there are degrees of homophobia and racism

[dsc]

If you oppose marriage equality you are a homophobe and if you oppose interracial marriage you are a racist. That is true if your name is Obama, Clinton, or my dad in the case of marriage equality. It doesn't make you the second coming of Phelps or Michael Savage. It doesn't mean you can't otherwise treat gay people well. My dad was nothing short of terrific to me. For a man who was a triple letter athlete in high school and got an offer to play baseball to raise a son with no athletic talent or interest must have been like raising an alien. But he let me know he loved me even when I told him I was gay and even as I became an alcoholic. He was and is a great man, but he is, on the issue of marriage, a homophobe as much as I hate to say it. I am certainly not going to give politicians slack I won't give my own family.

I hope that Obama changes his mind so that we will have a better chance of having marriage equality. I hope my dad's mind changes if I ever find a man to marry, and I know my dad would support me, even in thinking marriage is only for a man and a woman. Honestly, I can't think I am the only gay poster tired of being told that straight Obama supporters know more about homophobia than we do.

[AndyA]

1. I expect Obama to be more sensitive to issues of discrimination because he has

no doubt experienced them during his lifetime.

But just the same as he wouldn't have wanted to be told, "You can't run for President because you're black, but you can be a Senator..." gay people shouldn't be told, "You can't get married, but you can have a civil union..."

There is a difference, and he should know better.

[Karenina]

25. THAT is an unrealistic expectation. n/t

[ruggerson]

30. curious as to why you feel that way

n/t

[Karenina]

38. That has been my observation.

Being the target of discrimination rarely seems to prevent people from discriminating. :shrug: It's sad...

[ruggerson]

47. I might be wrong

but I think Obama has mentioned that in many states in the union at the time, his own parents marriage would have been illegal. This was in the context of a discussion about marriage equality. So, we know that, intellectually at least, he connects the dots. Now we just have to convince him that taking a stand for marriage equality is not going to doom him politically.

[Number23]

32. How very, very interesting. At least you come out and admit it

he should know better.

Who says only Repubs hold people to different standards based solely on their skin color??

[ruggerson]

33. I know I give a lot of thought to what women and minorities face in America

and it's largley because I'm gay. I've spent my whole life as a second class person legally and that has made me sensitive to others who face similar obstacles. I can never know what it's like to be a woman or a Latino in this country, but by virtue of my own genetic happenstance, I am a bit more attuned to and aware of what they go through on a day to day basis.

[Number23]

34. That's nice.

[ruggerson]

35. thank you

[Number23]

49. Well, I was hoping the person I responded to in this post would respond back

but that's okay that he didn't.

It also would have been nice if the response I DID get didn't sound as though it was written by Tolkien himself but that may be too much to ask around here these days.

[dsc]

46. It really is an unrealistic expectation

the evidence suggests so. There are, sadly, gays who are racist and equally sadly there are blacks who are homophobic. There is some evidence that gays are less likely to be racist (at least in voting patterns and living patterns) but that doesn't mean gays aren't racist at all. Polls show blacks to vote about the same as or slightly worse than the public overall on gay issues, conversely black politicians have tended to be greater supporters of our cause than typical politicians. It would be nice if Obama were say John Lewis on this issue but he isn't.

[ruggerson]

2. the fact that this is getting un-recd in a putatively progressive forum

speaks volumes.

[ProSense]

4. Obama holds the same exact position he did when he ran for President.

The same position Hillary ran on.

Why was there no one hounding both calling them homophobes? Wouldn't that have been the time to put Hillary and Obama on the spot? You know why that didn't happen? People seemed to comfortably accept Hillary's position.

The President has his personal opinion and he doesn't let it get in the way of policy. He has will sign the repeal of DOMA.

The constant namecalling directed at the President isn't going to speed the repeal. Congress has to act.

[dsc]

5. I did call him one back then too

you can check if you want.

[ClarkUSA]

19. Did you call Hillary a homophobe "back then" too? She has always been against gay marriage.

I don't recall any such accusation then or now.

[dsc]

26. yes though it was when asked not directly

no I am not going to spend time searching for it so you can call me a liar or whatever, but I was directly honest during the primaries that I thought her marriage position was both wrong and anti gay. I was originally a Richardson supporter and then an Edwards supporter prior to settling on Hillary. I was aware that none of their marriage positions was what I wanted and admitted it at the time. Once the nomination fight was over, I pretty much shut up about any issues due to the rules here.

[Drunken Irishman]

37. dsc, you were a big Howard Dean supporter in 02/03 and I don't ever recall you calling him one.

[dsc]

39. at the time there were virtually no politicians who supported marriage

he was on the cutting edge at the time and supported marriage before 2008. Though, he was likely a little homophobic at the time.

