where he said it and I supplied it. If you didn't want to know you shouldn't have asked.

[libnnc]

38. So what the fuck are we supposed to do, stay home?

Because he's not the "perfect" LGBT candidate? Is Hillary? Will she COMPLETELY repeal DOMA?

What will she do "on day one" for us? Anything?


Okay. Great.

[dsc]

43. You can support Obama

I will vote for him when he is the nominee. I will admit, for several reasons I am unimpressed with him on both gay issues and franky non gay ones. I am hoping I am wrong. But what you don't have the right to do is imply your candidate supports things he doesn't and get pissy when someone takes the time to set the record straight. He will be the nominee barring his complete implosion which is highly unlikely. I prefer Hillary slightly on gay issues and substantially on some important domestic ones. That is why on, or before May 6, I will vote for Hillary in our primary.

[maddiejoan]

30. Here.

http://after-words.org/grim/mtarchives/2004/09/Sep242301.shtml

"I'm a Christian, and so although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman,''

Now the question is, of course, if the UCC accepts same-sex marriage --why does Obama claim religious objections for his reasoning?

[libnnc]

33. I don't know. But I'm not willing to bring about the apocalypse

by voting for a candidate who cannot win. Hillary CANNOT WIN. BARACK OBAMA IS NOT GOING TO GAS US.

McCain Will.

JESUS!

[maddiejoan]

34. How do you know?

[libnnc]

36. You really can't mean that?

Come on. Quit the drama. Its over.

[maddiejoan]

39. I'm not being dramatic

:shrug:

[libnnc]

40. Yeah. You are.

I'm voting for Barack Obama because he is the nominee. You do whatever the fuck you want.

[maddiejoan]

41. uhm

he's not the nominee.

[libnnc]

42. Yes he is. I can add. n/t

[maddiejoan]

44. apparently you can't

because Obama cannot reach 2025 without SDs

[libnnc]

45. it's over.

[maddiejoan]

46. if it was really over

you wouldn't have to say so.

:shrug:

[libnnc]

47. Okay. You've won me over. I'm voting for Hillary.

No, really. I'm going to vote for Hillary.


I wasted my vote in 00, and 04. Why break that streak?

[Justitia]

49. Hillary is against gay marriage. -eom

[libnnc]

51. Please post a link to that so folks in this thread can see it.

I'm sick of arguing this shit.

[Justitia]

53. Sure, from the horse's mouth....

"Marriage has got historic, religious and moral content that goes back to the beginning of time, and I think a marriage is as a marriage always has been, between a man and a woman." - Hillary Clinton, opposing same-sex marriages, quoted in The New York Daily News.

Don't bother arguing w/them, it's tilting at windmills.

[JVS]

60. An article title and date would be nice, if not a link.

You might as well have said "I read it in the paper" with that kind of documentation.

[polmaven]

50. I need to differ with you somewhat...

It has a very centralized hierarchy and governance.

The UMC holds a General Conference quadrennially. This year it is in Texas at the end of April.

The General Conference is actually the ultimate "governing body" of the church, and the delegates to the Conference are equally divided between clergy and laity.

Delegates are elected by individual conferences in the several worldwide districts represented at General Conference. It is these delegates who, every 4 years, meet and discuss the Discipline of the denomination.

It is far from being "very centralized" and is not a hierarchy.

We at the New England Conference last year elected delegates to General this year. We were pleased that all of our delegates...or at least the large majority...are fairly liberal, and were not happy with the whole Beth Stroud affair...(poor choice of words, I know, but at the moment, it is all I can grasp for).

The problem comes in that the more conservative districts still out number the liberal ones. Relaxation of the GLBT issues was much closer in 2004 than it had been in the past. Each quad it seems to be closer than the one before.

I, myself do belong to a "Reconciling Congregation". We accept each person for whom they are, and have made a deliberate commitment to our homosexual brothers and sisters that we will accept and treasure all for who they are. We will not try to "cure" or "change" anyone, because we realize it is not a choice, but a birthright. The NE Conference is well aware of the Reconciling Ministries, and our Bishop actually does support them.

[libnnc]

52. You're absolutely correct. I should know better

raised UMC...but since I'm in the southern conference area, I won't darken the door of a methodist church. They've had 30 years to fix this rift and the conservatives won't budge. I left the church over it and I won't come back.

That said, it is a problem and Hillary's denomination should not be represented as more inclusive as the UCC.

