DU... Where the squeaky wheel doesn't get the grease; the squeaky wheel gets ridicule and insults.

[cherokeeprogressive]

"You never loved Barack Obama anyway..." Oh yeah? Tell my fucking bank account that. I donated over a thousand dollars to his campaign, mostly because I found him to be the most likely person to stand up and DEMAND rights for ALL minorities. For me that was a no-brainer. Since then? I don't think I need to explain my position on DADT or DOMA, or any other instance where I feel like my GLBT friends/relatives/DAUGHTER have been sold short. I donated to, and voted for Barack Obama. If that's not love, tell me what is in the context of supporting political candidates.

There is ONE WORLD. Are people of all stripes considered equal in it? I guess some would see that as a rhetorical question. Let me ask it another way... Should human beings be treated as LEGAL EQUALS in every instance and every situation, no matter their age, weight, height, ethnicity, religion, race, or sexual orientation? If your answer is yes, then how would you interpret this: "I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian — for me — for me as a Christian, it is also a sacred union. God’s in the mix..."

Those are Candidate Obama's words, and I'm pretty sure we were ALL watching when he spoke them. I've yet to see an acceptable explanation of how those words square with the notion that Barack Obama should be seen as a champion of EQUALITY FOR ALL other than they were words necessary to garner votes and we should be thankful they were spoken and that those votes helped Candidate Obama win the election (Would McCain/Palin have better suited your needs?).

We're told we need to believe that regardless of what he said as a candidate in response to Rick Warren's question; his words were not necessarily motivated by what he believed, but by the imperative that he be elected, lest we be subjected to the whims of John and Sarah. We're expected to believe that no matter WHAT he said before the election, his words were beneficial in that he prevented John and Sarah from being elected, thus guaranteeing that equality for our GLBT Brothers and Sisters would someday happen.

Candidate Barack Obama said that "marriage is the union between a man and a woman" leading me to think he doesn't believe gays should be treated as equal in a straight world, in the context of marriage. That's how I interpret those words. Separate but Equal. Talk me off of THAT ledge.

When does the equality come? Who among my DU friends could tell me when EQUALITY should be expected? It's not like it matters... I'll go on voting for Democrats, because I'm not stupid. I'll go on voting for Democrats, just like we say those humans of little intelligence will go on voting for rethugs.

In the meantime? My Daughter will continue to wonder if she'll ever be treated as an EQUAL in the eyes of the law... At this moment there is no guarantee.

My greatest sorrow is that her equality is continually sacrificed at the altar of what is "politically expedient".

[jonnyblitz]

1. K & R. I appreciate your support.

:hi:

[CakeGrrl]

2. DU: Where we don't possess the voting power to repeal the laws. n/t

[dkf]

3. I'm pretty cynical about this...

Glbters contribute a lot to the Dem party. If all their problems are solved where will they be? Republicans freed the slaves but that doesn't last forever.

[bullwinkle428]

10. Sounds like you're conveniently ignoring that whole "Southern strategy" thing

regarding the history of the Republican party...

[Bluenorthwest]

4. Many Americans think religion is not the government's business

And personally, having studied the Bible extensively, I find the Obama family to be piss poor practitioners of that faith. They make huge stinky noise about the 'wrongs' of others, which is forbidden in that faith. They focus on Paul's writing to find a way to excuse bigotry toward GLBT people but they utterly reject the bulk of Paul's rules set forth for them to live by. Examples include Paul's teaching that women should remain silent in public, head covered, never asking a question of anyone but her husband, to whom she must be submissive, while also being subservient to all men. Women who wish to follow the anti-gay Paul are forbidden from wearing costly garments or anything intended to draw attention to their beauty. Does any of that sound like Michelle? No.
They spew about gay people, but Jesus said those who divorce and remarry, like many in the administration, Jarrett is divorced, for example, Jesus equated divorce with prostitution, Val. Jesus also said that treatment given to a prisoner is given directly to him at Bagrham Prison, at Abu Grahib, done to Jesus himself. Ummm hmmmm. God is in the mix, but also in chains in some secret cell.
They never shout about divorce like Jesus did, just about gay people, which Jesus did not do. So 'Christian' is an odd word for a selective Paulism.

[MineralMan]

5. You said:

" I find the Obama family to be piss poor practitioners of that faith. They make huge stinky noise about the 'wrongs' of others, which is forbidden in that faith. "

And yet...are you not doing the same in your characterization of the Obama family as Christians? I'm a little confused here. Do you have a special dispensation of some kind that allows you to call the Obama family "piss poor practitioners of that faith" while bringing up the admonition not to judge? Can you explain?