[ruggerson]

8. There was lots of discussion expressing displeasure at both candidates stance on marriage equality

As far as Obama being supportive of marriage equality today - he still isn't.

You conflate his words promising he would sign a repeal of DOMA with being supportive of marriage equality.

You write: "The President has his personal opinion and he doesn't let it get in the way of policy"

That is not accurate. He has said that he opposes civil marriage for same sex couples. Instead, he supports civil unions. This gives ammunition to rightwingers who want to bash us. Fiorina, in her debate with Boxer, cited Obama's position against marriage equality as being the same as her own. She used the President's language to give her cover for her own bigotry. The pro-Prop 8 people did the same thing, using Obama's language, in their campaign.

The President needs to change his position on marriage equality. He is out of step with his own party.

Separately from that, if Obama was so committed to repealing DOMA, why hasn't he proposed legislation to do exactly that or at least endorsed Nadler's bill? He has done neither.

[ProSense]

10. Really?

"You conflate his words promising he would sign a repeal of DOMA with being supportive of marriage equality."

I did no such thing. His personal opinion has nothing to do with his position on repealing DOMA, which he has pledged to do.

The President has done nothing to stand in the way of marriage equality. His only relevant action will be to repeal DOMA.

"Separately from that, if Obama was so committed to repealing DOMA, why hasn't he proposed legislation to do exactly that or at least endorsed Nadler's bill? He has done neither."

There is a bill in Congress and the President supports it.

[ruggerson]

11. If "the President has done nothing to stand in the way of marriage equality"

why did he reiterate his position *against* marriage equality the day Prop 8 was struck down by Judge Walker?

[ProSense]

12. Did he object to the ruling?

Support repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)

This is an active issue.

[ruggerson]

13. He reiterated his opposition to marriage equality

He's on the wrong side of history, ProSense.

He needs to change his position.

[ProSense]

15. Yes,

he needs to change his position, but again his personal opinion has not deterred him in his commitment to repeal DOMA. His personal opinion is something he will need to come to grips with.

The fact is that there are many ways to push for action from the White House and Congress, but I sincerely doubt namecalling is going to accomplish much.

There is an article in Newsweek charging the President with "moral cowardice." As I said, this is a position he held throughout the primary. The President is pushing for civil rights progress on many fronts, and it's absolutely ridiculous to equate his actions thus far with cowardice.

[polmaven]

24. There is a difference

between "opinion" and "position".

[jenmito]

16. Obama's against Prop 8. n/t

[Bluenorthwest]

18. Not only did I call him out for it, and for the McClurkin slanders

I detailed the likely set of slanders that the right would launch against him, and pointed out that he was going to have a hard time countering hateful invective if he was going to employ it, and have a hard time being accepted by those intolerant to difference if he hiself was going to be intolerant. I was told here on DU that he no longer needed gay people, because the 'faith community' had his back, and also 'Obamacans' which back then were mythic Republilcans who were strong Obama supporters.
Of course now y'all want teh gay to forgive and forget and pretend Obama is not the homophobe he has been since the primary. But he is. If you don't like that, tell him.

[IndianaGreen]

7. We saw a lot of homophia on this board back in 2004

They may not be waving signs saying "God Hates Fags," but the message is the same: STFU and go hide under a rock!

[totodeinhere]

17. Well, I think that we can support full equality for gays including marriage rights,

yet object to labeling Obama a homophobe. Personally, I do not believe that he is a homophobe, nor do I believe that Hillary Clinton is. They are both practical politicians, but I believe that in their hearts they both support full gay rights.

And yes this is a progressive board, but I also think it is acceptable to defend our Democratic president on this board.

[dsc]

41. there is no, non homophobic reason to support a lesser standard for gays on this issue

again, there are degrees here. I think a person who opposes interracial marriage, as my mom did, is less racist than one who refuses to hire blacks but both are to some degree racist. Similarly Obama, and Hillary Clinton (if she hasn't changed her position) are to some degree homophobes.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bluestateguy]

6. I have said this before about Obama and marriage equality

I think he'll flip in 2013, after the election (win or lose), not having to ever face the voters again, and chances are in 3 years we'll pick up a few % more points in the polls in favor of marriage equality as well.

It sucks, but that's how I think it will play out.

[IndianaGreen]

9. He won't flip

He does have issues with LGBTs.

[Bluerthanblue]

48. I'm bookmarking your comment- I'm another person who believes

that re-election will prove liberating.

I also believe that he will repeal DADT. I can pretty much bet my life on the fact that no republican president would do that-

[Enrique]

14. I disagree that Obama's homophobia is the point

I think it's a dead end myself, and I think it was a mistake for DU to come out back then and define homophobia the way it did. Look where it puts us now. Obama according to DU is a homophobe. But does it really think that? No way.

I'm on your side on gay marriage, but you can tell me over and over that Obama is a homophobe and I won't believe it (until you provide some proof).

