Obama to LGBT Americans: The fight for your civil rights is a distraction

[Tyo]

From a speech Obama made the other day in Medford OR

"We argue about gay marriage. You know, in the meantime the planet is, you know, potentially being destroyed. We've got a war that is bankrupting us. And we're going to argue about gay marriage? I mean, that doesn't make any sense."

Okay, Barack, take it back 50 years. The Russians are kicking our ass in the space race. Not only that, but they've got The Bomb and they're building them as fast as they can. They also own Eastern Europe and the Hungarian Revolution showed what happens to Soviet client states that try to break through the Iron Curtain. Nor are they playing nice in divided Germany and the situation in Berlin is getting tense.

Meanwhile, we have already had to fight the Red Chinese in Korea and now they are making threating noises in the direction of Taiwan. And god only knows what the French have gotten themselves into trying to retain their grip on Indochina. Closer to home, someone named Fidel Castro is causing problems for our puppet government in Cuba.

So with all this going on do we have time to worry about about the rights of Negroes? In the great scheme of things, how important is it really that there are states in which Blacks can not marry Whites? This country is facing serious challenges right here right now and to waste our energy on peripheral stuff, well, that doesn't make any sense.

[Ian David]

1. I think he was saying that the fight to TAKE AWAY gay rights is a distraction.

NOT that the right to KEEP or GAIN rights is a distraction.

You're probably the only person in America who read it that way.

[Tyo]

2. Given his stated views on gay marriage

that's not the way I read it.

[Buzz Clik]

4. Okay, then -- give us the link to your quote. Some context would help.

[Tyo]

a couple of links

http://pageoneq.com/news/2008/obama0324.html

http://www.mailtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?category=NEWS0802

[GodlessBiker]

19. It sounds like he is criticizing people who use gay marriage and immigration to divide us.

[Zuiderelle]

23. It sounds like, it seems like, you could interpret it. Why can't he just speak plainly and clearly?

Instead of leaving everything vague and open to interpretation.

[cloudythescribbler]

32. Actually, it's obvious he's talking about WEDGE use of issues -- it's those claiming otherwise ...

who are being petulant. If the meaning is, as claimed "vague" why assume the worst? Obviously because that worst assumption is agenda driven.

[Zuiderelle]

36. It is not obvious at all. Why assume the worst OR the best? I'd rather he simply be clear.

[TomBall Democrat]

55. After reading the actual article, not someone's mis-read

it's CLEAR, he's speaking about campaigns that use issues to wedge us APART.

And using gay marriage and immigration as examples where a campaigns is divisive - but NOTHING GETS CHANGED. The point is if we work together we get change.

If we, for instance, mis-lead to mis-represent and harm our opponents, we'll that is divisive and not productive.

Is that clear enough for you?

[Zuiderelle]

56. Quote him from it then. I didn't get the clarity you obviously did.

All I see is you interpreting his remarks, like every other person on this thread claiming that he didn't mean what the OP states.

[TomBall Democrat]

57. Ok, here's the direct quote

Senator Barack Obama (D-IL), speaking to rally attendees in Medford, Oregon on Saturday, took issue with how recent political campaigns have used wedge issues to divide the electorate, but have ultimately done little to make a real difference, especially when there are more important things to worry about.

"I mean, think about what these last few election cycles have been about," the Senator said. "We argue about immigration, but we don't try to solve the immigration problem. It's an argument that is all about people's passions instead of trying to figure it out.

"We argue about gay marriage. You know, in the meantime the planet is, you know, potentially being destroyed. We've got a war that is bankrupting us. And we're going to argue about gay marriage? I mean, that doesn't make any sense."



The other link provided by the OP will take you to a video of Obama's speech in Oregon - not sure if same one referenced in the article or another. Many stories there about Obama's trip to Oregon - and a link to Senator Clinton's admission that she mis-represented the shooting in Bosnia.

[Zuiderelle]

59. I still don't see that he said anything clear. In fact, your quotes make me even more pissed at him

This quote is great. It means that he wants to solve the issue of immigration, but that using it as a wedge issue is not solving anything:

"I mean, think about what these last few election cycles have been about," the Senator said. "We argue about immigration, but we don't try to solve the immigration problem. It's an argument that is all about people's passions instead of trying to figure it out."

But here, he doesn't suggest that the issue of gay marriage needs to be solved. He immediately goes on to what's MORE important, the planet being destroyed:

"We argue about gay marriage. You know, in the meantime the planet is, you know, potentially being destroyed. We've got a war that is bankrupting us. And we're going to argue about gay marriage? I mean, that doesn't make any sense."

How fucking insulting is that? Wow. It doesn't make any sense to argue about gay marriage at all? Doesn't it? For immigration the argument seems worth it to him, but he wants to resolve the issue instead of just arguing. For gay marrige, the argument doesn't even make sense.

He should have said: "We argue about gay marriage, but we don't solve the issue of equality."

It's like he thinks that gay marriage is solely a distraction yet immigration is a problem to be solved.

Fuck that. They are both issues that need resolution. And they are both issues that will ALWAYS be used to divide us until they are resolved.

[Tyo]

66. Exactly

Obama and his supporters persist in calling the issue of gay equality a wedge, a Republican distraction, and as such something we must try to ignore rather than deal with. And the only way they can hope to make that approach work is to try to minimize the issue, to assert that it only gets in the way and diverts us from the real discussion.

The issue of our rights is not something that should be minimized, marginalized, or buried beneath meaningless platitudes any longer. To the extent that this wedge works for the Republicans it works because the Dems let it. They are too cowardly to face the issue straight on and essentially call the Republican bluff. Makes you long for the courage, not to mention common sense, of the Canadians.