[Bluenorthwest]

6. Gladly, I am not a person who claims to be living that faith

They are. They say "I'm a Christian." I do not. That faith has teachings which the majority of those who claim the faith utterly and totally reject, while they take up a few words about their neighbors and insist that those words are for us to live by.
It is their faith. Not mine. If some guy claims to keep a Kosher kitchen while he is eating a pulled pork and cheese sandwich, I do not have to be Kosher or Jewish to call him a hypocrite for not practicing what he himself preaches. Those who claim a faith need to live by that faith prior to asking that others do so. Those of us who do not take up some 'faith' have no need to live up to the obligations of that faith. Seems obvious. Not my faith, I have no need to live by it, however those who claim it need to live by it, or drop their claim of practicing that faith.
It is they who bring the standards to the table and attempt to apply them to me. I simply suggest that if they are so all fired faithful, rather than ask me to do it for them, they ought to follow their own faith to the greatest extent possible. They quote Paul at gay people, but they reject 90% of his rules for themselves, out of hand and without a second thought. They claim it, but they do not practice it. I do not claim it, and have no need to practice it.
See how that works? They claim the rule book, they should follow it. Simple. If they don't follow it, they should not ask others to follow it. Again, simple.

[MineralMan]

7. Thank you. I am also not a Christian.

Carry on.

[Bluenorthwest]

11. You sure fling the faith words for not a Christian

And I note that you did not address anything I had to say. All of my points are just as valid before you tried to out me as a rotten Christian.

[MineralMan]

13. I have been an atheist for 45 years. As for your points,

I have nothing to say about them, other than disagreeing with most of them. My post was about the hypocrisy of Christians criticizing other Christians. Since you are not a Christian, what I said does not apply to you.

Do I know what Christians say? Sure. They're everywhere.

Seeya.

[Bluenorthwest]

16. So you had a personal comment toward me about a faith

you do not practice, but nothing to say about the subject of the thread? I am not the subject of the thread, you know. If you had nothing to say about the OP, and nothing to say about the points I made, I have to wonder why you addressed me at all, what was the objective in that? Just curious. I mean, there was nothing in my post or any post I have ever made here that would imply I take the name Christian.
I just don't get why you jumped me if you have nothing to say about the subject, or my responses to the subject, but only something to say about me. I do not get it. What is the interest you have, if not in my points or the OP's points?

[MineralMan]

17. Actually, I had a comment on something you wrote. I posted

that comment. Your answer was to the point and answered my question. So, I said, "Carry on." That was a point that I disagreed with in the post to which I replied, and the only one I asked about. I didn't jump you. I asked for an explanation. You provided one. Question asked and answered.

Have a great day, now.

[treestar]

8. Why did you donate so much $$ and work so hard and vote for him

when you knew before the election he was against gay marriage?

If that's your only issue, then surely you knew you weren't going to get him to take on gay issues right away and be all for everything you want, and put it all before the economy.

[donco6]

12. Because we're supposed to support Dems no matter what . . . right?

I mean, that's your entire message in a nutshell. Every post. Always.

[treestar]

19. That does not answer my question

I don't see letting Republicans win because the Democrats have not done enough as anything other than insane.

But these people claiming they are so betrayed when they supposedly worked so hard for a candidate they knew was not going to put their issue first and not be 100% behind it - that's even crazier.

Same with Afghanistan - I'm not in favor of continuing but there is no point in whining about it when I knew what I was getting. And it is not more wars - which McCain mentioned.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

20. I don't think one could describe the OP as "whining".

I think it is a reasonably coherent and well-made attack on President Obama's stance on gay rights.

And just because something is the lesser of two evils doesn't mean it's not evil. Helping it overcome a greater evil but continuing to condemn it is an entirely consistent position.

[donco6]

21. From your lips to God's ears.

"But these people claiming they are so betrayed when they supposedly worked so hard for a candidate they knew was not going to put their issue first and not be 100% behind it - that's even crazier."

But we're always supposed to support Dems no matter what. Do you even think this through for a heartbeat?

[Bluenorthwest]

14. He was not Palin.

And it is disgusting to claim that those who advocate for our rights have only one issue. The economy is what we live in as well, only without many of the legal and tax protections provided to our straight peers. It is just rude and disrespectful to attempt to frame anyone who cares as caring only for that thing. You care about the economy, does this mean you do not care at all about starving children, or stopping the wars? Your putting the economy first means that is your exclusive area of interest? Really?

[treestar]

18. Many posts on DU are as if they are caring about only that one thing

Stop trying to pretend they are not.

[donco6]

22. I don't even know what that means.

"Many posts on DU are as if they are caring about only that one thing."

Huh?

[Aramchek]

9. I think your sorrow would be greater if a Republican was President

at least Obama believes that gays should be given equal rights under the law.

Name one Repuke who believes this.

[madmom]

15. I don't know if this is what is happening but it may be one way of looking at it (I think). Maybe

he is able to separate his religious beliefs from what he knows has no legal standing. He is smart enough to know what he believes (his faith) has no legal standing in our constitution or laws and can separate them. God is not in the mix when it comes to our rights and laws.
I don't know if I'm explaining it the way I want to but it could be what is happening with him and a lot of other people.:shrug: