Check out the opinion on this link from today's Washington Post:
Gays misled by Obama?
- Thread starter gyrafoam
- Start date
Help Support :
If we were misled, it's only because our eyes were closed. Obama has held the same position against same-sex marriage since the beginning of his political career. I mean it's still a net positive for us (Obama won't push for a federal constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, like Bush did), but overall he's still basically a phobe.
Even more fuss today since Obama is standing his ground in support of Warren.
And something to celebrate-----
from today's New York Times:
from today's New York Times:
toggleswitch2
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 23, 2008
- Messages
- 5,000
If only she wern't leaning left/communist.........
I think for our next president (after this new one) the country should consider a woman I met in high school through her gay brother. (Don't ask!)
Black & white, Jewish, left-handed lesbian with bi-sexual leanings. (I kid you not.)
She'd certainly consider everyone.
I think for our next president (after this new one) the country should consider a woman I met in high school through her gay brother. (Don't ask!)
Black & white, Jewish, left-handed lesbian with bi-sexual leanings. (I kid you not.)
She'd certainly consider everyone.
runematic
Well-known member
And something to celebrate-----
Here's hoping Ted Kennedy is getting in line as well.
Here's hoping Ted Kennedy is getting in line as well.
Yet more good news. Looks like Al Franken will win his Senate bid:
So, Obama feels comfortable inviting homophobe/anti-choice asshat Warren to his soiree; I can't help but notice there are no white supremacists invited.
Oh, kids! The road to equality is much longer, tougher and steeper than we want to admit. There is still so much prejudice and bigotry to break down. We tend to get excited over the 'one step forward' issues, forgetting that there will always, ALWAYS be a 'two steps back' followup.
God bless us, everyone.
Oh, kids! The road to equality is much longer, tougher and steeper than we want to admit. There is still so much prejudice and bigotry to break down. We tend to get excited over the 'one step forward' issues, forgetting that there will always, ALWAYS be a 'two steps back' followup.
God bless us, everyone.
On the flip side, I hear that Obama is proposing to appoint an openly gay person to be Secretary of the Navy.
I think this "change" falls under the general heading of "baby steps". Rome wasn't built in a day. Segregation wasn't ended overnight. Despite people with religious beliefs like Rev. Warren, legalization of gay marriage is inevitable - as Bill Clinton might say, it's on the right side of history, if for no better reason than the separation of church and state.
I think this "change" falls under the general heading of "baby steps". Rome wasn't built in a day. Segregation wasn't ended overnight. Despite people with religious beliefs like Rev. Warren, legalization of gay marriage is inevitable - as Bill Clinton might say, it's on the right side of history, if for no better reason than the separation of church and state.
I don't think Obama is a 'phobe as much as he's playing it safe with his opinions about marriage. He'd alienate way more people if he said he was in favor of gay marriage. We need to keep in mind that regardless of how inspirational and promising he may come across, he's still a politician and is playing that game.
And again, I don't get the whole "marriage" term. Geez, call it something else then, but give us the same rights as everyone else gets when married, that's all. I've said it before. I don't need no stinkin' sacrament or religious sanction to make my union official. That's a church thing and the rights are a state thing, and to me this whole issue is a no-brainer. Like some molester priest doing mumbo jumbo over me is how I get a tax break or get to visit my partner in the hospital? Puleeeez! Being hung up on the word "marriage" is going to make this drag on for basically no reason other than terminology.
And again, I don't get the whole "marriage" term. Geez, call it something else then, but give us the same rights as everyone else gets when married, that's all. I've said it before. I don't need no stinkin' sacrament or religious sanction to make my union official. That's a church thing and the rights are a state thing, and to me this whole issue is a no-brainer. Like some molester priest doing mumbo jumbo over me is how I get a tax break or get to visit my partner in the hospital? Puleeeez! Being hung up on the word "marriage" is going to make this drag on for basically no reason other than terminology.
danemodsandy
Well-known member
I Rarely:
Have anything to say here about politics, but I'm going to stick out my scrawny neck on this one.
My problem with the Rick Warren situation is that Warren supported the passage of California's infamous Proposition 8, a measure expressly designed to repeal rights previously granted to American citizens.
That is an odious thing for an American president to have anything to do with, at whatever remove. There is also a separation of church and state issue implicit in Prop. 8's passage, which makes it doubly grievous that Obama hasn't distanced himself from Warren.
I frankly expected better from the President-elect. I find it especially troubling that as more public indignation builds, Obama seems to be getting more and more stubborn about his choice, less receptive to the influence of public opinion. Where have we seen that before?
I can certainly understand that the road to equality is not smooth, and that there will be bumps along the way. But in this instance, a grave offence to millions of Americans could be avoided with a simple selection of a clergyman who has not imposed himself between a class of American citizens and their civil rights. I do not think that's too much to ask of a President.