[burythehatchet]

65. Oh my. Irony meter busted to pieces.

"I voted for the bill but I hoped it wouldn't pass".
Clear as mud.

[tavalon]

67. Because he is human and so are we

A thousand interpretations can come from one sentence.

I don't believe the state should be involved in ANY marriages. I think it's a glaring example of merging government with religion and I don't like it one bit. Care to parse that one?*

*as an informational aside, my relationship style is even more reviled than yours, so perhaps you could leave the chip at the door?

[Tyo]

68. Since marriage is legal contract and a pretty complicated one

involving among thousands of other things inheritence and often the rights of minor third parties the state has to be involved. It's the religious sanctification of this contract that is optional, as it ought to be, and in which the state has no interest. If you don't want state involvement skip the license and just go to the church and have your union blessed.

[Zuiderelle]

69. I have no chip, and I don't really care about your "relationship style."

If you are straight you can get married and have federal privileges I cannot have. If you have multiple partners (and I can't imagine what else you might be hinting at re. your relationship style), that's an entirely different subject. You can choose one of those people to marry. I don't have any choice.

No, of course the state shouldn't be involved in marriage, and neither should the federal government. But they are, and therefore we are set aside as a separate class of people who cannot obtain those special rights and privileges straight people have.

Yes, a thousand interpretations can come from one sentence, when it's designed to be unclear. And his statements regarding GLBT rights are definitely unclear.

[mondo joe]

93. Civil marriage has jack shit to do with religion. And I can prove it for you:

A religious wedding without the civil functions carries NO legal weight.

A civil marriage without any religious aspect at all carries full legal weight.

[TechBear_Seattle]

114. There is an easier way to drive that point home

Ask, "How many laws govern who may and who may not be ordained as clergy? How many companies give special bonuses to employees who have been baptized? If I want to divorce my current church and join with a different religion, with which government agency do I file the appropriate legal forms?"

If marriage is a religious institution, then EVER LAST LAW that touches upon marriage or allows companies to discriminate with regards to marriage is a violation of the First Amendment and thus illegal and unconstitutional. If these laws are not unconstitutional, then marriage must be a completely civil, non-religious institution, given the First Amendment.

It really is not that difficult a concept.

[Chovexani]

118. That "aside" is really fucking obnoxious.

If you're hinting that you're poly, you're assuming that no one else in this forum is. LGBT relationships come in all flavors and configurations. If you actually hung out here aside from just coming in here with Buzz Clik and the rest of your fan club members to defend your boy, you'd know that. All the polys I know are gay or bi, self included, and several of them lurk and post here.

You're barking up the wrong tree and I suggest you leave YOUR chip at the door.

[plantwomyn]

111. I seem to remember someone else who left things to interpretation.

"Why can't he just speak plainly and clearly?" was asked about him all the time. Maybe Obama is the ONE and is emulating a "parables" way of speaking in his campaign? :rofl:

Isn't it ironic, don't ya think, that Obama supporters want him to be given the benefit of the doubt and posters like cloudythescribbler say: "Obviously because that worst assumption is agenda driven."
Yet ANYTHING said by ANYONE remotely connected to the Clinton campaign is twisted like taffy into racism, bigotry, McCarthyism, blah blah blah.

I am so sick and tried of the double standard I could :puke:

[mitchtv]

117. are you being "petulant"? nt

[Bluenorthwest]

6. I'm not sure which way he means it

And that is in fact how it usually is with Obama on gay issues, he uses a vocabulary that cuts down the middle so it is not clear if he is saying those seeking rights are distracting or the right thing, which is those making a stink about a fair deal for others are doing the distracting.
Benefit of the doubt on such things is impossible, after McClurkin and the refusal to promise no more openly anti-gay rhetoric at his events. He does need to speak clearly on these subjects, and I'm sorry to tell you, many voters are still taking his pulse on this issue, and the clearity of Obama's typical speech needs to be applied to gay issues right away. He has many votes to gain or lose according to the verbiage he selects, lots of people are pouring over ever word. The poetic version that could mean what the listener choses to infer is getting old and tired.
What kind of a people want to spend time preventing equity for fellow citizens while the world falls apart around them? Stop distracting yourselves with the private lives of others that have nothing to do with you and do your own damn job.
Many ways to say it clearly. There must be a reason he keeps being vauge. Had he said what you think he said, clearly, in my very own State, I'd be phone banking right now for him. But he did not. I hope he will. His lexicon has greatly improved over the time of this campaign, but he has a way to go. I do think it is personally difficult for him, and that makes him personally difficult for me. He seems skeeved out. And that skeeves me out. But still, I listen as I have been for months now.

[Creideiki]

17. You mean he *gasp* triangulates?!?

I'm shocked! Shocked, I say!

[blayne]

73. Haha!

I love it! :rofl:

[Donnachaidh]

48. "There must be a reason he keeps being vauge" -- uhh yeah

It's called political bloviation. Emit enough ORAL GAS to confuse everyone on where exactly one stands on a point - allows one to not TRULY take a stand on either side.

Obama is quite the gasbag, especially when it's something he doesn't want to take a stand on. Kinda like those "present" votes he's so fond of using. :shrug:

[Zuiderelle]

7. If he meant "take away" he should have said "take away." Clarity here is important.

I read it the same way. That discussion of gay rights is less important than all the other issues we have to deal with, and that we shouldn't be distracting ourselves with it.

[leftofcool]

3. Obama could care less about gay rights

You O supporters should just deal with it and go on.

