This is interesting -- and I'm not entirely certain what it means.
Obama's transition website, Change.gov, includes a section called 'Agenda' that outlines the administration's objectives in any of a couple dozen policy areas. For the most part, the 'Agenda' section is a near carbon-copy of the 'Issues' section on Obama's campaign website, BarackObama.com.
In the area of 'Civil Rights', however, there is a significant difference between the campaign website and Change.gov, the transition website. Specifically, the transition website makes a much broader range of commitments to the gay and lesbian community.
Whereas BarackObama.com includes a couple of items of interest to the gay community -- namely, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act and expanded hate-crimes statutes -- that is the extent of it. The gay and lesbian community is not mentioned explicitly -- in fact, the word 'gay' does not appear anywhere in the 'Civil Rights' section of BarackObama.com. By contrast, the Change.gov website includes a section addressed explicitly to the gay community, and it covers not only ENDA and hate crimes, but also promises Obama's support for the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, an expansion of adoption rights for gay couples, his backing of "full civil unions that give same-sex couples legal rights and privileges equal to those of married couples", and his opposition to a Constitutional ban on same-sex marriage.
What to make of the difference? On the one hand, this would seem to demonstrate Obama's (over)sensitivity to the politics embedded in gay rights issues. A waffling, now-you-see-it, now-you-don't attitude toward gay rights is exactly what many in the community fear from the administration. On the other hand, one can argue that Obama is moving in the right direction, now willing to make a more explicit and comprehensive series of commitments to the gay community than he was while in campaign mode.
One consequence of the Rick Warren controversy is that Obama may now be under a greater amount of pressure from Democrats to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell, to pass ENDA, and to expand hate crimes statutes, and to do all of the above relatively quickly. As we have pointed out before, large majorities of the public are in line with the Obama position on all three issues. If Obama is not willing to expend the relatively modest amount of political capital required on those, then one can reasonably anticipate that he won't be willing to touch more controversial subject areas like adoption or civil unions.
UPDATE: Several readers write in to point out that BarackObama.com does contain some of the aforementioned text on gay rights, but it's buried about four clicks deep under the 'People' tab rather than under the 'Issues' tab. The point is, these are not exactly things that Obama was putting front and center.
12.26.2008
On Transition Website, Obama Promises More to Gay Community
@ 5:19 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
223 comments
From a gay man, DAMN RIGHT! You better be making it up to us after this Rick Warren bs.
I'll be looking forward for all of the above by your 8 years are up.
Civil unions can come after re-election as by then, it will be even more acceptable, even though it is already approved of by over 50% of the population.
Everything he states on his website are all supported by majorities of the population so thanks for the commitment Obama.
@obnoxiousKoala
From a straight man. Echo that sentiment
I'll add another gay amen to this. The Warren invite makes my blood boil. I would like to see real progress--and hope that O understands just how hurtful and tone-deaf the Warren choice is in every way.
the U.S. is so far behind leading European countries on the issues of gay rights - it is only right that some change in the right direction is given - However I only want one thing and that is full equality with our heterosexual brethren - when that day comes will be the day to raise the flag with Pride.
Obama should do all these things, but the gay community can suck it for the way they over-reacted to Warren.
Gays turned out in bigger numbers for Kerry than Obama - way to go! Vote for the loser and push the winner to your side! Nice political trick.
Good news indeed! But let’s not get ahead of ourselves. This will require baby steps. The Republitard Religious Right of hate and intolerance is powerful and willing to use lies and violence if necessary (I fear for Obama's safety) to push their religious dogma down our throats. Anyone living in a state like Oklahoma will know what I mean.
This used to be a polling site - how many demographic groups voted for Kerry in higher percentages than Obama? Gays, racists, and ....?????
Someone with access should verify this using webarchive.org--but I think change.gov has had much of the pro-gay initiatives Nate mentions since it was first set up. If that is true, then it is not simply a post hoc bandaid to appease the gay community after the Warren blunder. Hopefully he will follow through.
While I agree with all of the other proposed changes, I don't understand why others on the left support expanded hate crimes laws (or hate crimes laws in the first place).
They go against the idea of equal protection. And like it or not, hateful ideas are ideas too, and not punishing people based on ideas is a core liberal principle.
Murder is murder, and should be punished equally not matter who the victim is. The same applied for lesser crimes. I don't see how any other system is rational for those who truly belive in equality.
what was always so interesting about this site is that Nate avoided using reactionary statistics like the one you keep repeating. As a gay person who voted for Obama (not Kerry because i was too young) I resent your implication that gays are undeserving of of political and social change because of how much they voted for Obama in relation to Kerry. I can neither explain nor verify this statistic of yours, nor do I find it relevant or compelling. One thing I am sure of is that the gay community voted overwhelmingly for Obama, and that we suffered a huge defeat in California (thanks in part to Rick Warren). I argue that we deserve respect from the president elect not because we voted for him, but because we are human. Inviting a pastor who recently fought and won a local battle against civil rights to pray at the inauguration was clearly a tone deaf move on Obama's part.
Why make this so complicated?
While trying to be elected Obama was firmly into vote grabbing mode. He obviously reconed that he would loose fewer gay votes by fudging than he would gain from the moderatly bigoted but desperte for compitant goverment.
The way I see it he was right. Now Obama's true colours are showing, and he is a liberal.
THIS IS GREAT NEWS FOR LARRY CRAIG!!!
so you think he did relatively poorly among gays because he made little effort to win the votes of gays? and you think he was purely politically motivated in not pandering to the gay community? this does seem to be the most likely explanation.
what do you make of this rick warren issue? just a gaffe? he wasn't even thinking about the homophobia thing?
Nate Silver babbles: "Specifically, the transition website makes a much broader range of commitments to the gay and lesbian (sic) community."
As a straight man who has never met "the straight community," I doubt there is such a thing as the gay and Lesbian "community." A group of people whose sole connection is that they are sexually oriented in a minority fashion doesn't make them a community. It's like refering to the non-Christian community; or the non-white community.
Obviously, my objection is pedantic (though not a pederastic). But if Nate cares to actually communicate in sensible English, I recommend he shed the bad writing. It's better to write, "the transition website makes a much broader range of commitments to gays and Lesbians."
To Rich Rifkin:
Unless you were part of the "Gay Community" you are in no position to question the use of that term. Your remarks are ignorant to say the least. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and not go so far as to accuse you of bigotry, but you need to be careful of where you tread.
The gay community is built of those individuals who congregate together for comfort. When there is nowhere else to turn we have each other. And often when rejected by family, the gay community becomes our family. We are a minority who often finds it difficult to find others who can relate to our feelings. Try being the only gay person who lives in a small, overly religious, bigoted town. To find even one other person like yourself gives comfort and begins to build a community.
Learn to walk in the shoes of others, Rich, before you condescend and spout off ignorance and insensitivity that borders on intolerance and hate.
Fred
Back up your assertions with statistics.
Rich Rifkin
Would you post the same type of blatherings if the wording stated 'the Christian community', or 'the Muslim community', or 'the US Armed Forces veterans community'?
I don't think so. And as a result, it is my opinion that your homophobic, Christo-Fascist colors are showing.
And the same to you, Fred, since you post the same type of trash again and again.
I actually believe that stuff was on Change.Gov before the Warren flap. Also, I am not that moved by it. Obama has modeled his posture towards Don't Ask, Don't tell around moderate views like Powell, which say that we must "study" the issue, while knowing that it must "change," but we have war priorities to deal with. http://dissentingjustice.blogspot.com/2008/12/dont-ask-dont-tell-dont-hold-your.html Obama kept Gates around and he made the exact same arguments. http://dissentingjustice.blogspot.com/2008/11/robert-gates-as-obamas-secretary-of.html
I am a proud black gay liberal, but I do not take politicians at face value. Obama is not an exception! It is easy to "support" gay rights. It is harder to move on the issue in an meaningful way. His website is not policy.
Rich Rifkin - if you reduce the gay "community" to sex, then you have serious problems that debate on this website cannot fix.
Mike: "Would you post the same type of blatherings if the wording stated 'the Christian community', or 'the Muslim community', or 'the US Armed Forces veterans community'?"
Absolutely. Using the word community is wrong in all those instances, especially so with broad diverse groupings living apart.
I happen to be Jewish. In my home town, we have a "Jewish community" which I think incorporates most Jews who live here. However, it's absurd to refer to a "Jewish community" across the entire U.S. We are far too diverse to make that assumption.
My (admittedly pedantic) complaint is Nate's misuse of the word community. I'm sure if you look in a dictionary with 15 definitions, you will find one which matches the sense that a community is any group disperately located that has something in common. But that is dictionary abuse. The meaningful definition is people with common interests living in a particular area.
Joe Benevides attacks me with: "Your remarks are ignorant to say the least. ... Try being the only gay person who lives in a small, overly religious, bigoted town. To find even one other person like yourself gives comfort and begins to build a community."
Your attack is misplaced, Joe. While I agree that in your "overly religious, bigoted town" gays living there can form a community, that is not what I complained about in the Nate's use of the term "the gay community" as a national entity. The experience of gays where you live is quite different from those living in large cities like San Francisco or medium-sized cities like San Antonio. Further, I would imagine that gays (especially in very large cities) whose lives are stable, monogamous and family-oriented don't feel particularly in commune with gays whose lifestyles are just the opposite in those respects.
