Liberal Gay-Bashers

I have a Q. Was Bill Cinton signing the 1996 defense of marriage act really just political horse trading to det dont ask dont tell in place ? if you know any sources do tell!

I am SO sick and tired of BOTH Democrats and Republicans!

It's time for REAL change!

I'm becoming a Libertarian!

It is true.

I don't think they should have a free ride, but I don't want them to be scared to approach the issues related to homosexuality either.

I think the same double standard used to be true in terms of racial code for Democrats. Before I think Democrats received a free pass because it was assumed the race baiters exclusively inhabited the Republican party. Bill Clinton and the other Hillary supporters verbal gymnastics have exposed them to greater scrutiny than Democrats have ever faced before. Dems used to be insulated.

I think women should continue to go after Democrats for the biased language they have been using. As a woman I found myself laughing at some of it, but most of it has been depressing. I know the backlash against the Senate during the Anita Hill testimony was amazing. I wonder if the media and Democratic party will experience the same sort of backlash.

None of this should come as any surprise. Plenty of baby boomers prove over and over how inconsistent and untrustworthy that generation is on gay issues. They came of age too early, and many simply will go to their graves never getting past their archaic, almost comical discomfort with these issues. Bill Clinton is Exhibit A.

The Gay political movement (HRC, NY Pride, etc.) have taken us down the most ridiculous route that panders to the extremist right rather than accomplish anything of substance - and this article is a perfect example.

Ask yourself, how many gay men and women you know want to join the military? I have never met one.

What % of gay men and women want to walk down the aisle for a wedding? Probably less than 30% of the LGBT community.

What % of gay men and women (esp. in the early '90s with the AIDS scourge) want universal healthcare? 100%

What % of gay men and women want lower taxes on the middle class and higher taxes on the rich? Probably 95%.

Get my drift? We should be fighting for issues that benefit not just gays and lesbians, but the vast majority of Americans. Think how many conservative middleclass Americans would accept the "gay agenda" if it was for universal healthcare, a tax break for them rather than the rich, and a "secure" social security.

How many white LGBT liberals would feel comfortable in a inner city black neighborhood? Not too many. So let's get real here and fight for issues that really matter to the vast majority.

I think that we have gone totally regressive under Bush. Civil rights and tolerance have been beaten out of the law. And it effects people. Hillary is the most vocal about her support of the gay community. She has always had a plan regarding civil unions, the repeal of "don't ask don't tell" and hate crime legislation. It was just a matter of time before Obama's timid support of gays began to mirror Hillary's...but it's still not very brave. And he never says anywhere he will repeal "don't ask don't tell" The headlines are a lie.The text of all the's recent stories do not say he will repeal it.

As far as the gay community being misunderstood and especially straight white males being uncomfortable...what else is new. Gays are like any minority subject to discrimination and in particular they are the only minority that are denied civil rights by legislation.

Women are discovering or maybe they don't all care to see it that the media in general is allowed to bash women and vilify them..I had hoped that we would have taught out sons to respect us....Interesting though the worst abusers are middle aged white men in the media..I think it is an irony that Ferraro was chosen to be painted a racist...Does anyone remember the comments of Bush I that were so offensive in the early 80's and denounced by most of the press?

Obama asks us to understand about his pastor, and how he will not abandon him because of a "few" comments. Yet, he is not strong enough to openly support gays? He says he is a new politician, change, etc., and yet, it seems like the same old game of double speak, and double standards. He has no experience. His time in the Senate has been spent running for President, and I will not hire this smooth talker for President. I will vote Republican first.

Jerome: You must be dreaming. Obama isn't going to do anything for the gay people. He is campaigning for the presidency to make history. He doesn't care about you or the white people. He uses the white people for their votes. He is so desperate to win PA he will do anything to win even pay voters to vote for him. He is as underhanded as they come and these analylists that get paid big bucks are as stupid make stupid statements. Most black analylists will defend Obama even if he is wrong
because he is part black. I am hoping the whites start waking up to the fact they are being taken for a fool.

OBAMA'S BIG MONEY SOURCES

Not just from small folks as he maintains. Includes:

Chicago Developers
Hedge Fund Managers
Trial Lawyers

Obama - exposed as a liar yet another time! Read the small print and justify this snake if you can.

one answer google larry sinclair

Too bad Donald Young isn't alive.

I've struggled with the politics of courting gays. As a gay man, I feel like we are too easily swayed by anyone who says they will help us. Hillary is the most obvious person courting the gay vote. She's more willing to say that she will advance legislation for the repeal of DOMA, for marriage rights (marriage with the word and everything), and every other right. It is the carrot we want. I hear Obama talking about what he believes he can accomplish with our help, not all of what we want, but some of it. He's realistic and I like being treated like an adult with him. Even though I love that Hillary is talking us up--I don't feel any sincerity, and I feel as if I am being manipulated.

We jump at the first promise of help. But Obama is right, when he spoke in the Advocate, the burden is on us to make the changes too. We have to make inroads into the straight community, straight to Congress, straight to friends and neighbors--and not rely on one person. Hillary boasts that she will be that one person, but I don't think that with her divisive past that she will ever get that legislation passed, so she is free to promise what she wants. Look at her husband and the issue of gays in the military...a disaster with a huge backstep called DADT. Does she think in the first hundred days that she can try essentially the same thing with DOMA?