[Ian David]

5. Okay...

First Look: Obama's Targeted Texas and Ohio Gay Ad Buy
http://www.towleroad.com/2008/02/exclusive-obama.html

[Zuiderelle]

9. Living up to the promise of equality is not just about dignity and respect.

From the ad: "It's about whether this nation is going to live up to its founding promise of equality by treating all its citizens with dignity and respect."

Living up to the promise of equality is NOT about treating people with dignity and respect, that's only a small part of it. Again, he uses vague language to sound like he's supporting equality, when in fact he is not. He's saying something very obvious, yes, everyone should be treated with dignity and respect. But he is NOT saying that everyone should have equal access to all the same privileges and benefits, whether they be gay or straight. If he did then he would be saying that he supports gay marriage, but he didn't.

[GodlessBiker]

20. Obama, Clinton, and McCain: None of them support marriage equality.

All are open to justified criticism on that point.

[Zuiderelle]

21. And two of them have closed the door completely. Obama for religious reasons.

[GodlessBiker]

27. They all have closed the door.

[Zuiderelle]

30. No, they have not.

I think you need to do some research.

[GodlessBiker]

41. I did. "I put forth my position, which is in favor of civil unions," Clinton said.

"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.

Sounds like Clinton is basing her opposition, in part, to religious reasons, as well.

[Zuiderelle]

43. She said "think" , she didn't say that her religion prevents her from supporting it.

In my view, she left the door open, while still playing political chess.

I don't agree with her statement at all, and I find it supremely insulting in actuality, but it is not as definitive as Obama claiming that his PERSONAL religious views prevent him from supporting gay marriage. She left the door open to society changing. He did not.

I also believe, based on her statements, that civil unions she says she supports would offer the exact same rights as marriages.

[GodlessBiker]

44. So, you're basing your conclusion on the word "think"?

You mean her statement has a different meaning if the words "I think" were dropped?

In response, I can say, "I don't think it does." or "No, it doesn't." Are those two statements different?

"...marriage is as a marriage always has been, between a man and a woman." That says it all.

And by playing political chess, do you mean she is intentionally being vague only to gather votes from both sides? Isn't that what you accuse Obama of doing?

[Zuiderelle]

45. To answer your questions:

"In response, I can say, "I don't think it does." or "No, it doesn't." Are those two statements different?"

Of course those two statements are COMPLETELY different.

"And by playing political chess, do you mean she is intentionally being vague only to gather votes from both sides? Isn't that what you accuse Obama of doing?"

Obama started out making it a religious issue. So now his attempts to pretend that he DOES support equality, even though he has specifically claimed that he does not, will be more closely scrutinized by me and by others who are affected by this particular HUGE issue.

And then, I'm also not particularly comfortable electing a president who uses religion for making making policy.

[tedrick8]

121. Here's a link to Obama's Open Letter to the Gay community. Hope it helps.

Here's a link to Obama's Open Letter to the Gay community. Hope it helps.

Also note, Bill Clinton claimed his support of DOMA was "for our own good" to keep some states like Utah from having to recognize gay marriages in Mass. and curb the need for a federal Marriage amendment. Given that several Kerry aids still say that Bill approached them and told them to throw the gays under the bus, I think it has more to do with political expediency.

I just looked up Hillary's involvement and she claims to be one of the architects of DOMA. My question for her would be if you don't want discrimination enshrined in the constitution, why would you enshrine discrimination in the law itself? I would think that now there is virtually no threat of a Federal Marriage Amendment she would divest herself of DOMA. But with her its all about expediency.

Also given Hillary's religious proclivities and membership in a prayer "cell" with a bunch of right-wing wack-aloons I think any support is dubious at best.

http://www.motherjones.com/cgi-bin/print_article.pl?url=http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2007/09/hillarys-prayer.html

Hope this helps you guys.

http://365gay.com/Newscon08/02/022808letter.html

Obama Courts Gay Vote
by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff

Posted: February 28, 2008 - 12:00 pm ET

(Washington) Democratic presidential frontrunner Barack Obama appealed for support Thursday from the LGBT community but maintained his opposition to same-sex marriage, preferring instead civil unions.

In what his campaign called an open letter to the gay community Obama touted his support for passage of the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Act and an inclusive ENDA.

"In the U.S. Senate, I have co-sponsored bills that would equalize tax treatment for same-sex couples and provide benefits to domestic partners of federal employees," the letter said.

"And as president, I will place the weight of my administration behind the enactment of the Matthew Shepard Act to outlaw hate crimes and a fully inclusive Employment Non-Discrimination Act to outlaw workplace discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.

The letter goes on to say that if elected president he would use the bully pulpit "to urge states to treat same-sex couples with full equality in their family and adoption laws."

But he also said "I personally believe that civil unions represent the best way to secure that equal treatment."

In the letter Obama said that "I also believe that the federal government should not stand in the way of states that want to decide on their own how best to pursue equality for gay and lesbian couples — whether that means a domestic partnership, a civil union, or a civil marriage."

And he said that "Unlike Senator Clinton, I support the complete repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) – a position I have held since before arriving in the U.S. Senate."

"While some say we should repeal only part of the law, I believe we should get rid of that statute altogether. Federal law should not discriminate in any way against gay and lesbian couples, which is precisely what DOMA does.

Obama also said that he supports the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.

"The next president must also address the HIV/AIDS epidemic," the letter said.

"When it comes to prevention, we do not have to choose between values and science. While abstinence education should be part of any strategy, we also need to use common sense. We should have age-appropriate sex education that includes information about contraception."