Let's see some results. Gays are tired of politely voting for and writing checks to Dems. We're gonna be uppity about stuff now.
this should have never been a big deal in the first place in Cal.
they should always let the people decide on this type of issue. to dangerous to let theses liberals who think they can force there views on 97% of the populatioin is crazy.
we get more liberal every year, your time will come with what you people want in Cal just wait, you talk about christians and jews being heartless take a look at yourselfs first.
The people spoke deal with it. wait a few years and it'll pass 8 years ago 60% voted against it. this year only 55% another few years and over 50% will be for it.
I mean you dont see christians and jews running around saying we should burn down gay buildings and stuff, yet your people say to burn down churchs and other places of worship for 80% of the country. sheesh take a look in the mirror first.
I don't know about the website content, but Obama and Biden both publicly voiced support for marriage-equivalent civil unions during the campaign.
Obama said in the HRC/LOGO debate (8/9/07):
"I would've supported and would continue to support a civil union that provides all the benefits that are available for a legally sanctioned marriage. And it is then, as I said, up to religious denominations to make a determination as to whether they want to recognize that as marriage or not."
Biden said in the vice-presidential debate (10/2/08):
"Look, in an Obama-Biden administration, there will be absolutely no distinction from a constitutional standpoint or a legal standpoint between a same-sex and a heterosexual couple ... there should be no civil rights distinction, none whatsoever, between a committed gay couple and a committed heterosexual couple."
Obama says he wants to "find common ground"... and he thinks that marriage-equivalent civil unions is where he can find it. He knows that even though a majority of Americans may not be ready to use the word "marriage" for gays and lesbians, they can at least support the principle of equal legal rights for same-sex couples. And most LGBT Americans will view marriage-equivalent unions as a huge step forward on the road to equality... so I think that's what Obama is aiming for.
Waiting until after the election could actually be very smart on Obama's part. While the anti-gay forces seemed to have won out this year in California and other states, it's very clear which direction public sentiment is going on this one, and by the time Obama faces reelection these issues would be much more accepted.
Joe Benevides adds: "Learn to walk in the shoes of others, Rich, before you condescend and spout off ignorance and insensitivity that borders on intolerance and hate."
If having a preference for proper diction "borders on intolerance and hate," I plead guilty to your nonsensical conclusions, brother.
This used to be a polling site - how many demographic groups voted for Kerry in higher percentages than Obama? Gays, racists, and ....?????
Dropping from 80% to 75% is pretty much just statistical noise.
The additional gay-specific content on the change.gov site wasn't there originally (except for hate crimes and an oblique reference to employment discrimination) but it predates the Warren choice. I know because I've been checking it periodically, on my own behalf and on that of lesbian friends who were upset about the lack of gay content when the transition site first went up.
My theory was that the transition team got a lot of feedback about the paucity of gay content when the site first went up, and that they responded to that because they want to do right. But maybe I'm naive.
Oh, by the way, regarding the topic at hand:
The original Obama website used to have the same exact thing change.gov has now. I think they gave the old site a makeover while putting their whole agenda on change.gov.
joshua
Your blatherings might be taken much more seriously if you had some FACTS in them:
'8 years ago 60% voted against it. this year only 55%'
Eight years ago it was MORE than 60% voted for discrimination. In 2008, it was 52.3% who voted for discrimination.
"I mean you dont see christians and jews running around saying we should burn down gay buildings and stuff, yet your people say to burn down churchs and other places of worship for 80% of the country. sheesh take a look in the mirror first."
Do you have ANY basis for asserting that ANY responsible G/L/B/T is advocating burning down ANY non-gay place of worship, let alone in 80% of the country? Using your logic, Timothy McVeigh represented ALL veterans, and he represents ALL Christians, so ALL veterans and ALL Christians are in favor of bombing federal buildings in any and all states, killing and maiming any civilian who might be in the building, whether it be for government business, or in a day care center.
haha, i knew after i wrote what i did someone would say this.
yet, though that's what we see. the people out for your cause are the one's on the t.vs. like rosey o'donald. she's insane. she said christians were just as bad as the terrorists who go around boming people, that's absurd. she spreads hate yet you guy's say nothing against it. with all your love talk you dont condem your on.
there are you christians though like i said going around the tvs saying we should burn down gay's homes and all that junk. yet we hear from the news what "some" and i stress some not all want to burn down churchs.
like i said in time you'll get what you guy's want. just wait.
Rich Rifkin:
I warned you to tread carefully and I'm afraid you crossed the line. Your "preference for proper diction", in your lame attempt to conceal your ignorance, has evolved into the bigotry and intolerance I feared it would.
When a 10% minority of the whole is able to reach out, especially in large cities, and join together for support (the internet has become an invaluable additional tool for gay cohesiveness), and we choose to use the term "community", then you have no right to correct our "diction". To do so is condescending and insulting. You come across as patronizing as though you think your perfect "diction" makes you better than us. Language and words evolve just like ideas and tolerance change shape. Use the word "community" as you see fit, but do not presume to correct those who use it in a way that signifies togetherness.
I will not presume to tell your Jewish community what descriptive terms to use since I have not lived the Jewish experience. You would do well to do the same regarding the gay community, lest you make yourself look even more bigoted.
Joe: we choose to use the term "community", then you have no right to correct our "diction".
Never mind, Joe. It's not worth it for me to have a discussion with someone who uses words incorrectly and calls others names when he's proven wrong. When you graduate from elementary school, look me up. Until then, I'll ignore you.
joshua
Your blatherings should be ignored for a completely different reason - when you don't use conventional punctuation and capitalization, your blatherings are not near as readable, therefore not as comprehensible, as when another person uses conventional punctuation and capitalization.
Where does one sentence begin and end? Hard to tell in your blatherings. If people can't read and understand what you are writing, they'll eventually generally ignore your blatherings (not that your blatherings contain any information that would warrant the attention of anyone who has even a modicum of education).
Obama may claim he is a fierce supporter of gay issues, yet I (as a gay man), for one, have seen no such commitment.
During the Pennsylvania primary bonanza, a gay Philadelphia-based newspaper ran a huge interview with Hillary Clinton on one half of its front page. The other half of the front page was blank, to show that Obama refused to interview with the same newspaper. Obama always says he supports gay issues (and he has no problem taking our cash), but he always goes and cavorts with Rick Warren and Republicans rather than his solid base. And, of course, he was no where to be seen during or after the fight for Proposition 8.
Gay rights is the civil rights fight for our generation. I went and saw Milk recently with Sean Penn, and right after that movie I just wanted to get up and do something, organize a protest or make a speech. This is an issue that needs to be addressed, because the longer we wait, the longer discrimination remains law.
Obama needs to address this immediately, and not just by updating his transition website. He needs to push forward ENDA and hate crimes statues while repealing DADT. He can do all of this within his first 100 days. Then, he has to prove his commitment by taking the fight for rights one step further. He has to push Congress to repeal DOMA. Then he has to aggressively aid gay rights groups to fight back state initiatives about adoption and marriage rights. And he needs to court governors and legislatures in blue states, like New York, to get marriage and adoption rights pushed through the legislatures, instead of the courts.
Obama needs to prove that he truly is a "fierce advocate" of gay rights. Or else in 2012 he may not have the financial and electoral support of the gay community and its straight allies, such as Barbra "$11 million for Obama in one night" Streisand.
Rich, I think you're stuck back in some previous century back when people could only "communicate" face to face, and thus "communities" could only exist within a single town.
Nowadays, communities can be worldwide.
Mind you I also think that "community" is an overused expression, and too often used when a single plural would do, but your objection to it is even lamer.
Rifkin,
Is there such a thing as a 'community' that is more than local in geography?
I think you'd be VERY surprised that the answer is "YES".
A community defines itself, and also has a very big say in how it identifies itself.
So yes, there is a very large group of G/L/B/Ts across the US, and worldwide, that identifies with a 'gay community'.
Rich Rifkin:
Now you prove how arrogant you are. Many words have more than one meaning/use. But you insist that everyone use your meaning, or else you are right and they are wrong. How childish!
I think it's more than obvious from my writing that I graduated from far more than elementary school. If your venom was not so pathetic it would be humorous, for I teach high school and I would never stoop to insult my students by telling them that the words they use to describe themselves (words that are part of a living and evolving language) are incorrect. That is not my place, nor is it yours. Unless, as I suspected before, you think you're better than those you presume to correct.
Too bad you were not present when your elementary school attempted to teach tolerance and respect for others. Now go write your "proper diction" manual, and stop making a bigoted ass of yourself on a public forum.
Atleast you know where I stand.
Probly most kids my age couldnt give you 100 reasons why they believe what they believe, I can.
wether I can spell, and puncuate every word correctly, or incorrect.
I still can carry on a conversation of political matters.
For that, i'm proud.
Most teens my age are idiots, and for a good reason, there parents let them run wild.
It's crazy what this worlds coming to. no more conversations such as this most likly in the future.
I'm inclined to think that Obama is simply working the big tent approach. BUT, it is also possible the Rick Warren is a sop to the right while Obama veers left on DADT.
Speaking as a gay man - There are two sides to blame here.
1) The gay activists who've pushed gay marriage down the throats of everybody and anybody who've gotten in their way. It would have made more sense to take little steps (civil unions), then to push a winner-take-all agenda. Going slowly and building a majority is the right way to get things done. Had we adopted a more stealth agenda, Gore would have have been President.....not Bush.