Obama knows what will fly and what won't. Desegregation and civil rights were not gained by politicians. They were gained when ordinary people refused to play the game anymore--they marched, they sat, they stood up, they spoke, they gathered, they moved, they thought like one person, but they were many. Without Selma, there would be no civil rights, without the crowds that gathered to hear MLK there would be no civil rights. We sometimes think of this as MLK or Rosa Parks or Malcolm X, but it was the people who heard the message and fought for it.

Politicians are never going to want something for us that we don't want with all our hearts and strive for with all our strength. I've been glaringly resistant to political action myself-- but every voice and body counts--and when we all risk, then we have a better shot at all winning.

So Kirchick discovered that there are some otherwise liberal politicians who are less than pristine in their political correctness. Oh, gee. It's a new day, it's a new world. What do you think he will learn next? Some lesbians hate men? Some African Americans are racists? Some priests are gay? There are bigots in the Episcopal Church? Since lesbian support for Clinton is overwhelming and utterly predictable, the question is why would some gay men support her? My personal observation from the Texas conventions is that older gay men with political experience going back to the 70s support Obama. Younger men, not political but active in gay charities, supported Clinton. Hispanic gay men do not participate in numbers sufficient to have any consistent political influence. African American gay men may be almost invisible in gay political circles, but they are engaged in the broader issues affecting African Americans and support Obama. As to numbers, 10% is a figure used by people who have read only what other people say Kinsey said. I believe the most recent estimates of the gay percentage of the voting public is 4%. That's roughly comparable to the "Jewish vote."

@Tom:

Ten percent is the number I've seen most often, and that is used as evidence that it is a naturally occurring condition, not a preference or lifestyle choice. The notion is that that percentage is historically stable: ten percent is average over long periods of time (say centuries).

IOW, what changes is culture. Culture (the zeitgeist) goes through phases of acceptance and alienation. It has been doing that as long as we have records and literature to look at. The gay lifestyle 'choice' is 'in the closet' or 'out of the closet' which is why the DTDA rule was made. It is the only rule that could be made at the time which had a chance of coming close to addressing the issue without introducing unmanageable and unsustainable force. We are culturally getting past that with the numbers of open gay couplings; so culturally, we are ready for adjustments. Be warned though, the historical pattern is this doesn't last and the door shuts with amazing speed given some upsurge in other forces such as religious or nationalist fevers that typically accompany economic downturns (see Weimar Republic).

This one is perrennial and all we can do is have laws protecting people against discrimination. It is remarkably tough to enforce those.

Again, this one will hurt Obama most and the only winner will be McCain. This is why I say to the Clinton campaign, quit worrying so much about who you will offend. They aren't voting for you anyway. Worry about who you can defend. They will.

The whole trick of Rovian politics is to introduce issues that divide your opponent's base while adding small increments to your own. The short form of that is "Let's you and him fight."

What a joke. McCain has done much worse than all those things.

While he may not have made public comments like some of those people, his associations with Hagee and Parsley, 2 very virulent anti-gay preachers, are much closer than Obama's with McClurkin.

And when you actually look at who's better on gay issues instead of all this petty stuff, there's no comparison.

No surprise here. Many liberal dems. only care about the gay vote in the primary season only to throw them under the bus during a general election and later in office. Most notable of this type of democrat, Bill Clinton.

Kirchick is a HACK! And his reports are factual lazy at best...

The problem for both sides is this issue alienates the 'moral majority' to borrow an old term. That means in states and communities where the ministers regularly condemn homosexuality from the pulpit, this is a very divisive issue as was shown when the Republicans masterfully introduced it in 2004 as the gay marriage issue.

Few took the trouble to distinguish the concept of marriage as a religious sacrament and as a civil instrument. Few do now. One thing is certain: the discrimination against it is just as rooted and firm in modern culture as it ever has been and the natural occurrence of it is as well. It will be a political football until Federal laws are passed, so this is a legitimate topic of conversation.

Unfortunately, like race, it won't be a sensible topic during a presidential election. It becomes another blunt instrument to beat up opponents. The Republicans have always made it a Democratic issue and never discuss it sensibly. So it rots the Democratic nomination process to the advantage of the far right.

In this election, given the past and affiliations of the candidates, it is an albatross for the Obama campaign given his almost unanimous base in the black community where the churches preach against it more openly and frequently. Clinton has a much better record on this issue but neither gains much ground putting it front and center as a plank of their own policy.

They simply lose given that moral majority. The further left your candidate is, the more lightly you want to tread on this one.

Jeremiah Wright Was a Muslim: Why That Matters...

Jake - Can you shed some light to this story? You are so good at that.

Thanks

s
(just off the top of my head)
Look at his speech when Kennedy endorsed him. Look at his stance on don't ask don't tell. He and all the other candidates don't want to bring this up (including McCain because more than anyone it is a loser for him because his base will sit home)...

They all have shown support for the gay community. You just won't here it being used to throw the election this year...and I am glad.

The focus needs to be (because we have 3 candidates who are very similar on this) the economy, the war, healthcare, infrastructure, our standing in the world and the environment.

No political crap from Fox news and the extreme hateful right.