The open letter was released as Obama prepares to run ads in four major LGBT newspapers in Texas and Ohio in advance of Democratic Party primaries.

Gays criticized Obama last October for using gospel singer Donnie McClurkin, who says homosexuality is a choice, during the campaign in South Carolina.

McClurkin is a Grammy Award winner who performed at the Republican National Convention in 2004. He told AP Radio in an interview that September that he was "once involved with those desires and those thoughts," but God turned him away from them.

A large number of gay activists have supported Sen. Clinton's bid for the Democratic nomination. As support for Obama grows Thursday's letter is seen as an attempt to get many of those to swing over to support his campaign.

©365Gay.com 2008

[Zuiderelle]

122. "Hope this helps you guys." You guys?

Us homosexuals? Gee, thanks, I guess you think we haven't read that yet. I guess you think we guys are speaking out of our asses. There is NOTHING in his letter that claims that he supports equality... EQUALITY... for us guys. He leaves everything to someone else. States. I'm tired of him pandering for our votes without offering us real respect.

[tedrick8]

123. OMG PelosiFan and you guys-

Actually, I meant with the discussion. I'm gay. You're very sensitive! By the way pandering, Bill threw us under the bus the second he could and would do so again.
Do you think that Hillary would withdraw support for DOMA now that there is no chance of a Federal Marriage Amendment? I'm asking a polite question about your candidates position?

By the way PelosiFan, what's your view on Pelosi's statements that the Superdelegates should reflect the will of the people. And Clinton's donors threatening Pelosi and putting the congressional majority in danger?

[Zuiderelle]

125. Keeping on topic, Barack Obama said nothing about equality for gay Americans.

Nothing.

[Creideiki]

126. Fruit salad

You want to mix apples and oranges, I can help with that.

DADT came from conservative Democrats led by Sam Nunn. The act of attempting to integrate the military severely hurt Clinton's presidency--not that "we're to blame", but he made several courageous stands and expended political capital on us.

I think DOMA will be repealed by the next Congress and Clinton would sign it. I think Obama would veto from the right as he triangulates his way into the hearts of social conservatives. While Obama did sponsor the ENDA in Illinois as a senator, that was part of the Democratic party platform when Blagovejich (Most difficult name ever, btw) was elected governor. Amy Madigan, the Democratic Attorney General, and Judy Barr-Topinka, the Republican Treasurer, both supported ENDA more strongly than anyone else. It was going to happen as soon as the Democrats took control of the state legislature--the previous Governor Ryan, another Republican, would have signed it also, if it came to him.

So moving from that, Illinois still has a DOMA. Obama couldn't be bothered--while he was signing his name as sponsor to every piece of legislation that the Democratic Senate Majority Leader was throwing at him to buff up his resume for a run at the US Senate--to bring about a repeal of that. So why is it reasonable to assume that he'd throw political capital at repealing the Federal DOMA when he wouldn't throw it at repealing the Illinois DOMA?

I know it's common to describe Obama as an "Empty Suit". I think that's a kind reading. I think gay people make him feel ooky.

[LostinVA]

127. If you're gay, I'm the Queen of England

[tedrick8]

130. Hi LostinVA! Queen is too much responsibility, be a princess! :-)

[Iceburg]

124. Feb 4 Hillarys letter to GLBT; Feb 28 Barack's letter to GLBT -- leader or follower

A Message to LGBT Americans: “I Want to be Your President”
February 4, 2008 - 12:52pm — editor
On the eve of Super Tuesday, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton offers up a message of support for the LGBT community. Read the New York Senator's guest post below

http://www.ourchart.com/node/299303

More than 3 weeks pass before Obama comes to the realization that -- gee she might be on to something -- I had better do it too.
http://365gay.com/Newscon08/02/022808letter.html


Whether the issue is getting out of Iraq, health care, the economy or GLBT rights, Barack has a most annoying habit of following Hillary's lead AFTER a 2 or 3 week delay and then presenting a position that is essentially the same as Hillary's. Clearly one candidate is the real deal, the other a ____?

[tedrick8]

128. Thanks Dinkledog & Iceburg!

I really appreciate writing to me! I agree that Obama stepped in it with McClurkin and didn't realize how bad it was. He said he'd repeal DOMA and the military ban and I take him at his word. I do understand how other wouldn't though. Sorry though, Hillary creeps me out. (This is off of gay topics.) The secret prayer meetings and meeting with Richard Mellon Scaife. Sorry but if I met with the man that got my husband impeached it would be to put my boot up his butt. She meets with too many creepy people, Roger Ailes, etc. and cuts too many deals. I also think she could be doing more to keep the party together, right now. It seems like she's too ready to cut black voters loose. For me putting all of that together, it means I wouldn't trust her on gay issues either.

PelosiFan- Love to know what you think of Nancy and the Clinton doners? Have you already posted on that, maybe you can direct me.

[blayne]

72. He does love us after all!!!

snip-

Full-page ads will appear starting this Friday in Outlook Weekly of Columbus, the Gay People's Chronicle of Cleveland, the Dallas Voice, and OutSmart, which is Houston-based. Buying a full-page four-color ad that appears one time typically costs anywhere between $1,000 and $2,000 in weekly publications. In the Gay People's Chronicle, for instance, the ad cost about $850, according to the paper's advertising manager; the same ad went for about $1,500 in the Dallas Voice...

Wow! That must have cost him like several thousands of dollars! How did he ever find the money to patronize us?

[Ian David]

88. Your shiny happy optimism is overwhelming. n/t

[blayne]

90. I'm all for him, but that ad buy didn't mean he was committed to our cause.

Lets say he spent as much as $20,000 on those ads.