2) The dysfunctional two term Presidential system we embrace. The second we get a Democrat in, they immediately move to the center to assure an additional four years down the pike. Re-Election is a game-changer when it comes to doing the right thing for the one particular party in power.
Rich, by your 18th century standards, the term "online community" is an oxymoron. Which would come as a surprise to anyone (like everybody here) who is part of an online community, or who (like me) has been paid a salary to help create and build up an online community.
You're flat out, 100% wrong on this. If you choose not to join the rest of us in the 21st century that's fine, but I'd recommend you stop using the internet lest you inadvertently get sucked into one of those oxymorons.
So if someone says something critical about gays, he is a homophobe.
If someone is critical of Christianity, he is a radical hater.
If someone says something critical of Israeli policies, they are anti-semitic.
blah blah blah
All this shit is nothing but poison that leads to nothing positive.
This is exactly the type of ignorant, divisive, bullshit Obama was talking about ditching.
It is possible to disagree whether or not a gay community exists or disagree with a political position that most gay people support without being a hate monger.
Get over yourselves and grow up. Being calm and rational will get you further than frothing at the mouth will.
The dysfunctional two term Presidential system we embrace. The second we get a Democrat in, they immediately move to the center to assure an additional four years down the pike. Re-Election is a game-changer when it comes to doing the right thing for the one particular party in power.
Excellent point. If a president could only serve one term, I bet you would see a lot more work being done.
Although a second term president doesn't ever seem to do a lot but maintain the status quo. Maybe fatigue plays a factor in that *shrug*
As a straight man, I have no trouble supporting ANYONE that organizes and agitates for equal treatment under the law. Are we there yet? Not even close. But there has been progress. The fact that this conversation is occuring all across the country is testimony to the progress.
I do not believe in all or nothing agendas in politics. It is the incremental change which lasts. Another poster in another post had a wonderful quote about Abraham Lincoln from Frederick Douglass.
O/T, but in honor of our fabulously geeky blog host Nate, and in case you guys get tired of arguing semantics:
Obama: Full-on geek or just 'nerd-adjacent?'
And on topic: Yay for Obama for adding those commitments to his website. Now let's press him put words into action.
David - Although a second term president doesn't ever seem to do a lot but maintain the status quo.
Fatigue perhaps, or what one in power perceives as their snapshot in the here and now and doing the "right thing" for their legacy.
It takes a truly special being to look beyond that and make choices that look far beyond the here and now.
David:
No one said "homophobe". But I did refer to Rich as a bigot since he seems to think he is better than those who choose to use the term "gay community" because he feels his "diction" is correct and theirs is not.
A bigot is someone who condescends to another group because they think they are in some way better or superior to that group. We are not going to be treated like second class citizens anymore. If someone wants to condescend to and insult me for the way I choose to use words that refer to the group I belong to, then they are going to get their bigotry thrown right back in their face. Let's see how far he gets telling an African-American that a term they use to describe their community's cohesiveness is not "proper".
David, as I told Rich, use the term as you see fit, but do not dictate to me what you think is or is not proper, or you will fall into the same judgmental, bigoted category Rich put himself in.
I think Obama is doing what is politically expedient in order for him to be able to pass the legislation he wants. It will be much easier to pass legislation geared at ensuring civil rights for gays if people like Rick Warren have been coaxed into soft support or at least remaining silent on the issue and agreeing not to rally his forces against it. This is only possible if Obama is willing to open up to them and "give them a seat at the table".
Rick Warren is already having some dialogue with the gay community (however "token" it may be). The bottom line is that he is interacting with gays on a one-to-one basis (even though the press is around). The more contact he has with gays on a personal level, the harder it will be for him to rail against them and support prejudicial policies. It will take time, but I think the important thing is that Obama is doing what he thinks is best to reach that goal. It remains up to every other individual to continue to do what they think is best. With all of these forces working together, in their own way, change will happen.
For those of you who are skeptical of him because he hasn't done anything yet, remember that he is not even the President yet. At the least, he deserves the benefit of the doubt on these issues. We finally have a true progressive moving into the WH, let's not shoot the movement in the foot before he even takes office.
Blogger ronster said...
Speaking as a gay man - There are two sides to blame here.
1) The gay activists who've pushed gay marriage down the throats of everybody and anybody who've gotten in their way. It would have made more sense to take little steps (civil unions), then to push a winner-take-all agenda. Going slowly and building a majority is the right way to get things done. Had we adopted a more stealth agenda, Gore would have have been President.....not Bush.
2) The dysfunctional two term Presidential system we embrace. The second we get a Democrat in, they immediately move to the center to assure an additional four years down the pike. Re-Election is a game-changer when it comes to doing the right thing for the one particular party in power.
While I don't think we need to go slow necessarily, I do agree that the movement does need to be somewhat stealth. The progressives have always had the problem of not trusting anyone but themselves to do the right thing. What I mean is that unless someone spells out EXACTLY what they are going to do and EXACTLY how they are going to do it and EXACTLY when it will be done (detailed timetable and all), we throw them under the bus and call them Judas and start looking for our new messiah.
In order to get things done, sometimes you have to be a bit stealth. I wish Progressives would stop being so dramatic and emotional and let Obama do what we elected him to do!
Blogger David said...
The dysfunctional two term Presidential system we embrace. The second we get a Democrat in, they immediately move to the center to assure an additional four years down the pike. Re-Election is a game-changer when it comes to doing the right thing for the one particular party in power.
Excellent point. If a president could only serve one term, I bet you would see a lot more work being done.
Although a second term president doesn't ever seem to do a lot but maintain the status quo. Maybe fatigue plays a factor in that *shrug*
I think its a function of the 24-hour news cycle. The President-elect is already running for his second term. Once he gets re-elected, he is laying the groundwork for another Dem to get elected 4 years later. As a result, nothing is done without thought about how it will impact the next election cycle.
One thing I can't understand is why Repub Presidents do not feel the same need to tack to the middle that Dem Presidents do. When Bush was appointed, he immediately moved to the far right, in complete opposition to what he promised he would do during his campaign. After stealing the 2004 election, he continued his right-wing policies, but this time with a pompous arrogance.
If Obama can appear like he is moving to the center while moving a progressive agenda along, then more power to him! In 8 years, America will look up and realize how good life can be under a progressive administration and leave the neo-con religious fundamentalist right nowhere to go but into obscurity.
PeixeGato
Your points are well taken. Per your advice - I will take a deep breath and sit back and watch. God knows I am thrilled to know the country had the good sense to vote for the best choice.
PeixeGato.
The reason republicans dont feel the need to go to the center.
Is because they get elected anyways, most of the population is more conservative then they are liberal atm.
That's why Mr. Obama had to go to the center, compaired to what he really thinks.
He can't get elected yet as a progressive. because the country simply isnt ready for that yet.
I guess he saw what happend to Mondale against ragean and none of them have been brave enough to go through that again.
Yeah I agree. I've long advocated using Mexico's system--a one-time, six-year long term. It works pretty well, and you see the president is more willing to take political risks to actually do what they think is right. Alas, i doubt we can change that bit of politics.
It seems to me to be just a case of good political strategy to hide this stuff during the election when pretty conservative states were being fought over. Now that the election is over Obama's team is just making clear the promises that they gave quietly - in California and New York.
I am tired of the dramatics - we the left - that includes me – we are so used to losing that we are stuck on this complaining mentality - well maybe it's time we moved on - winners don't complain they congratulate they behave kindly and they invite the losing side to eat the crumbs that fell off the table.
Obama is busy being a good winner - he has yet to run the government for a SINGLE DAY - yet we (the royal we) do not dare to give him a little bit of trust - faith or just plain common sense.
He needs people that have been in government before so that he is not making those beginner mistakes Clintons did for the first year - as he continues to explain very patiently - he is setting the agenda. They work for him. What he needs from us is pressure - public pressure for real change. So that he can push his agenda in congress. Not this dramatic high-school over the top you can't speak with him crap. Yes - he is talking with the right center of the political sphere that is how you govern a country. We are so used to blocking agendas we have forgotten how to create them.
To have a good government you have to sleep with the enemies brother - but not him - just the ones standing close him. You have build a coalition of consensus and Obama gets this and if you - like me want him to succeed then you need, you must, explain this to out honored colleges on the left. We need pressure – pressure to push this congress and this senate to act on Obama’s initiatives.
Shameless Self Promotion
Joshua
I beg to differ. It's not that the country is not ready to move to the left. It's a very simple fact. I will capitalize it so you don't miss my point
ALL REPUBLCANS TRADITIONALY VOTE IN EVERY ELECTION / DEMOCRATS DON'T TRADITIONALY VOTE IN EVERY ELECTION
It takes a periodically informed electorate and a pissed off Liberal base to actually get off their ass and go out and vote. In other words, things have to get very, very bad before most pay attention and vote - and the liberals, thank God, put down their pot and porn and actually went out and voted.
What is the upside, you ask? The current voting electorate have learned what it means to be a Republican.....and they do not like what they see.
Joshua
Sorry kid, you are wrong. You are an idiot. I'm guessing you are home schooled by your fundamentalist parents? But if you are still a teenager I suppose there may home for you. Maybe.
As far as your dire prediction of what will happen when gay marriage is legal in the rest of the country? Well I live in California and I can tell you what it was like here. There were more weddings. My gay and lesbian friends could finally have their long term loving relationships recognized by the state. So, yup, there was more joy and more happiness.