Have anything to say here about politics, but I'm going to stick out my scrawny neck on this one.
My problem with the Rick Warren situation is that Warren supported the passage of California's infamous Proposition 8, a measure expressly designed to repeal rights previously granted to American citizens.
That is an odious thing for an American president to have anything to do with, at whatever remove. There is also a separation of church and state issue implicit in Prop. 8's passage, which makes it doubly grievous that Obama hasn't distanced himself from Warren.
I frankly expected better from the President-elect. I find it especially troubling that as more public indignation builds, Obama seems to be getting more and more stubborn about his choice, less receptive to the influence of public opinion. Where have we seen that before?
I can certainly understand that the road to equality is not smooth, and that there will be bumps along the way. But in this instance, a grave offence to millions of Americans could be avoided with a simple selection of a clergyman who has not imposed himself between a class of American citizens and their civil rights. I do not think that's too much to ask of a President.
On Rick Warren
There's no doubt Rick Warren is the poster child for the kinder, gentler version of the fundamental Christian Right (even though he is still stuck in the intolerant, homophobic leanings of the late Jerry Falwell and his ilk). And like other members of the GLBT community, I don't like the fact Barack Obama has invited this man to be on the same stage during the Inauguration.
But I would wait and see what Obama does after he takes office. There's something to be said about keeping your friends close and your enemies closer. And Warren knows all too well Obama's positions on GLBT rights are mostly the opposite of Warren's (same-sex marriage aside). It's what the President-Elect does in office that matters, not what he does as window dressing before taking the oath.
Frankly, I'm tired of being a punching bag for Bush, Cheney and their hypocritical, incompetent and dangerous leadership (such as it was) over the past eight years. I have no doubt whatever happens on January 20th, Barack Obama will be a far different leader and supporter of GLBT issues.
There's no doubt Rick Warren is the poster child for the kinder, gentler version of the fundamental Christian Right (even though he is still stuck in the intolerant, homophobic leanings of the late Jerry Falwell and his ilk). And like other members of the GLBT community, I don't like the fact Barack Obama has invited this man to be on the same stage during the Inauguration.
But I would wait and see what Obama does after he takes office. There's something to be said about keeping your friends close and your enemies closer. And Warren knows all too well Obama's positions on GLBT rights are mostly the opposite of Warren's (same-sex marriage aside). It's what the President-Elect does in office that matters, not what he does as window dressing before taking the oath.
Frankly, I'm tired of being a punching bag for Bush, Cheney and their hypocritical, incompetent and dangerous leadership (such as it was) over the past eight years. I have no doubt whatever happens on January 20th, Barack Obama will be a far different leader and supporter of GLBT issues.
What MikeS said, plus a little more-
Mercy! The man hasn't been Inaugurated yet (sounds something like a sinister medical procedure "Mr. Doe, I am afraid we have to perform an emergency Inauguration on you.")
He'd get it on all sides if he had asked Reverend Jeremiah Wright to give the Invocation....
I am certainly NO fan of Rev. Warren, and his brain damaged book "Purpose Driven Life," but mercy..... I was in adult Sunday school group, and we were reading "Purpose Driven Life" (mostly out of fascinated horror), but I withdrew from that particular class when I learned how homophobic Rev Warren is actually.
President-elect Obama is a politician, and it is part of an American politician's lot to please as many people as possible and offend as few as possible. This cannot be accomplished simultaneously.
Lawrence/Maytagbear
Mercy! The man hasn't been Inaugurated yet (sounds something like a sinister medical procedure "Mr. Doe, I am afraid we have to perform an emergency Inauguration on you.")
He'd get it on all sides if he had asked Reverend Jeremiah Wright to give the Invocation....
I am certainly NO fan of Rev. Warren, and his brain damaged book "Purpose Driven Life," but mercy..... I was in adult Sunday school group, and we were reading "Purpose Driven Life" (mostly out of fascinated horror), but I withdrew from that particular class when I learned how homophobic Rev Warren is actually.
President-elect Obama is a politician, and it is part of an American politician's lot to please as many people as possible and offend as few as possible. This cannot be accomplished simultaneously.
Lawrence/Maytagbear
OMG Can it be True
Go Al!!!! This graphic is a live stream of the recount and will update every time you press refresh if there is a new count. I would so love Al to win and take the seat away from Normy.
<object width=350 height=250 id=Tribune><param name=allowScriptAccess value=sameDomain /><param name=allowFullScreen value=false /><param name=movie value=http://tribune.gigya.s3.amazonaws.com/Tribune.swf?gid=Amazon/><embed src=http://tribune.gigya.s3.amazonaws.com/Tribune.swf?gid=Amazon width=350 height=250 name=Star Tribune allowScriptAccess=sameDomain /></embed></object>
Go Al!!!! This graphic is a live stream of the recount and will update every time you press refresh if there is a new count. I would so love Al to win and take the seat away from Normy.