$20,000 is what % out of his $55,000,000 in February donations?

0.00036%

He can throw money at any group he choses, but that is a pretty paltry amount to throw at us. Don't get me wrong. I think he is the one to beat, and I think he's the one that will turn this country around. I really can't wait, but I just hope he doesn't turn his back on us when he is running the show.

[Creideiki]

92. How many times have I heard

Lefty radio hosts berating people for voting against their own self-interest?

He's got a lot of ground to make up with me before I do that.

[Ian David]

95. Obama came to my house and gave me a foot rub. n/t

[Creideiki]

100. Hey, now for a foot rub...

[Ian David]

94. Very good points. However...

Only 10% of the population says having a pro-gay stance makes them more likely to vote for a candidate.

40% of the population says having a pro-gay stance makes them LESS likely to vote for a candidate.

With that ad buy, Obama has shown that he's willing to take a net loss of 30% for his principals.

[Tyo]

96. How many straights are going to be picking up gay mags?

How many straights are even going to know those ads exist?

[Ian David]

99. Anti-gay activists spend more time reading gay magazines than any gay person you know.

And then they dutifully report to their anti-gay constituents what they should be outraged by.

[Tyo]

101. If their constituents are already seriously anti-gay

they are probably Bushian Fundies for the most part who wouldn't be interested in voting for Obama or any other Democrat anyway, especially now that Grampy McC is all chummy with the Christian RW.

[Zuiderelle]

97. Aren't those numbers actually for pro-gay-marriage and not just pro-gay?

In which case, he didn't do a damn thing to risk anything, since he is NOT pro-gay-marriage, and didn't even mention marriage in the ad?

[Ian David]

98. Those are the figures available somewhere in google-land for being endorsed by gay rights groups.nt

[Zuiderelle]

108. LOL! Somewhere in google-land. That's rich.

[mondo joe]

104. In fact there was no risk. The majority polled said it made no difference

to their vote. The no difference combined with those who see such endorsements as a positive far outweigh those who see it as a negative.

[Creideiki]

102. So 10% of the population in a demographic that votes more regularly

As opposed to losing 40% of a demographic that doesn't. And how much of that 40% would be unlikely to vote for a Democrat of any stripe?

One of the strongest trump cards we hold as a community is that we have an extremely high voter turnout rate.

Another way to look at this is that it's showing yet another instance of Triangulation. Isn't that supposed to be one of the reasons that Barack is better than Hillary? (Makes me wish for Edwards back all the more.)

[mondo joe]

103. You could use a bit of work on presenting the facts.

In truth, one survey (http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x2882.xml?ReleaseID=1089) found:

18. If a presidential candidate is supported by - gay rights groups, does that make you more likely to vote for that candidate, less likely to vote for that candidate, or doesn't it make a difference?




And of that % turned off, how many do you think are likely to vote for the Dem to begin with?

No, this was not a bold or risky move - it was an effort to cut into Clinton's GLBT support at little or no risk in the GE.

[Ian David]

105. Point well-taken. n/t

[blayne]

109. I agree with the first part of what you said.

I am not going to be voting for Hillary or Obama based on their gay stance alone if at all. But as to Obama taking a hit due to the ad buy, I don't think that is the case because the ad buy was so small and focused. So I guess the 0.00036% of his February haul was just the right amount to spend after all. And I wasn't being sarcastic.

[Ian David]

115. You said "Gay Stance." Duh huh. Huh huh.

[blayne]

119. haha

I love it!

[mitchtv]

106. The audacity of hope

Keep hoping

[IntravenousDemilo]

120. Of course, it would have been much more meaningful...

...if he'd put the ads in the Columbus Morning News, the Cleveland Plain Dealer, the Dallas Morning News, and the Houston Chronicle.

But then, straight people read those.

[plantwomyn]

110. NO!

It's about whether this nation is going to live up to it's founding promise of equality by treating all it's citizens EQUALY!
I don't give a fuck if they respect me. I'm not even all that sure I deserve to be treated with dignity sometimes. But I am a citizen of the United States of America and I demand EQUAL TREATMENT OF THE LAW.

[TechBear_Seattle]

14. No, he could not care less n/t

[Iceburg]

86. --

[closeupready]

8. I have concerns about Obama's commitment to the GLBT community, but

I don't think your interpretation of what he said is correct. Remember it was Bush who made a point of holding several press conferences to speak out in opposition to gay marriage despite the fact that there was all this other life/death stuff going on that a president is supposed to spend time on. I think he was suggesting that in an Obama White House, there is going to be a focus on getting out of Iraq and saving the planet.

[Zuiderelle]

10. It's too bad we have to "interpret" everything he says on the subject.

Nothing he says is ever clear regarding gay rights. He's a very smart man. I'm sure it's intentional. God forbid that he make any promises to us that might hurt his campaign. I'd respect him more if he would just admit that.

[Tyo]

13. Ahhh... Thank you

Buried under all the warm and fuzzies is the actual policy. And that policy would be to leave the issue of equality for millions of Americans up to the individual states to address or not as they choose. No national policy, no portability of rights, assuming that there are any rights to begin with. And in his view, no marriage. Just state laws. He's really going to the mat for us isn't he?

[insleeforprez]

11. I think Obama expressed himself more clearly here.

What he meant to say (I believe), is "demonizing gay people is a distraction that the GOP uses." He should have phrased it like that.

[insleeforprez]

26. (important typo) "could have expressed himself..."

That's what happens when you wake up at 6 am to watch baseball...

[Cherchez la Femme]

77. Shoulda Woulda Coulda

Didn't.

[TechBear_Seattle]

12. Your commentary is excellent. Glad to K & R

And I hope others will also recommend, as getting this to the Greatest Page is the only way that MAYBE someone will start listening.

Edited for clarity.

[Zuiderelle]

15. Good suggestion. I added mine.

[kdpeters]

52. I don't see the word "for" in Obama's speech

Would you be a dear and point it out.

[terrya]

16. Recommended.

[Ian_rd]

18. Dumbest post of the day.

No - it's not too early to say that. Obama is clearly talking about the election year tactic by the right-wing to bring up bills to ban gay marriage to ... wait for it ... DISTRACT the public from things like the war, economy, etc. Do you honestly not understand this? Really.

[Zuiderelle]

22. Yes, I agree. Yours IS the dumbest post of the day.

[Ian_rd]

29. I have no defense from such biting debate skill.

I'm rubber, your glue ... :rofl:

[Zuiderelle]

31. I only answered on your level.

I tend to do that with children and people who use the language of children.

[Ian_rd]

33. Please no more! I'm defenseless!

:rofl: Uhh uhhh ... poopy face! Take that!



I've been bested. I hang my head in shame.

[Zuiderelle]

35. Please stop condescending to us.

[Ian_rd]

38. Hey, if we're back to speaking intelligently, then I'm all for it.

[terrya]

24. Oh, ok, got it. We'll just shut the fuck up and wait like good boys and girls.

For the heteros in power to decide when we should get equality.

Got it. Message received. Same bullshit as the last 30 fucking years.

[Zuiderelle]

25. We are just a distraction from important issues.

Par for the course. Every four years we move to the back. And there are always "more important" issues that will supercede our civil rights.

[TomBall Democrat]

58. Sorry, friend but it seems like you're splitting hairs here

And determined to divide.

Please consider whether the folks here in this board are really the enemy.

I think not.

[Zuiderelle]

60. Excuse me, friend? Splitting hairs? Some folks here ARE enemies to equality.

Or don't you actually read stuff here?

[Ian_rd]

28. You have the same basic comprehension problems as the OP

Obama was referring to the Right's use of banning gay marriage as a distraction, what they've done for several years and will do again. It's the same with flag-burning.

Just calm down and use your head. We're only forced to talk about gay marriage when the Republicans try to bring it up as a distraction. There is nothing in federal law preventing you from marrying a person of the same sex, so complaining that you have to wait for the "heteros" to decide that you have equality is ridiculous. You already have it. It's the Republicans trying to take it away from you, again, as a distraction.

[Zuiderelle]

34. Right, nothing preventing us from marrying. What country do you think we live in?

In America, there is EVERYTHING preventing us from getting married. I can't believe you are really that ignorant on the issue.

Yet another condescending post from an straight person who takes his/her rights for granted... in the GLBT forum. Nice.

[Ian_rd]

37. Don't run home to momma and cry "you hate gays!"

Try to think. Try to address the issue. There are gay people getting married right now in this country because there is no federal law preventing it.

[Zuiderelle]

39. You can get married. And that marriage will mean something FEDERALLY.

I can get married, and it will mean NOTHING federally.

Since you have trouble conversing as an adult, I'll be ignoring you now.

[Creideiki]

50. There can be no federal law prohibiting religious recognition of relationships

That's clearly up to the discretion of the various churches.

However, the civil rights that go along with that religious recognition that heterosexual couples enjoy if they choose are denied.

And all this because some straight people find us "icky" and "disapprove of the relationship" that same-sex couples have. I'll allow this on one condition--allow me to decide which heterosexual couples' relationships I can disapprove of and strip those marriages of their civil rights. Maybe every single relationship in the country should end up requiring unanimous approval in order to gain those rights. It would really be one way to abolish marriage as a civil institution in the country.

[mondo joe]

74. What an ignorant post. There is only ONE state in the US marrying same sex couples,

which provides only the rights of that state, not the federal rights. And other states have established they will not marry same sex couples or recognize such marriages from other states.

[Tyo]

61. "We are only forced to talk about gay marriage...

when the Republicans try to bring it up as a distraction."

"Forced" to talk about it. So if the Republicans would only quit bringing it up as a distraction from... what? The real issues? Then we wouldn't have to address it all and we could concentrate on the important stuff and life would be good. The issue of our equality needs to be put on ice until all the other stuff is fixed and then we'll see. That's what it seems to me like you are saying and whatever the spin you put on it that's what I think Obama was saying too.

Rather than be forced to talk about it when the Republicans bring it up, how about we bring it up ourselves and force the Republicans to deal with it? I view it as a civil rights issue, an extension of the struggles of the '50s and '60s and every bit as important. That the Dems in those days were able to stand on principle in times that were as uncertain and dangerous as our own places them in stark contrast for me to the Democrats of today, at least the ones who are vying for the right to lead us.

[LostinVA]

89. Do you honestly believe there's equality for GLBT people in the US?

Are you that dense? In most states, you can be FIRED for being gay. Nevermind the fact that gays can't get married in most places. And where we can get married, it's not recognized by the federal government.

The Republicans can't take away something we've never had. And we should talk about gay marriage, WITHOUT being forced.

It's bad enough when straight people lecture us on all the straights we're too stupid to collect, but to do it in the GLBT forum is just sickening.

[mitchtv]

70. Funny, what I took away from that post was

That there are a lot more important issues.And that's about it. "Interpret" all you wish, that's what he said.