If you Christians really wanted to "protect the sanctity of marriage" why don't you try and make divorce illegal? Or better yet do what the bible says and institute the death penalty for adultery! Of course then you would have had to stone Reagan and McCain and Guliani and Gingrich (and many others) to death...
Mike asks: "Rich -- Is there such a thing as a 'community' that is more than local in geography?
Yes. Others beat me to the punch, but I agree. A community can be made by people who communicate telephonically or by the internet and so on. However, for such a grouping to really be "a community," they have to actually and actively participate in the group. That was not how Nate Silver used the term.
As you say later, using the term community to apply to any group you happen to belong to by dint of your birth or biology or some such connection, but almost all of the members of that group you have never met nor interacted with in any way is not a community.
Those who think I am living in the wrong century for using this term correctly are wrong in this instance, likely sloppy with their own communication or nitwits like Joe B.
joshua said...
PeixeGato.
The reason republicans dont feel the need to go to the center.
Is because they get elected anyways, most of the population is more conservative then they are liberal atm.
That's why Mr. Obama had to go to the center, compaired to what he really thinks.
He can't get elected yet as a progressive. because the country simply isnt ready for that yet.
I guess he saw what happend to Mondale against ragean and none of them have been brave enough to go through that again.
Nope.
The center is defined by the average political position of the citizens. Conservatism is anything to the right of that and liberalism is everything to the left of it. Thus as a whole, the country is equally divided between right and left. However, there are two distorting factors.
1. Over the long term, the country is constantly moving left. This is has been going on since the beginning. While there are periodic shifts in both directions, the long term trend is remarkably consistent. A mainstream conservative today would have been considered a liberal 50 years ago. This is primarily a generational thing. Children tend to be more liberal than their parents, and their children will be even more liberal.
2. Older people tend to vote more than younger people.
Put these two factors together and you can see why there is a widespread perception that the country is center-right. The voting population is, in fact, center right, but the center keeps moving left.
So Rich, those Prop 8 protests worldwide in November... that was just a random group of individuals? Not evidence of a community?
Again - you're just wrong about this. It's OK to admit it.
@ PeixeGato: One thing I can't understand is why Repub Presidents do not feel the same need to tack to the middle that Dem Presidents do.
That is because the Republicans have been defining what "the center" is for a long time. Republican Presidents don't need to move to the center, the center moves to them. There was a very good Huffington Post article about this shortly after the election.
Obama is certainly skillful enough to govern progressively using a centrist narrative and move "the center" leftward again, especially as the far right becomes ever more marginalized. Change is coming!
(I hope.)
Oh, come on lanny.
You can't be that stupid? can you?.
you should know if you ever read the bible in your life that.
thoses were for the Jews when they were under God's law, that of course was before Jesus died on the cross.
Man now is not under that certin law anymore. you really should read up before you idiots on the left try stuff like that.
=)
L
Well said - It's the big picture that says it all. It's a slow process but the liberals will always be the ones to finish first down the way. It's a bitch getting old because true change will always happen after our days here....or if we're lucky, when we are in a nursing home!
I said that from the begining. or were you just not listening?
I said they arnt ready for one "yet". not that we wont have an openly bias liberal in the future, the country just isnt ready "YET".
We are heading in that directino though. Sad to say.
Joshua
You and you're picking and choosing from the Bible. Do you have any idea how irritating it is to here that crap?
First it's OK to hate GAYS but then it's not OK to stone your unfaithful wife as the Bible states.
Then it's OK to hate GAYS but then it's OK to eat shellfish....nevermind what the Bible says.
Then it's OK to hate GAYS, but then it's not OK to kill your disobedient son as the Bible states.
But then it's perfectively fine to be a Lesbian, because they are never mentioned in the Bible.
Are you really that gullible?
another Warren/LGBT related thread...
this issue wasn't supposed to have legs according to the CW of many last week...
especially over the holidays, etc.
sorry folks, this issue not only has legs - but they are wearing shoes [of all sorts] that are ready & waiting to be thrown if need be
silence = discrimination
we're here, we're queeer - get over it already... & give us all of our civil rights [kinda rolls off the tongue]
then we can join with the rest of the american communities & celebrate a Happy New Year too
Haha Joshua, that's naive and actually ridiculously wrong. The rules in the Bible were set forth for the Jewish people by God so that they could distinguish themselves from their pagan neighbors. So it illustrates that adultery, polygamy, and rampant sexual debauchery was the norm for the cultures around the Jewish states at the time.
What this also reflects is that views about marriage change over time. We no longer consider polygamy or adultery morally acceptable, but we also don't view women as subordinate anymore. And also we think interracial marriages and intercultural marriages are acceptable. Divorce and annulments have become acceptable as well. Since views of marriage have changed in the past, there is no such thing as the "traditional institution of marriage," especially one set up by God. It's just a false argument and talking point used by the right to deprive gays of rights that they fully deserve.
Naturally, the next change in the view of marriage is same-sex marriage, and certainly it's well on the way to changing.
L and ronster, I agree with you that the country is generally moving to the left, but the concept of the "center" has been moving rightward ever since the Reagan era (see the link in my previous post). The "widespread perception that the country is center-right" has more to do with the framework-jack by the Republicans than older voters or any other factor. So the center is not going to move organically to the left as the old folks die off -- someone (hopefully Obama) needs to seize it back from the right.
69th + 1 !!!
Brian.
You bring of a very very good point.
The law was put in place by God. for the Jews.
yet the one's oddly enough that wernt under it were the Gentiles which is anyone in the world that is not a Jew.
So if i'm not a Jew i'm not under the law God set up with them, rather i'm under the new law he set up for thoses outside of his special law for his chosen people.
Same for you if your not a Jew.
Let me ask you one thing though about what you said.
True we do not accept polygamy.
The thing though i differ with you on is the way you put adultery in as if it were acceptable back then.
People were looked down at and even stoned back in thoses days. Ifthey were found out to be an adulterer.
Remember the story when Jesus went to the well, and he ask the woman to get him a drink of water? she was one, yet she couldnt go to the well at the same time as the, other woman because of what she had done.
So, if that's what you ment then your wrong on that. if you ment somthing else, plz explain. thanks.
DCM in FL
I agree. We would be remiss if we allowed Rick Warren to speak to a silent accommodating public. Being such a historical event, it will reflect poorly on us if we sit silent when a bigot has the center stage on such a occasion. These are the options -
1) We sit silent and history will reflect we had good manners and did not rock the boat.
2) We boo loudly during the two minutes this man speaks and make sure history records we are not "quite" where we need to be yet.
Bottom Line - 1) Rick Warren will be embarrassed on a truly historical event or 2) Obama decides this is a sideshow he would rather not want to experience and changes his mind.
@joshua: it is never appropriate to allow the majority to decide whether a minority has the same rights. Equal protection of the laws is for all.
@L: you are misunderstanding the "hate crimes" issue. Motives are ALWAYS taken into account in sentencing: someone who kills by accident may be treated harshly by the law (say, if the accident was caused by drunken driving) but not as harshly as someone who kills intentionally.
"Hate crime" enhancements to sentencing are most important not at the level of murder (where maximum sentences are already available), but as a deterrance in cases that have not yet gone that far. Consider these five cases:
A) Allen spray-paints "I [heart] U MARCY 4EVER" on a freeway overpass
B) Bob spray-paints "MR JOHNSON BLOWS DEAD DONKEYS" on the assistant principal's garage
C) Chuck spray-paints "ALL NIGS MUST DIE [noose]" on the African Methodist Episcopal Church
D) Dave spray-paints "FUCK YOU YIDS [swastika]" on the gate of a Jewish cemetary
E) Ed spray-paints "GOD HATES FAGS [baseball bat cracking skull]" on a gay nightclub
All states agree on treating A and B differently: Allen needs to find another outlet for his creativity, and will be sentenced to some community service; but Bob's behavior threatens to escalate to more serious property damage or violence. But how about C, D, or E? The danger of escalation to assault or even murder is even greater, but there is no threat to any named individual, so without a "hate crime" statute, the motive of group intimidation cannot be taken into account in sentencing, which may give them the impression the law doesn't care. In almost all states, group intimidation that is racial or religious will call for sentence-enhancement, so Chuck and Dave will be treated like Bob; but sexual orientation is excluded, so Ed will be let off as easy as Allen.
In terms of federal hate-crime statutes, the issue is a little different: few hate crimes are federal offenses anyway (it would have to be on a military base or Indian reservation, etc.) so the most important provisions of the Matthew Shephard Act, in practical terms, are the offers of federal assistance to localities like Laramie and Jasper (which were nearly bankrupted by the cases which made them involuntarily famous) in investigating and prosecuting such cases.
ok Joshua...
Show me anywhere in the bible (except in Leviticus, because according to your interpretation that does not count) where it states that homosexuality is a sin?
"UPDATE: Several readers write in to point out that BarackObama.com does contain some of the aforementioned text on gay rights, but it's buried about four clicks deep under the 'People' tab rather than under the 'Issues' tab. The point is, these are not exactly things that Obama was putting front and center."
So, the whole premise of your post, that Obama is changing what his positions are, is false... but it still doesn't matter to you, you're gonna believe what you want to believe?
Is that the logic behind your regression analysis of polling data, too?
Heads up everyone! Rich Rifkin has made it quite clear that if we don't interpret words with the same meaning as he does, we are "wrong" and people like me are "nitwits".