Take a look what Martin Luther King said about Barry Goldwater. In case you've forgotten, King was not shy about calling people racists, when they were, such as George Wallace. But on Goldwater:

While not himself a racist, Mr. Goldwater articulated a philosophy which gave aid and comfort to the racist. His candidacy and philosophy would serve as an umbrella under which extremists of all stripes would stand.

[Bluenorthwest]

20. Ah but what did King think of those who act as Goldwater did?

"He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it. He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it."

So there is not mitigation in playing the assistant to the point bigots. Not according to Martin, no matter how you try to spin it.

[Enrique]

21. he called Goldwater's philosophy "morally indefensible"

I'm not trying to spin anything. MLK opposed Goldwater and everything he stood for. Here's the full quote:

On social and economic issues, Mr. Goldwater represented an unrealistic conservatism that was totally out of touch with the realities of the twentieth century. The issue of poverty compelled the attention of all citizens of our country. Senator Goldwater had neither the concern nor the comprehension necessary to grapple with this problem of poverty in the fashion that the historical moment dictated. On the urgent issue of civil rights, Senator Goldwater represented a philosophy that was morally indefensible and socially suicidal. While not himself a racist, Mr. Goldwater articulated a philosophy which gave aid and comfort to the racist. His candidacy and philosophy would serve as an umbrella under which extremists of all stripes would stand. In the light of these facts and because of my love for America, I had no alternative but to urge every Negro and white person of goodwill to vote against Mr. Goldwater and to withdraw support from any Republican candidate that did not publicly disassociate himself from Senator Goldwater and his philosophy.*

[totodeinhere]

22. The irony is that by today's standards, Goldwater would be to the left of most Republicans and

even some Democrats.

[dsc]

31. No he wouldn't

On social issues his libertarian streak would lead him to the correct conclusions on say abortion and DADT but given the reasoning he would use to get there he would still be terrible on economics and gay marriage.

[totodeinhere]

42. So you are telling me that Goldwater would be to the right of today's Republicans?

Come on now. Even Attila the Hun wouldn't be to the right of today's Republicans. The question isn't whether or not Goldwater would have the correct position on today's important issues. The fact is that today's GOP has moved so far to the right that it's just pitiful.

[dsc]

43. No but you claimed he would be to the left of many Democrats

that is what I am saying isn't true.

[totodeinhere]

44. Yes, he would be to the left of DINOS like Ben Nelson and Blanche Lincoln. n/t

[dsc]

45. No he wouldn't

Take Lincoln as an example. We were upset because she didn't want a public option in health care which surely Goldwater would have found dreadful. We were upset that she wants to reduce taxes on the wealthy, which Goldwater would support.

[Tarheel_Dem]

23. Then the top 3 Dem nominees were "homophobes" by your logic.

Which of the top 3 advocated for anything other than civil unions? No one seems to want to deal with that reality. While I have no problem with you pushing the administration in a different direction, I do have a problem with the revisionism that's all to common at DU.

[dsc]

27. I guess the mention of Clinton in the post wasn't seen by you

I am sure you didn't pretend it wasn't there just so you could be dishonest in your response to my post. BTW, I was originally an Edwards supporter and I withheld no critisism of him. He is both a homophobe and a hypocrite.

[Tarheel_Dem]

28. As long as you apply the term equally, I have no problem with your post.

No biggie.

[dsc]

29. sorry I was so snippy

On Edwards, trust me I find him moral scum.

[boppers]

36. A word for you: "genderist".

Just like Obama is stuck in the absurd illusion that "gender" is a significant matter of science, racists believed that "race" was a significant matter of science...

And it's not just Obama, modern American society is absolutely steeped in this kind of absurd genderist thinking, found in everything from "women's studies" to various wings of "feminism", and "men's drumming circles", and (as is often the case in big cities) separate gay bars for men, and lesbian women, rather than just having, oh, bars.... for people.

Something the GLBTQ discussion has highlighted is that much of this thinking comes from *within*, as well as from external forces. "Butch"? Genderist thinking. "Drag Queen"? Genderist thinking. "Bear"? Genderist thinking. "Lipstick lesbian?" More of the same.

Homophobe doesn't quite cut it as an appropriate word, because "phobe", or fear, doesn't quite convey the problem in thinking. Let's take, for example, the words "Afrophobe", "Asiaphobe", "Anglophobe"... they are all racist in belief, but the problem isn't merely the belief that a given race is bad, the underlying problem is that people believe in distinct *races* to start with.

Likewise, the problem with people objecting to marriage between people isn't that people are opposing marriages between certain genders, it's that they believe gender is a valid distinction to make in the first place.

[VMI Dem]

40. There are patriots on both sides of the gay civil rights issue.

I have no doubt that the President loves his country just as much as those that are fighting for these civil rights.