[elias7]

40. You've misinterpreted. If you K&R, you'll be embarrassed even more

[Ian_rd]

42. This is past ridiculous.

Anything spoken by Obama or people he knows that could possibly be twisted or misinterpreted - no matter how strenuously - no matter how nonsensically - gets piled on by Hillary supporters with desperate RECs.

"That's it! We finally got him! No, shut up, I don't care what he meant! Hillary, Hillary, Hillary!"

[mitchtv]

71. Strait man tells us what's what

Been there heard that

[Ian_rd]

80. Hollow insult. Predictable. I've seen nothing else from the Hillary camp for weeks. nt.

[Tyo]

82. I can only speak for myself here

But the assumption by the Obama folks that any criticism of the Anointed One makes you a rabid Clintonite seems a little Bushian to me and in my case it's not at all true. So when Obama becomes president will we allowed to criticize him then?

[mitchtv]

116. Hardly an insult

more like a dismissal.Clinton is my second to the last choice

[baby_mouse]

129. Nah, see, its Obama we're discussing.

Not Hillary. Nice try, though.

[hiphopnation]

46. and so where does he say it's a "distraction"

or is the title of your thread intentionally misleading? :shrug:

[kdpeters]

47. You are mistaken. He is saying that the fight AGAINST our civil rights is a distraction.

Consider the Republican pushed 2004 and 2006 votes on the Federal Marriage Amendment knowing there'd be no chance to pass either time. Distraction or an issue of severe urgency facing America? I say distraction. Barack is right. You disagree?

[TechBear_Seattle]

51. I don't see the word "against" in Obama's speech.

Would you be a dear and point it out to us?

[kdpeters]

53. You heard me, Mary. I said what I meant.

If you don't understand something I said, you may ask me a question in good faith and I will answer in good faith. If you want to see which of us is the bitchier queen, then I concede upfront. You win.

[TechBear_Seattle]

54. I'm not the one clutching my pearls and hyperventilating

The jury is still out about the Bitchiest Queen title, but no one can hold a candle to you in the Drama category.

[plantwomyn]

112. Exactly

"You heard me, Mary. I said what I meant." And so did Sen.Obama.
"Distraction or an issue of severe urgency facing America? I say distraction. Barack is right."
And what you are agreeing with "Barack" about is that FULL EQUALITY FOR ALL CITIZENS is a distraction.

Tyo made the point very well.
In the 1960's FULL EQUALITY for Black Americans was "an issue of severe urgency facing America" even though the shit was hitting the fan all over the world.
In 2000's it's FULL EQUALITY for Gay Americans and Sen. Obama is ADMITTING he can't or won't handle a CIVIL RIGHTS issue along with all the other shit.

[kdpeters]

131. Agree and disagree.

"You heard me, Mary. I said what I meant."

Just to be clear, the tone of that post was in response to the patronizing condescension of the other poster I was responding to. You haven't and I appreciate it, but I just want to be explicit as to where the attitude toward the previous poster was coming from in case that wasn't obvious.

And what you are agreeing with "Barack" about is that FULL EQUALITY FOR ALL CITIZENS is a distraction.

That's not what I'm saying and I feel certain that I understand what Obama is saying and that's not it at all.

For those of us so personally and so tremendously impacted, of course it makes sense to fight for our own equal access and equal treatment under the law. For the vast majority of America, the issue of gay marriage is of absolutely no consequence. It doesn't make any sense for them to place such a high priority on preventing gay marriage but especially in juxtaposition to critical issues with such dire personal consequences for all of us as climate change and the war in Iraq. It makes no sense.

In the 1960's FULL EQUALITY for Black Americans was "an issue of severe urgency facing America" even though the shit was hitting the fan all over the world.

In 2000's it's FULL EQUALITY for Gay Americans

Agreed. And like those southern Dixiecrats whose racism led them to vote Republican against everything in their own best interests, so too are many people voting Republican today against everything in their own best interests because of homophobia. It didn't make sense then. It doesn't make sense now.

Sen. Obama is ADMITTING he can't or won't handle a CIVIL RIGHTS issue along with all the other shit.

Again, we agree. I don't find that so much offensive as I do refreshingly honest. John Edwards basically said the same thing and I appreciated his honesty and candor and the courage it took to say so knowing how personally we'd take it. I prefer integrity to pandering.

I'm OK with that. Call me cynical, but all three of them were better than I was expecting from them. Kucinich and Gravel really get it, but look what it got them. Mostly what we need from the president is to appoint fair judges and otherwise stay out of our way. It's the grassroots, the courts, and most importantly, the GLBT community fighting for our own rights who will bring about change. Frankly, I think anyone who places any sort of priority on preventing gay marriage is a nut and that the Republicans do indeed raise the issue as a distraction.

[Creideiki]

132. If Blue Collar Republicans voting against their own self-interest is bad

why would Gay Democrats voting against their own self-interest be a good thing?

Barack's had chances. Aside from ENDA which would have steamrolled him if he hadn't "supported" it, what has he done? His Logo/Visible Vote Debate appearance was pathetic. His Illinois Senate experience is pathetic. His US Senate record is hardly inspiring.

I'm really lucky. Colorado (Denver in particular) has some good local/state choices, but at the federal level, it's looking piss-poor. Hillary gets my extremely weak support only because, as a member of the military during the 90s, I understand how much political capital Bill expended--and the accusations were flying then that he was only doing it to satisfy her. So which one is more likely to "Triangulate" against us--Hillary or Barack?