The great chief of thought and word police has spoken! And mind you; he is NOT being condescending, judgmental and bigoted, because when he tells us what "proper diction" is, we are to obey!
Repent, those who do not speak with the "proper diction" of the right and powerful Rifkin, or pray that the word police do not spirit you from your slumber tonight to a place like Gitmo, only with lots of dictionaries and intolerant bigots who order you to speak with unwaveringly "proper diction". Repent users of the term "gay community"! Repent or pay the price of eternal banishment to Rifkin Diction Hell, where 19th century teachers will subject you to corporal punishment for all eternity.
Adultery was accepted back in Roman times (concurrent with Jesus' life). Of course, after generations of Jewish law, it was not acceptable in the Jewish society. However, Jews were a special sect within the Roman Empire (as they were the only monotheistic culture and were therefore exempt from several Roman mandates, such as serving in the military). Adultery and polyamory were rampant in Roman times, albeit outside of the Jewish sect.
RONSTER
agreed. I had tickets to the Inauguration, but I canceld my plans in dismay.
I would not allow Rick Warren to say a prayer from the steps of OUR Capitol and stand silently 'beneath' him...
Booing - maybe too gauche for that particular day
BUT seeing how things are going, I would not be surprised if shoes, boots & pumps are let fly en masse toward Warren...
at least figuratively if not literally
maybe he will 'pray' from behind shoe-proof glass
So, are the Log Cabin Republicans part of the gay community? How about down-low tearoom types like Larry Craig?
Obama, in words, deeds, and record, is certainly NOT a true progressive. He's as centrist as they come, however he MAY be more amenable to progressive values and policies than other Dems were, like Bill Clinton.
99 times out of a hundred, you can judge whether someone is a true progressive or not by their health care policy. All true progressives support single payer universal coverage, like every civilized country has, and which has proven to save money while improving health care outcomes significantly.
While civil rights for GLBTQ people should NOT be subject to the view of the majority, the reality is quite different. Incremental steps like civil unions with THE EXACT SAME rights and privileges as het married couples is a major step forward and will improve the lives of millions of people.
Sans the Prop. 8 debacle, a setback for sure, the courts were on track to grant full marriage equality for same-sex couples. And if the CA Supremes throw Prop. 8 out, as they likely will, than the judicial process will again be back on track.
It's heartbreaking to me to see my gay friends disenfranchised, and it's destruction to them and to society. There's much yet to be done, but we won't get there by engaging in the typical liberal/progressive circular firing squad.
I probably would've canceled my plans to Inauguration if they didn't announce Aretha Franklin (plus Perlman and Yo-Yo Ma) in the same day. Short of Streisand, Aretha's my favorite :)
Even though I'm an atheist, I think during prayer it's rude to scream, heckle, boo, or throw shoes. I will, however, be wearing my bright pink shirt that says California Love in rainbow letters to the ceremonies. That should do enough :)
And I actually don't think Prop 8 passing was a setback. I think that for a long time, the gay community (oh no, will someone yell at me now?) has considered that rights would just come to them. Prop 8's passing has really rallied support to our cause, I was actually welling up with tears of joy and pride to see those protests in Utah and California. And it also brought really bad press to religious groups that have been exposed for their bigotry and oppressive tactics. Prop 8's passing has set off a new wave that will make gay issues more important and initiated a new generation of civil rights.
Joe,
How old are you, 15? That is what you come off as. You completely missed my point. If you want the unvarnished truth, it is your attitude that keeps you down.
Imagine if MLK acted like Rosie and others are today. Of course, if he did, he would probably wouldn't have been assassinated because no one would have taken him seriously. Then again, we wouldn't be three weeks or so away from inaugurating a black man as President of the United States if MLK just stamped his feet and cried.
You can call people bigot and anything else, but that juvenile and divisive bullshit isn't going to help you.
For the record, I think it is disgusting that everyone is not yet equal, but it is more disgusting that we have to label people and specifically grant rights to those label.
BRIAN
sounds like your pink message shirt will be your personal figurative shoe toss...
or will all message shirts & signs be on the banned list like chairs are ???
hoping to see lots of such messages & maybe many pink shirts + rainbow everything in the crowd - but I will stay home & watch it on TV
Joshua is very young and may be trying to come to terms with issues of sexuality. Being brainwashed with the holey babble during ones early years can really screw a child up, hence the reason for so many suicides among gay teens. It's best that he have these exchanges here, rather than doing something self-destructive. If he’s intelligent enough, logic will win out eventually. If he is not, he'll join the Republitard Party and meet up with the likes of Senator Craig in a public restroom somewhere.
L:
While I agree with all of the other proposed changes, I don't understand why others on the left support expanded hate crimes laws (or hate crimes laws in the first place).
They go against the idea of equal protection. And like it or not, hateful ideas are ideas too, and not punishing people based on ideas is a core liberal principle.
Murder is murder, and should be punished equally not matter who the victim is. The same applied for lesser crimes. I don't see how any other system is rational for those who truly belive in equality.
The reason hate crimes are defined as such is not because it's worse for someone to commit a crime while thinking the "wrong" thing. (This is the exact misconception behind those who say "gosh, all crimes are hate crimes.")
If you actually look at the law instead of just the name, hate crimes (a better term is "bias crimes," but we're pretty much stuck at this point) are those committed primarily because the victim is of a particular group, not because the attacker had a reason for choosing that individual or chose at random. They are considered more serious than the underlying crime because they are acts intended to intimidate an entire groups: "Your kind are not welcome here." That is more harmful to the community than the underlying crime is by itself, which is why it is deserving of greater deterrence if it can be proven. This concept in law grew out of anti-lynching laws.
David Neiwert of Orcinus is the real expert on this subject; a post with links to a lot of his writing on the subject can be found here
DCM, ronster: The queer community (yes I said it) has done a great job of voicing its opposition to Warren, who will eventually be hoisted by his own petard given enough time and media coverage. He's hard at work at it already (see his recent YouTube address). I don't think he can embarrass Obama enough before the inauguration to get disinvited, but if he keeps up the public diatribe about the evils of homosexuality, abortion, Iran, etc., you can bet Obama will eventually distance himself (see Wright, Jeremiah) and Warren will slither back to his cave, where he will spend eternity mollifying his angry flock. Or something like that.
RUFUS
I generally agree with your post. And it IS due to our vocal concentrated outrage.
We must continue to actively fight the good fight until we prevail since our cause is just[ice]- or something like that...
CHEERS !!!
Our cause is just, and we need to be continuously talking about it. We need to build alliances, and we need to aggressively pursue our cause. We should seek out senators and representatives that are allies of ours, we should organize, we should have rallies and protests. That's how the African-Americans did it in the 1960s, and that's how the anti-war people did it in the 1970s. But the gays have failed to do that, we don't understand how to make change happen. And we also have no distinguishable leader, like MLK. We need to get on the streets and start doing SOMETHING to get our point across.
I actually tried to watch Rick Warren's Xmas special on FAUX News which was run in a virtual loop late Wed & Thur am - for research purposes
but it was just so smarmy & self-serving imho that I had to switch to something much more tolerable - THAT is what Xmas is about on FAUX ???
WV - bushambr
an amber alert out for GW who remains MIA
David:
You damn yourself as a disrespectful child when you attempt to insult me with your dismissive ‘15 year old’ comment. I've been at this since Harvey Milk was assassinated. I've survived a lot of things over the last several decades of being an Out gay man. I've seen a lot of change for the better, and it wasn't from gays being quiet. When someone looks down on us and dismisses us like children, we’re going to call them on it. A bigot by any other name is still a bigot.
The tide is turning. No longer do we have to put up with "faggot" being spit in our faces. We now are finding ourselves standing up to the closet bigots like you. Those who just tell us to sit down and shut up. Those who feel guilt for what has happened in the past, but still condescend to the gays because down deep you're uncomfortable seeing us in public. Don't be like Rosie O’Donnell, you say, yet she has enough money to buy you multiple times over and it wasn't from being quiet. You might not like the gays being so loud, but until you treat us with respect, you'll have to put up with us being in your face.
BRIAN
you are absolutely correct. I already contacted my new DEM congresswoman [who I helped get elected] to remind her that it was important to not only support us, but to advocate in congress on our behalf.
I was in the rainbow coalition of many 100's of thousands that filled the national mall & marched past the WH during the big LGBT March on DC back in spring of '93
methinks it is time for yet another MARCH
rather than go to the Inauguration, I would rather travel to DC to Fight for our Rights if nothing changes or looks like it will change during the first 100 days...
It's been a long time since '93. I was just a baby back then. It definitely is time for another march, we need to organize one for this summer. That'll be past the 100 days, by then obama should have a handle of the economic crisis and the wars, and then we can start pushing him for our domestic agenda. In the summer, we should also have a ruling in California and possible action in NY State.
I want to go to Inauguration for non-gay reasons... I worked hard for Obama and I'm thrilled to have a Democratic president, I want to be a part of this Inauguration (although to be honest, I'm really going for Aretha ;) ). But don't worry, gay issues will still be on my mind :)
Hey guys,did you notice that Rifkin the Diction Expert
made some errors in his first post?As follows:
(1)Nate Silver babbles: "Specifically, the transition website makes a much broader range of commitments to the gay and lesbian (sic) community."
Notice the "(sic)" he inserts.He feels Nate made an error by not capitalizing "lesbian".The word "lesbian" is not capitalized (even though the word is derived from the name of Sappho's island,Lesbos).