[polmaven]

55. I agree that the denomination

is certainly NOT more inclusive than the UCC. Senator Obama, however, is not as liberal on the issue of Gay Marriage as his church, and did say that it is due to his "religious beliefs". I can only guess that the individual congregations have that choice to make.

[polmaven]

57. self delete...duplicate

nt

[JVS]

61. Compared to the UCC (a major portion of which once went by the name "Congregationalist")...

almost any ecclesiastical structure is going to appear centralized.

[LostinVA]

74. Senator Obama's congregation is not a welcoming congregation, btw

They passed on the chance to be one. Just an FYI.

[uponit7771]

8. I've heard that he confronted a mostly black crowd of supporters on the black churches attitudes...

...towards gays and one could hear a pin drop.

Speaking truth to power is easy, speaking truth to friend is a lot harder.

[jacjr]

63. Yeah he confronted them with Donnie McClurkin and Mary Mary

[Khaotic]

9. Gay & Lesbian Pride Month, June 2009

I really do think that whether Obama or Clinton get the nomination and then the White House, I think we'll definately see a return of Gay & Lesbian Pride Month in June 2009.

And I think both candidates strongly approve of the words contained in the last proclamation signed by Bill Clinton in June 2000.

Props to both Obama and Hillary for that.

Link & below: http://clinton5.nara.gov/WH/New/html/20000602.html

======================

THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release June 2, 2000

GAY AND LESBIAN PRIDE MONTH, 2000
BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
A PROCLAMATION

Gay and lesbian Americans have made important and lasting contributions to our Nation in every field of endeavor. Too often, however, gays and lesbians face prejudice and discrimina-tion; too many have had to hide or deny their sexual orientation in order to keep their jobs or to live safely in their communities.

In recent years, we have made some progress righting these wrongs. Since the Stonewall uprising in New York City more than 30 years ago, the gay and lesbian rights movement has united gays and lesbians, their families and friends, and all those committed to justice and equality in a crusade to outlaw discriminatory laws and practices and to protect gays and lesbians from prejudice and persecution.

I am proud of the part that my Administration has played to achieve these goals. Today, more openly gay and lesbian individuals serve in senior posts throughout the Federal Government than during any other Administration. To build on our progress, in 1998 I issued an Executive Order to prohibit discrimination in the Federal civilian workforce based on sexual orientation, and my Administration continues to fight for the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which would outlaw discrimination in the workplace based on sexual orientation.

Yet many challenges still lie before us. As we have learned from recent tragedies, prejudice against gays and lesbians can still erupt into acts of hatred and violence. I continue to call upon the Congress to pass meaningful hate crimes legislation to strengthen the Department of Justice's ability to prosecute hate crimes committed due to the victim’s sexual orientation.

With each passing year the American people become more receptive to diversity and more open to those who are different from themselves. Our Nation is at last realizing that gays and lesbians must no longer be "strangers among friends," as the civil rights pioneer David Mixner once noted. Rather, we must finally recognize these Americans for what they are: our colleagues and neighbors, daughters and sons, sisters and brothers, friends and partners.

This June, recognizing the joys and sorrows that the gay and lesbian movement has witnessed and the work that remains to be done, we observe Gay and Lesbian Pride Month and celebrate the progress we have made in creating a society more inclusive and accepting of gays and lesbians. I hope that in this new millennium we will continue to break down the walls of fear and prejudice and work to build a bridge to understanding and tolerance, until gays and lesbians are afforded the same rights and responsibilities as all Americans.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, WILLIAM J. CLINTON, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim June 2000 as Gay and Lesbian Pride Month. I encourage all Americans to observe this month with appropriate programs, ceremonies, and activities that celebrate our diversity and recognize the gay and lesbian Americans whose many and varied contributions have enriched our national life.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this second day of June, in the year of our Lord two thousand, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and twenty-fourth.

WILLIAM J. CLINTON

[Bluebear]

10. "Least we forget", Obama does not support the UCC's views of gay marriage.

He says his religious views stop him from accepting marriage as anything but between a man and a woman.

[maddiejoan]

12. But I'll get a basic set of rights --correct?

So I can sort of test them out --take liberty for a playful romp before anyone decides if it's okay for me to have?

[Bluebear]

14. I'm waiting, God could still deliver me from homosexuality.

[rinsd]

13. Neither support gay marriage, either are better than McCain.

I see little advantage for the LGBT community with either candidate so you might as well make your decision on another issue.