[kdpeters]

133. I think they're both equally unimpressive on our issues

And I'm OK with that. Like I said, I never was looking for a leader on these issues in a president. I started out with John Edwards and he was no better than Obama on these issues. Neither Clinton nor Obama will lead on our issues, but neither one will throw roadblocks in our path. Both will appoint fair judges. That really should be what we are most concerned about in my opinion. There isn't much separating the two on GLBT issues so it makes sense to me that those wouldn't be the deciding factors even for us gay people. I came to my decision based on other factors, but I'm still confident that an Obama presidency will be good for GLBT issues and not detrimental.

[MuseRider]

49. I'm not certain exactly

what he meant here and that pisses me off so much about him. It is as if he himself is using you as a distraction only to keep you listening and hoping (not raising hell) for something I doubt he has any intention of ever considering (but he might, keep listening and hoping :eyes:), after all there are too many important things going on.

The only response to these kinds of things is to make noise. LOTS of noise. However you plan on doing it, go for it. Whatever you think up to do, go for it. Unfortunately we can make all the noise we want and no one in our government will listen. We have to take this back to the people and as difficult as that is we must do it. We (you, I always forget, can I say we?) have more support than we are hearing about. It will take lots of people like me standing up loudly and all of you doing the same. We have been doing it for years and slowly it is getting a little better but a little better is almost patronizing and I am tired of it myself. We need all better.

Why can't the man just come out and say what he means? Oh yes, he is trying to get elected on that pretty smile, hope (for some) and the ability to deliver a well written speech. These days that seems to be all that counts.

[mitchtv]

62. Don't worry, his fans and followers are able to interpret

anything he says to fit all their hopes and dreams.I Know he will do nothing for us. that's my interpretation. Just another slimy politician.

[MuseRider]

75. Yes, they are getting very good at it

lots of practice I guess. I am so very sad and disappointed, as you and many others are. At my age I would love to be able to vote for someone I am actually excited about. I am finally realizing that that will most likely never happen.

We will just have to work all that much harder and probably at city, county and state levels for another long while before anything gets done. We are having small successes and it is gratifying and we are now being respected in the halls of our state congress by both parties. I don't know if that kind of thing will ever transfer to a federal level. At least we know it won't as long as there are spineless candidates who are more worried about themselves and their jobs than about doing the right thing, even if it costs them. I think candidates like Dennis Kucinich are very much interested in getting elected but I also think they know the value of standing in the national spotlight and standing up for the truth and all the things we think we are and are not. I wish there were more of them and that they were not so easily pushed aside by the media and especially by the parties. Man does it suck to say that.

Maybe while the supporters are all in their worshipful stupor we can sneak some stuff by them?

[Tyo]

76. Well we need to be fair here...

While he agrees with the Fundies that we shouldn't be allowed to marry, he has told them that they really ought to think about maybe being nicer to us. By God, it was that kind of spirit that made couples like his parents legal in Alabama. I can not wait to vote for this man.

[TechBear_Seattle]

81. And he used the cant of the "ex-gay" movement to do so

You know, hate the sin but love the sinner, gay people are merely misguided and not inherently wicked, etc. I would not call that "being nice."

[Tyo]

83. I guess it's all relative, isn't it?

Apparently it's nice enough for the Obama folks to believe and expect us to believe as well that the God Obama is somehow going to work for real change for gays rather than simply scoop up as many of our votes as he can and then kiss us good bye.

[hulklogan]

63. Obama's statement relies on the idea that all 300 million people in this country

can only concentrate on one issue at a time. There is no reason why we can't deal with global warming AND terrorism AND poverty AND the economy AND civil rights at the same time.

It's ridiculous, it's misleading, and it shows once again that Senator Barack Obama has no clue about GLBT issues no matter what his devotees say.

[Maven]

64. Thanks for posting this in full although predictably it's turned into an episode of W.O.R.M.

It doesn't matter what he does or says; there's always an "interpretation" to be had.

K/R

[Cherchez la Femme]

78. Then he ought to speak clearly

and say exactly what he means instead of beating around the bush.
...and people bitch about Hillary's triangulation -- Barry O is no different, in fact I'd rather have Hillary's tactic over deliberate vagueness
--at least you have something concrete.

Al Gore, why? Why why why must you 'fall out of love with politics' now? :cry:
Don't you think you can do much more about Global Warming --and much more!-- by becoming POTUS instead of giving slide shows?
(albeit Nobel Prize winning slide shows)

Although the next presidency will be blamed --if Democrat of course (crossed fingers, toes and knock-on-wood)-- for all the current and future travesties those evil fuckers in the White House have concocted; and that includes the deliberate land mines and traps they've laid for the next pres, no matter WHAT party.

What nice guys. Go suck up and cuddle with Teh Decider some more, McSame, see where it gets you

other than laughed at. Deservedly.

[donheld]

79. Bullshit

[TechBear_Seattle]

84. Thank you for your insightful and well-reasoned rebuttal.

:eyes:

[plantwomyn]

113. Ya, deep thinker there.

nt

[mondo joe]

85. Thank you Tyo. It is ever more clear what a minor issue equal cvil rghts are to 0bama.

At least where GLBT equality is concerned.

[Iceburg]

87. If Obama really cared about gay rights he would have used his speech

on discrimination and civil rights (largely a history lesson meant to excuse his mentors vitriol) to highlight the fact that the only group in America that is being actively discrimated against today through overt denial of civil rights are the GLBT community. The fact that he did not choose to make that connection speaks loud and clear.

[Iggo]

91. Civil rights is a wedge issue now?

And you guys thought you were supporting a black man for president...lol.

Jeebus H. Kee-ryst!

[TechBear_Seattle]

107. You see that attitude a lot

"I've got mine, so shut up and stop whining about yours, I'm sick of having to listen."