(2)Obviously, my objection is pedantic (though not a pederastic).
Disregarding the sloppy loose "a",can an objection be "pederastic"?
SorryRifkin,you fail your own Perfect Diction Test.
BRIAN
well there have been 4 major LGBT Marches on DC - all in the past 30 years, each 7-8 years apart so we are certainly DUE since the last was in 2000
the first 2 were held in October:
'79 - 10/14
'87 - 10/11
the most recent were in late April/spring when the cherry blossoms are in bloom [no one wants to go march in DC in the summer]:
'93 - 4/25
'00 - 4/30
hopefully the good folks at HRC & other 'community' organization will build a coalition & get some plans formulated ASAP
enjoy the Inauguration - but please also make a statement while you are there since the whole world will be watching
I continue to be amazed at the people here who don't realize how the Great Conciliator will move the country a bit to the left, and advance the rights of the GLBT community.
Obama is a conciliator. He respectfully listens, hears everyone out, explains, convinces, cajoles, and then does what he thinks is right.
Does anyone here know who the last Great Conciliator was in American politics?
Two hints: He was nominated as governor of his state by both the Democractic and Republican Parties. And through his efforts the rights of more people were protected than every before. His legacy still lives on as a beacon to Americans and the world.
Oh, and while he was a politician, his conciliatory powers became pre-eminent when a Republican President appointed him to a lifelong position.
Lol I'm certainly well too young to have been in any of those, even the 2000 one. It's probably too late to start organizing for one in the spring, although an April one would be good timing-wise. Somebody needs to get these organizations going. I've been disappointed in the HRC, they do very little to advance our cause. They're too passive, to the point where they're strongly worded letter about Warren warranted nothing more than a wrist slap. We need to get aggressive if we're going to get our rights. And we need to make one of these marches stand out, to the level of the '63 one. We need speakers that can effectively communicate our beliefs in a universal fashion, and we need to get the celebrities, both political and entertainment, involved. Once you attach big names to a project, people start to look twice.
I was in the rainbow coalition of many 100's of thousands that filled the national mall & marched past the WH during the big LGBT March on DC back in spring of '93
methinks it is time for yet another MARCH
rather than go to the Inauguration, I would rather travel to DC to Fight for our Rights if nothing changes or looks like it will change during the first 100 days...
And what tangible benefit to the GLBT community came as a result of your marching? Solidarity perhaps?
Marching is necessary but insufficient. ACTION, change of people's opinions, and actual change of law resulting in benefits for GLBT people is far more important.
My local newpaper's most prominent columnist and blogger is a conservative, and used to be very anti-gay. Over a couple of years, as those of us advocating for gay rights continued to make our case, he as become neutral to positive on gay rights issues, a great change for him, and he has several hundred thousand readers. He no longer writes columns talking about gays wanting "special rights". He speaks to the rights of all people including gays. He's still a young earth creationist, oh well, but he's not anti-gay like he used to be. His voice is very influential.
I worked to get our city to provide benefits to city employees in same-sex relationships. Took a couple of years of fighting the fundies, but it happened.
I worked to get elected a (now) State Senate Majority leader who is for marriage equality. We're not there yet, but she pushed hard for and got legislation passed for civil unions, which grant most, but not all the rights of marriage. It makes a difference for 100's of 1000's of gay couples.
It is not enough to just march, not hardly. It takes organizing, and it takes work to get people elected, judicial and legislative, who will enact or rule for the full rights of gay people.
Another hint: He and Rick Warren have something of significance in common.
Earl Warren?
@ Brian
In the summer, we should also have a ruling in California and possible action in NY State.
I've read that the California Supreme Court will rule in March.That's good,because if the Court doesn't invalidate Proposition Eight there will be enough time to get an amendment on the 2009 ballot.
The new york State situation is criminal.One Senator,part of a gang of three threatening to vote in a Republican Senate leader) is holding out for a commitment to not bring a gay marriage bill to the floor.
Yeah I heard about that guy in NY. Dems are also considering waiting until after the '10 elections so that it doesn't "endanger" Paterson's re-election bid and so that they can bolster their majorities. We'll see where things go.
Action could happen in New Jersey too. Dems control both houses and the governor's mansion, and two years ago NJ enacted civil union laws. The review commission released a report favoring marriage rights over civil unions, and a poll also shows about sixty percent of jerseyans support it. it looks like NJ'll be the next state to do it, and probably the first one to do it through the legislature.
Thank you, Opus 132! Now we have the evidence needed to send the word police after Rifkin. They will lock him away in his own Diction Gitmo, where puritanical English teachers will beat him to a pulp with a Webster's Dictionary until he reveals everything he knows about other "proper diction" violators.
Seems much the same as Republitards; always pointing the finger at others when they’re guilty of the same sins.
green
your point about impacting local politics & policies is correct in that is an accomplishment you can point to concretely
what has been found to occur as the result of mass 'marches' & demonstrations to that the MSM impact is imparted to all about the depth of concern on the issues & the sheer size of the coalition that is demanding change
plus for LGBT it fosters an atmosphere of 'coming out' into the light
for instance, one the the most effective ways to marginalize a minority [such as LGBT] is to claim that they do not exist [or their numbers are so few] & that they do not really strongly care about the issues [or feel that they are discriminated against], etc.
these are effective marketing tools used by the powers that be to further justify majority suppression and virtual mob rule as well as 'historical mores'
BUT when marches such as the great civil rights/MLK 'I have a dream' speech to a huge crowd on the national mall 45 years ago proved to have more than visceral impact
such events CAN provoke REAL CHANGE to occur & help change minds that would otherwise not open
REAL change & advancements have come following each of the LGBT marches on DC in the past 30 years - whether you recognize it or not.
just the fact that we are having such conversations now is proof of the success in penetrating closed or persuadable minds
following each march, public opinions have advanced even if just incrementally. setbacks ? yes, but those are battles while we fight a war
Prop 8 was almost defeated - unimaginable 30 years ago
our day will come. Harvey Milk proved that you must get out there to be visible to make a real impact
yes, quiet negotiating gets results AFTER public action spurs the issues
in other words, the groundwork for the concrete work you speak of at the local level was laid years ago in advancing the general causes & proving that we are there & we deserve & demand our rights
Warren on his church website has a video clip where one of the things he talks about trying to justify his heinous gay-baiting is that gays are 'only 2%' of the population [as if that justifies discriminating] and that such small numbers should not be 'allowed to dictate' to the majority of good christians
millions of people in a rainbow coalition marching & visible in the streets reaps benefits that are harder to quantify - but they have been proven to be real
just as Gay Days at Disney, Pride parades & everything else that allow LGBT to prove that we are an integral community in this country & the world are effective in keeping things visible & helping to change minds a small step at a time
but of course, then the hard work at the local & legislative levels still has to be pursued.
I have many years in those trenches too when it was far more dangerous & difficult to fight the good fight.
In my years in LA that included working both in the streets & in the courts & politics to reign in police brutality & LAPD/sheriff dept discrimination which was rampantly homophobic even into the '90s
kudos to you for getting involved !
but there are many ways to contribute to the fight for civil rights & liberties
I think staging a protest on the Mall or along PA Ave. during the inauguration is a brilliant idea, as long as the protest is against what Warren stands for and what he has said, and not against Obama. This would put your voice right in front of Warren in an arena that is being watched around the world. So when you look at it this way, Obama has given the GLBT community a high profile opportunity to get in front of Warren to show him who you really are (as opposed to what he believes you are).
Imagine the power of tens of thousands of gay people standing with their families, their kids, their partners, and their friends in solidarity (I like the idea of carrying signs that say "God made Gay"). It will show the rabid right just how "normal" and "family-oriented" gays are. Let's not forget, the image that most of the fundamentalist evangelicals (and most of "middle america" for that matter) have of gays is that they are all wild, sex-crazed, drug using, God-hating, anti-family values, clubbing-every-night miscreants.
Think of this not as an opportunity to walk away from Obama, but as an opportunity to get in front of Warren in a way that he can't ignore you and show him what you are really all about and show the world that it can't turn its back on this important civil rights issue any longer. I think Barack is brilliant for orchestrating this. If Warren were not chosen, then he'd never have to face this issue on someone else's terms and someone else's turf.
I would even bet that the gay community could lobby Barack for some sort of forum where they get to sit down with someone from the Obama administration (even Barack himself) and the likes of Rick Warren around a table (or even the BBQ pit) and just talk. Something tells me Barack would relish the idea. And I think that Rick Warren has accepted that by agreeing to give the invocation at Barack's inauguration, he is now in a position where he could not turn down such an invitation and even that he has unwittingly become a de facto "change agent" in the gay rights movement.
The more exposure people like Rick Warren get to gays on a close and personal level, the better your chances are of changing his/their hateful views. And if you can get him to rethink his stance, just imagine how many dominoes would fall behind him.
Barack has long said it is time for a change in the way we engage with one another. Well, here is the change. How are you going to respond?
PeixeGato
excellent post. I second your motions !
please email your ideas to Team Obama & HRC & any others including Warren.
turn a lemon into lemonade - and make Warren take a bitter drink...
Earl Warren. Barack Obama is following Earl Warren's politics of conciliation and reconciliation. He was never a radical. He was always a liberal-leaning centrist. And he palled around with Warren Buffet, not Bill Ayres.