[Justitia]

15. Obama supports a full repeal of DOMA, Hillary does not. -eom

[Khaotic]

17. Defense of Marriage Act

1) No state (or other political subdivision within the United States) need recognize a marriage between persons of the same sex, even if the marriage was concluded or recognized in another state.

2) The Federal Government may not recognize same-sex or polygamous marriages for any purpose, even if concluded or recognized by one of the states.

The bill was passed by Congress by a vote of 85-14 in the Senate and a vote of 342-67 in the House of Representatives, and was signed by President Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996.

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

Hmmmm, and Hillary would fight to keep it from being repealed, but Obama says he would repeal it.

Seems to me that the DOMA is something the LGBT community would be against?

Seems like they would applaud Obama for wanting to repeal it ... no?

[Bluebear]

18. By the way, what is this LGBT "community" you keep referring to?

And are you a LGBT?

[MethuenProgressive]

37. I think it's a small town in Maine just north of York.

:rofl: at the OPer's preaching

[Khaotic]

67. Just a term

What would you prefer?

And, no, I'm not a LGBT.

Straight, hetrosexual, married w/ children, progressive, veteran, who loves his country and his fellow Americans.

I believe in people investing in people ... all people.

[Justitia]

19. It's the biggest legislative obstacle to marriage equality. Obama wants it gone entirely, but

Hillary wants to keep an important section of the bill in place, which exempts states from recognizing any same-sex relationship that is “treated as a marriage” under the laws of any other state.


So, yes, this seems like a 'no-brainer' decision in Obama's favor.
It's the biggest concrete distinction in policy re: LGBT issues between the two candidates.

[JerseygirlCT]

20. Well, I agree that the UCC gets major points for

coming to a realization on this issue a long time ago.

But you'd be inaccurate to portray either the UMC or TEC as anti-gay. UMC is still struggling with the issue, from what I've read. But the struggle indicates that there's movement there - serious enough to mean a struggle. And TEC - well, if you haven't heard of Gene Robinson and all the fuss that seems to have caused with a loud, well-financed (Scaife) minority so horrified by an openly gay bishop, then you don't really follow this type of news at all.

TEC is making huge strides - it's not the same old hide-bound dead white guys church that it may have represented back in McCain's youth.

[nichomachus]

21. Lest we forget - Part II

Hillary is also a part of "The Family," a radical right-wing theocratic shadow group. She has been playing with them since 1993.

Same-sex marriage? They don't even want men and women to fraternize -- except when the women cook and clean up after the men.

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2003/03/0079525

Interesting that no one has asked Hillary to repudiate her adoring remarks about this right-wing group and their founder.


During the 1960s the Family forged relationships between the U.S. government and some of the most anti-Communist (and dictatorial) elements within Africa's postcolonial leadership. The Brazilian dictator General Costa e Silva, with Family support, was overseeing regular fellowship groups for Latin American leaders, while, in Indonesia, General Suharto (whose tally of several hundred thousand "Communists" killed marks him as one of the century's most murderous dictators) was presiding over a group of fifty Indonesian legislators. During the Reagan Administration the Family helped build friendships between the U.S. government and men such as Salvadoran general Carlos Eugenios Vides Casanova, convicted by a Florida jury of the torture of thousands, and Honduran general Gustavo Alvarez Martinez, himself an evangelical minister, who was linked to both the CIA and death squads before his own demise.

Clinton fell in with the Family in 1993, when she joined a Bible study group composed of wives of conservative leaders like Jack Kemp and James Baker. When she ascended to the senate, she was promoted to what Sharlet calls the Family's "most elite cell," the weekly Senate Prayer Breakfast, which included, until his downfall, Virginia's notoriously racist Senator George Allen. This has not been a casual connection for Clinton. She has written of Doug Coe, the Family's publicity-averse leader, that he is "a unique presence in Washington: a genuinely loving spiritual mentor and guide to anyone, regardless of party or faith, who wants to deepen his or her relationship with God."

[shaniqua6392]

31. Why on earth should the GLBT Americans embrace either

Obama or Clinton. Neither of these candidates will give them the full rights of marriage that they deserve. They both oppose gay marriage but embrace civil unions. WTF? Marriage has nothing to do with the church anyway unless you happen to get married in one. Marriage is a legally binding document entered into by two people. The church can not make marriage legal just by performing the ceremony. It still has to be filed with the county/state in which you live. I am not happy with either Clinton or Obama on this decision. I think they are both friggin cowards. Just do it. They deserve to have the same rights and benefits that my husband and I do and it should be called "marriage" and nothing else.