<object width=350 height=250 id=Tribune><param name=allowScriptAccess value=sameDomain /><param name=allowFullScreen value=false /><param name=movie value=http://tribune.gigya.s3.amazonaws.com/Tribune.swf?gid=Amazon/><embed src=http://tribune.gigya.s3.amazonaws.com/Tribune.swf?gid=Amazon width=350 height=250 name=Star Tribune allowScriptAccess=sameDomain /></embed></object>
That would be a nice ending to the day. Go, Al!
Ralph makes a good point.
SF Mayor Gavin Newsome's historic effort to grant gays marriage rights in San Francisco in 2004, while admirable from a human rights point of view, was a disaster for the Democrats nationwide. It was probably a key factor in Kerry's defeat as well as the overall poor showing of Dems in congressional races that year. Which is not to say that Kerry was the best candidate we could have nominated, and he did a lot to ensure his own defeat as well.
In the Prop 8 campaign, the proponents of the ban ran a lot of an ad that featured footage of a somewhat tipsy Newsome (he's since admitted he has a drinking problem) proclaiming "Like it or not, it's gonna happen!" which probably helped Prop 8's passage. Newsome is probably a good mayor in other respects but he should probably clean up his own act before he tries to go national again. He wisely kept a low profile in 2008 and Obama should thank him for that ;-)
As I understand it, California's domestic partner law is nearly the same as the rights offered by marriage. The catch is when federal agencies become involved. For example, Social Security won't give survivor benefits to a registered domestic partner regardless of how tight that relationship was defined by state law. It only recognizes married couples. Same for the IRS, etc... It's an area of legal quicksand. The feds don't recognize domestic partnerships and the states by and large are unwilling to grant gays the right to marry. A compromise solution might be to have all federal agencies grant the same rights to domestic partners as it does to married couples. And perhaps that's what Obama has planned, or will settle upon as an interim solution.
Baby steps, baby.
SF Mayor Gavin Newsome's historic effort to grant gays marriage rights in San Francisco in 2004, while admirable from a human rights point of view, was a disaster for the Democrats nationwide. It was probably a key factor in Kerry's defeat as well as the overall poor showing of Dems in congressional races that year. Which is not to say that Kerry was the best candidate we could have nominated, and he did a lot to ensure his own defeat as well.
In the Prop 8 campaign, the proponents of the ban ran a lot of an ad that featured footage of a somewhat tipsy Newsome (he's since admitted he has a drinking problem) proclaiming "Like it or not, it's gonna happen!" which probably helped Prop 8's passage. Newsome is probably a good mayor in other respects but he should probably clean up his own act before he tries to go national again. He wisely kept a low profile in 2008 and Obama should thank him for that ;-)
As I understand it, California's domestic partner law is nearly the same as the rights offered by marriage. The catch is when federal agencies become involved. For example, Social Security won't give survivor benefits to a registered domestic partner regardless of how tight that relationship was defined by state law. It only recognizes married couples. Same for the IRS, etc... It's an area of legal quicksand. The feds don't recognize domestic partnerships and the states by and large are unwilling to grant gays the right to marry. A compromise solution might be to have all federal agencies grant the same rights to domestic partners as it does to married couples. And perhaps that's what Obama has planned, or will settle upon as an interim solution.
Baby steps, baby.
With that go-tee and 'stache, Rick Warren would be one hot daddy bear!!!. Well, he is!! HA!!!
Saw a bit of Warren on Dateline last night. He does have charisma (and yeah Bob, he's a bear for sure) and seems to be level-headed on most gay issues. Not this plastic smiling Falwell type at all. Again, it's the term "marriage" that the holy rollers have a thing about. Call it something else and they'll shut up, it seems.
Latest is that now the pro-8 people are going after marriages performed before the election and have secured supreme a-hole Ken Starr to make their case. I repeat: call it something besides marriage and they'll shut up.
Latest is that now the pro-8 people are going after marriages performed before the election and have secured supreme a-hole Ken Starr to make their case. I repeat: call it something besides marriage and they'll shut up.
Our state Supreme Court has already explained in detail why separate is not equal. If rights and responsibilities are supposed to be equal for opposite-sex and same-sex couples, there's no reason to maintain two names for the same thing -- except to appease bigotry.
The two constitutional options are a) marriage for both types of couples, or b) civil unions for both types of couples. Pick one, not both.
The two constitutional options are a) marriage for both types of couples, or b) civil unions for both types of couples. Pick one, not both.