So all of you wounded egos - get over it. The guy you elec ted was honest about who he was and how he would operate. And now you're bellowing needlessly and flagellating yourselves in an agony of self-inflicted wounds. There's just no need for it. (Unless, of course, you enjoy feeling that you're the victims.)
Cheers, catfish [P-G]
REAL change & advancements have come following each of the LGBT marches on DC in the past 30 years - whether you recognize it or not.
Such as?
DADT was passed in the summer of '93, (after your vaunted march), and has resulted in MORE gay folks being kicked to the curb by the military than the under the previous policy.
As I said, marches are important and necessary. I go to them all.
But they are NOT sufficient in getting real change implemented. And the CCCP (Corporate Controlled Complicit Media) tend to ignore marches these days anyway.
And publicity without change is worthless.
STEP
meh, imho you are WAY over-reaching in your analogy of Warren & Obama...
Warren was a conservative politician [not a great conciliator] who turned into a liberal on the SC despite claims to be a center/rightist to get the SC nomination
by your analogy, Obama would then be more likely to turn into an activist neo-con since he claims to be center/left politically
fail...
hence the drame with Obama
STEP
do you believe that GW Bush is THE Uniter [not the Divider} as well as THE Deciderer & a compassionate conservative ??? lol
just cuz he & cronies label themselves does not make it so
GREEN
you are extremely myopic.
DADT was already gonna be the 'compromise' [thanks to Colin Powell's bigotry] before the '93 march on DC
how many celebs found the innner strength to come out & be visible ?
how much did the hate-speech drop as not acceptable ?
where the heck do you think the big MO for civil unions came from ???
it did NOT just appear organically
marches & meetings build public awareness, leading to community empowerment & political bridge-building as well as constucting a base of known supporters [which did not exist back in the dark ages of the 20th century]
sorry, but the cold reality is that one hand [marching, etc.] allows the other hand to be productive
history supports this
small analogy - what moment in the campaign do you think history will define as pivotal in allowing Obama to push forward & prevail in the primaries [which were necessary to win before the general could even be considered] ?
Obama narrowly won a 3 way in Iowa, lost NH, then came SC
I posit that with Oprah out publicly supporting Barack & campaigning for him in SC [especially with the big rally in Columbia], not only did that mobilize the AA population to GOTV there but it lead to the inevitable internal combustion of the Clinton road to victory
now the secondary reason was that Clinton basically conceded the caucus states to Obama for easy pickings - but I believe that the fight in SC and Obama's huge victory there was THE propelling event in hindsight IMHO
quantify that ? I saw it for myself as I was in SC in December of 2007 during the runup to the primary, and then the rest all fell into place - especially when the economy tanked
so, did Oprah win the election for Obama ????
NO, but she opened the door for him to push his way through at a key moment in time then Barack did the work to build on the opening
DCM - Obama is who he has always been. He doesn't demonize people nor characterize them. He's not going to be moved by the self-defeating "protests" at his inauguration. They will not help move the country forward. But it will happen despite and not because of any demonstrations.
You're wrong about Earl Warren. Earl Warren was a practical politician with a liberal streak. To be sure he was wrong (as was FDR) about interning Japanese citizens, but your breezy description of him as a conservative is wrong. My uncle (who Warren ultimately appointed to the Superior Court in CA) worked with him for years in Sacramento (1940-1948) and I got to know him when I was very young. (I am pretty old these days and outright decrepit on this board.)
Warren also understood that when the time was right and it was appropriate, to move the court and the country to the left. Obama's going to do the same thing. All the whining and sturm and drang isn't going to help, but it will sure give some people heartburn. (The ones engaging themselves in the drama, not the rest of us.)
Bush was a callow intellectual midget. And Texas politics was Rovian, so I don't see any analogy. But if you want to bamboozle yourself, be my guest
Mr. ('I'm straight, so I can be a bigot') Rifkin,
Have you ever looked up the definition of 'community' in a dictionary?
No? (That answer is obvious, as you completely misstate the definition.)
According to Dictionary.com (Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc.):
3. "a social, religious, occupational, or other group sharing common characteristics or interests and perceived or perceiving itself as distinct in some respect from the larger society within which it exists (usually prec. by the): the business community; the community of scholars."
According to Dictionary.com (Based on The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition):
1.c. "A group of people having common interests: the scientific community; the international business community.
1.d. "A group viewed as forming a distinct segment of society: the gay community; the community of color.
1.e. "Similarity or identity: a community of interests."
Notice that the definition of community does NOT necessarily require a concept of confined space (as in a municipality) as you tried to dictate to everyone?
Community - a group of people who share an identity, similarity, and/or common interest. That definition certainly applies to the G/L/B/T community.
Maybe it would be beneficial to you if you were to consult several dictionaries before you come back on here and try to give the 'definitive' definition of a word or words?
Thanks, Mike in Maryland! Please pass those dictionaries on to the Righteous Bigot Rifkin's word police so they can thump him thoroughly over the head with those volumes when he's being interrogated in his own Diction Gitmo.
I would imagine that gays (especially in very large cities) whose lives are stable, monogamous and family-oriented don't feel particularly in commune with gays whose lifestyles are just the opposite in those respects.
You imagine wrongly (and revealingly about your ignorance of how oppression ties people together) and you have absurdly and stupidly misused the word "diction".
Obama, in words, deeds, and record, is certainly NOT a true progressive. He's as centrist as they come
It's nice that the center has moved so far left.
Most teens my age are idiots
You're no exception.
and for a good reason, there parents let them run wild.
No, that's not why -- rather, it's an idiotic right wing authoritarian fantasy.
Mike -
Sure, here is Nate's post on Obama winning in almost all demographics - gays being the biggest exception.
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/11/obama-outperforms-kerry-among-virtually.html
DADT and DOMA should both be killed, and they will be. They won't make it first on the agenda, as the economy that Bush ruined is number one, and number two is our place in the world that Bush ruined.
Give Obama time, he has a great political mind and a his agenda will be left on social issues. He is throwing some bones to the right so he looks like a centrist when he does it.
He was my Senator, I went to U of Chicago and heard of the guy for a long time - my guess is that in his heart Obama is a social progressive, a fiscal conservative, and a moderate on foreign policy.
Here is the lead from Nate's post:
"Comparing exit polls from 2004 and 2008 makes the breadth of Barack Obama's victory clear. Obama received a larger share of the vote than John Kerry among voters of all genders, races, education levels, and income classes, and virtually all religions. The only groups with whom he underperformed Kerry were older (65+) voters, and gay and lesbian voters.
Conversley, there is a hidden source of strength in this table that hasn't been talked much about before: Obama markedly overperformed Kerry among parents. In a sense, it was those people who have most reason to be concerned about the future who voted for Obama: people who are young themeslves, or people who have young children at home."
Gays were by far the worst demographic group for Obama, he was down 7% compared to Kerry.
Obama will never get anywhere with a Progressive agenda if he alienates conservatives. He doesn't need to follow their agenda or even acknowledge it. What he does need to do is to show them how they connect to a progressive agenda and build that bridge. The Warren decision obviously is an attempt to bridge the gap between Progressives and Christians. How many Christians believe in providing aid to the poor and care for the sick, but are otherwise vote Republican based on national defense? Care for the sick and aid to the poor are Progressive issues and Progressives have never connected well to Christians to get their help in advancing that agenda. If we're going to have a Progressive nation again we need to invite in both Democrats and Republicans and Independents.
Well before the Warren announcement change.com had its statements about civil unions, DADT, etc. Additionally, Obama (and Biden) have consistently said that certain changes to partner rights for folks in the military are absolute musts. Hospital visitation is the example they keep bringing up - under DADT, if you are being treated at a military hospital and your partner is honest about the relationship or you have some sort of PDA while they are visiting you, you just violated the policy. Obama told both the Values Forum (hosted by various religious groups) and the GLBT Forum (the one with Melissa Etheridge) that he supported full civil unions, didn't support gay marriage but felt a Constitutional amendment about it was going too far. Admittedly, Obama hasn't gone dancing in a pride parade (just with Ellen - twice) but he has been pretty darn consistent on this.
I personally like STepper's Earl Warren analogy - he had truly great instincts in balancing the Court's Constitutional obligations with the readiness of the country to accept the consequences of those obligations. That's what I see Obama doing too, since even a President can't make the people of this country accept change they just aren't ready for.
By the way, Warren was not forced to "act conservative" to get the SC seat - back then, confirmations were basically rubber stamps, and it was seen as unseemly to dig too deep into judge's positions on issues that they hadn't dealt with publicly (like the ongoing validity of segregation - after all, it was the law of the land under Plessy when Warren was appointed). As a result, you didn't always know what you were getting on some things. Nixon had a similar shock with one of his appointments. It got a lot more invasive beginning with the Bork nomination in the mid 80s.
Suggestion for T-shirt to be worn at the inaugural:
"Impeach Rick Warren!"
Lanny.
I'm sorry, but I cant believe what i'm hearing from you.
ok God also say's homosexuality is a sin in Romans as well, and I will give you the chapter and vrs.
Romans. Chapter 1: 24-28.
I'll even type what they say. Just so you can see it twice if you like.
(24) Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
(25) Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever.
(26) For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
(27) And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
(28) And even as they did not like to retian God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;.
The Warren decision obviously is an attempt to bridge the gap between Progressives and Christians.
Excuse me?