[cali]

54. because you're a fool if you don't

Obama said again tonight that he supports extending all the federal rights of marriage to civil unions. That means SS benefits and much, much more. And McCain? Nothing. Civil Unions for all or marriage for all is the ultimate goal, but you're an idiot if you think that these two candidates aren't a HUGE step forward. I have such disgust for people who can't see that.

[shaniqua6392]

58. They are both a tiny step forward

and it goes without saying that McCain would be the worst of the three regarding gay rights. I never claimed that voting for McCain would ever be an option. Come to think of it...I never even mentioned McCain in my post. I stated that Obama and Clinton are still only willing to dip their toes in the pool, so to speak. They are both too scared to take the plunge and quit denying gay American's the complete civil rights they deserve. You just don't seem to care for anyone who says anything negative about Obama. I am willing to see both candidates clearly and there are things I don't like about each of them. There are also things that I do like about each of them. You responded to me with such words as "fool", "idiot", "disgust", etc. We should never be so blinded by a politician that we can't see their faults. They both have faults in their political platforms. I was responding with my opinion that, on this issue, both candidates have failed imo.

[Solon]

65. Don't mind Cali, she's a loyalist to the end...

she'd defend a person who advocated for the return of slavery if they had a (D) placed after their name. Simpleminded to a fault.

[shaniqua6392]

66. Oh I don't mind her a bit.

She does not defend all with a (D) after their name though. Just one in particular. I just try to take a more realistic view of our candidates. They are not perfect. They all lie. But some can not see when they are getting sunshine blown up their butts. Call me cynical, but the day I completely agree on every issue with a politician will never come. I think we need to demand more of them.

[Politicub]

59. Embrace? A big ask for LGBT folk - but I'll support the dem nominee

Obama made a calculated, tin ear mistake with the LGBT community early on, and hasn't really recovered from it. I have no doubt that Hillary or Obama would be light years ahead of McCain in LGBT rights, but I'm not naive enough to think that Obama would do anything significant for my community. But, I would like to be surprised. That's why I would support rather than "embrace" Obama.

[cboy4]

62. Here it is in a nutshell.

Obama cannot be trusted.

How easy is that?

[Khaotic]

69. You're a fool

Can't be trusted ... based on what?

His public work?

His background with the mafia I suppose?

His background is a lot more trustable than McSame or Hillary.

[hulklogan]

73. He can't be trusted on GLBT issues because he's proven time and time again that

he just doesn't get it. His words and deeds always have a half assed quality to them, like he's just pretending to support GLBT Americans.

He disagrees with McClurkin then hires him to MC a campaign event.
He goes to one of the most welcoming churches in the country but doesn't support marriage equality for "faith" reasons.
He runs ads in gay newspapers that name drop Stonewall but only say that GLBT deserve dignity and respect, not equality.
He includes advocacy for heterosexual AIDS survivors on his GLBT issues page on his website.
He only thinks GLBT Americans deserve a 'basic set of rights' so we can't make people discriminate against us.

To me, it seems like Senator Obama has a serious problem showing full support for GLBT Americans, even though he wants us to believe that he's our bestest friend. Thus, he can't be trusted. It's like a friend who is always 30 minutes late to meet you for dinner/drinks/etc. Eventually, you learn that you can't trust them to show up on time.

[Neshanic]

71. Easy for me. Why is it hard for others to get? Go figure.

[jonnyblitz]

64. no thanks, I'll pass. nt

[Mezzo]

68. If he should be embraced for his association of that church for its policy of

endorsing gay rights, he should be equally rejected for his association with that unconscionable bigot Rev. Wright.

[hulklogan]

70. Why should I believe that his church's views represent his views?

I mean, just because Rev. White said "God Damn America" doesn't mean Senator Obama feels the same way. He's already said quite clearly that he doesn't support full marriage equality.

The only support Senator Obama will get from me is a VERY reluctant vote in the GE, because of many things including McClurkin, "a basic set of rights," his pre-Texas dignity ad in gay newspapers, his lack of support for marriage equality, his calling GLBT Americans sinners....need I go on?

[Neshanic]

72. Uh, Obama said he did not listen to the sermons, so the UUC sanctuary

was just a room he was working. Is that your point? Believe the UUC or Obama? Which do you want?

[IndianaJones]

75. sense when does the gays control the democrat party? nt.