The two are not mutually exclusive. the overwhelming majority of Progressives are also Christians.
Christians who who understand that Jesus's most central teachings were about love.
L -- You misunderstand why hate crimes are different than others. They are a form of terrorism, a message to all members of the targeted group that they could be next. If a group (or single party) beats up a gay (or Jewish or black) person it is assault and battery. But what if they also write a message on the person's forehead that warns others in that demographic that they are not safe? There would be no additional penalty for attempting to intimidate others in the community without a hate crimes law.
Interesting comments. Having been subjected to some hate myself for posting my reaction earlier, despite my lifetime support and friendship with large numbers of gay people of every sort (artist/musician history, along with episcopalians before I lost faith), I've been reflecting.
Rick Warren does not wear well. A little searching reveals he is dishonest, he definitely has a phony affect, and he appears to hug the fame/money. Choosing him wears off some of the gilt from Obama. But having made this mistake, I can see Obama is stuck with it.
He is now in the position of having to overcompensate rather than inhabiting the center on this issue.
Although I am furious at being labeled a hater for suggesting a more neutral stance, I have been remembering a dear friend who was badly injured and eventually died after a beating because he was gay.
With a sympathetic church it is possible to get married in church regardless of your state's laws. I've been to quite a few of these weddings.
On the other hand, I am sick of being required to treat and look at extreme gay pornography as art. If I say what I think I'm labeled intolerant; I'm not interested in other people's sex lives. One of the problems with a portion of the male gay community is that they appear to need to find comfort in exposing us to stuff we would not accept from each other. One friend chose to title a piece we were required to put in a show for PC reasons "Get Over It."
I am reminded of being slapped in the street for smiling at a Black man. It took me a while to move on from wanting to be an expert in the martial arts so I could floor him and say "now look here, young man" to realizing that what he had done to me had been frequently done to him. We err when we assume we know what it's like to expect to be badly treated on a daily basis.
I do not agree that gay people are as badly treated as people of color, but they are subject to discrimination and it is a problem.
One more thing. Paul (Romans) was a classic (not so) closet hater. I know there are those who prefer his teachings to those of Jesus, but that seems twisted to me. I suggest a return to the 4 gospels, which are the closest thing we have to the core teachings of Christianity. And that goes quadruple for the religious right. I don't know how *anyone* can claim Jesus supports excessive property rights or wants people to kill in his name.
Susan.
I dont know what you mean by that, but if what I believe your saying is ture.
Well then I profoundly disagree.
The bible is inspiared by God.
So Paul wrote what God put in his heart to right. nothing in the bible can get in there without Gods allowing.
Joshua,
It seems you are selective about which parts of the Bible are inerrant. Paul yes, Jesus as reported by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, no. How about Leviticus?
I am very fond of the Sermon on the Mount. Isaiah contains some of the most beautiful language in the world's history. Paul appears to dislike women and be pretty intolerant, and I do not believe that is god-given.
Jesus taught tolerance and love, which makes him a star in the history of the globe. What people have chosen to ignore of his teachings is not Christianity. There is no way to justify violence and hate based on his teachings.
In fact, I feel that most humans are comforted because history has made god in their image rather than the reverse.
By the way, I am only an occasional visitor so don't be surprised if I don't respond to your response, with apologies.
Susan.
There are some thing's that Christians like myself can not be tolerent of. Christ wasnt tolorent of some thing.
Remember when he went to the temple and they were selling animals and thoses sorts of things? did he act tolorent of then tarnishing God's house? no.
You can love the person, but not the sin there's a difference.
It's not that christians and republicans hate gay's the people it's the sin they do that we dislike.
Thankfully though, God is patint, and long suffering.
But in the end sin wont win out, because he's perfect. and since cannot enter into heaven. which show's is judgment of sin and his intolorence of it.
Joshua-
Where does the Bible it say anything is wrong with being a lesbian?
Also, go read Leviticus, please, read it. If you think the entire Bible is inspired by God and should be followed, then you have sinned about 500 times today and likely should have been stoned by lunch. You can't take a take it or leave it approach to Leviticus, either you accept everything in it, or you reject it - even the gay part.
Do you eat catfish? That's a big sin!
"9: These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat.
10: And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:"
Do you eat pork?
"26: The carcases of every beast which divideth the hoof, and is not clovenfooted, nor cheweth the cud, are unclean unto you: every one that toucheth them shall be unclean."
Joshua-
Have you killed an adulterer lately?
"10: And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death."
It's not even worth taking the time to talk to "some" of you people.
Your like stone wall's to w/e you dont want to hear.
I said the entire bible is inspiared by God which is true. but gen,ex,lav,num, and duter. are for thoses who where under God's "ORIGONAL" law.
When he sent his son Jesus to die on the cross we are no longer under that law.
He was the final sacrafice we no longer have to kill animals for our sins we can go to him in prayer.
Take the time to read it before you try to tell someone it's wrong.
oh, and also everyone sins every day. no suprise. The bible say's for all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.
That's why he sent Christ to die for us. to save us from our sins so we no longer are under the old law.
Joshua, you have to realize that there is a difference between morality and legality in this country. There is separation of church and state. Under the First Amendment, we have the freedom of religion, and also the freedom *from* religion. And as a Christian, whom is educated to love others, you must realize that not everyone has the same views as you, and you must learn to respect those views.
Issues such as same-sex marriage are not concerned with morality, they are concerned with legality. When the debate is over what's fair and just, it's simple--gays deserve the same rights as straights, and they deserve marriage because civil unions are a Jim Crow institution. But when you inject morality into it, you get things like "gays are wrong" and the "traditional institution of marriage." But the truth is that morality has nothing to do with the law. That's why we have to put our Bibles and Torahs away and respect the rights of others (ahem, Fourteenth Amendment). Because regardless of our faiths, it is the law that brings us together. And the first law that our Founding Fathers made was to take religion out of it.
LOL! Joshua condemns the passage in the bible most often cited against gays. Good for you.
Still waiting for the condemnation of lesbians from the Bible...tick, tick, tick...
umm, Romans Chapter 1:26.
For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their "WOMEN" did change the natural use into that which is against nature.
And if that doesnt mean anything to you then doesnt matter. cause you choose not to believe.
so yes the bible does say it's a sin to be GAY. no matter how much you try not to believe it and disprove it people have done it for thousands of years.
haha. Thankfully God's word still survives no matter how hard you people try you'll never get rid of it.
enough said.
Absolutely right Brian. What happened to the equal protection clause? Stopping gay marriage is pretty clearly unconstitutional. In fact, there is a much better constitutional argument for gay marriage than for abortion - although I think the constitution protects both.
I would add though, that Christians randomly pick and choose sections from the Bible to support almost any position they want to...
I loved that whole inquisition thing, and the torture being done by the religious authorities.
Brian.
I yes there are others who have opposing views as me, and I would be foolish not to know that.
But we can respectivly disagree can we not? i'm not saying Gay's should be shut up forever nor should you guy's say Christians should shut up forever.
what would life be like if there was no one to give a different view on thing's thats why presidents have advisers not just 1, but many.
i'm just stating my view on this since there are enough of you on here stating yours.
How is gay marriage constitutional in the first place?.
The founding fathers never said that it was protected under the law.
Because it was outlaw'd in that day just as it is in 48 states today from our country.
It's an issue outside of the constitution and in my "view" should be decided by the people.
But, of course that's my view.
The Fourteenth Amendment offers an equal-protection clause, in order to protect minorities. It was added after the Civil War to protect the rights of freed slaves, and was used extensively in the 50s-70s during the Civil Rights Movement. It is also used to constitutionally prove gay marriage, something that Justice Sandra Day O'Connor once said.
And, again, this is a clause meant to protect the rights of the minorities, not the will of the majority. Because usually, people don't support giving the rights that everyone deserves. That's why Proposition 8 passed, even though I think that the Cali Supreme Court shouldn't have allowed it on the ballot because of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Gays will get their rights, because it is in the Constitution. You cannot put liberty up to a vote.
marriage between a husbend and wife is in the constitution.
There's nothing that say's anything close to marriage between a man and a man, or a woman and a woman.
tell me this, What rights do people who are not gay have that thoses who are gay do not have?
I mean you say we are equal so we have the same rights.
if your straight and choose to be gay, you will have the same rights that the gay's have.
Also if your gay and choose to be straight then you'll have the same rights as thoses who are not gay.
so we do have the same rights atm if you really think about it.
gay marriage is not a liberty.
no matter how offten you try to refute it.
Joshua-
You are astoundingly uninformed. The Constitution says what you cannot do, not what you can. It says religion cannot run government, for example. It also says that you cannot privilege one group of people under the law - it is called equal protection - and allowing some to marry and not others is thus, unconstitutional.
We could take care of this and just make marriage only a religious construct, and remove divorce and marriage from the law all together. I would actually be for that, but I would stay with my wife of 15 years.
Joshua, the Constitution does not address marriage at all. If it does, please show me the passage.
Marriage is commonly seen as a state issue, thus the federal DOMA is widely seen as unconstitutional. There is no doubt it will be repealed soon. Even today, marriage is mainly seen as a state-by-state issue, and I'm sure the Obama Administration will do little other than repeal DOMA to aid this cause.
Also, Joshua, homosexuality is not a choice. I don't know where you come up with this idea, but a gay cannot choose to be straight, and a straight cannot choose to be gay. This is just purely false.
homosexuality is a choice tyvm.
there is no dna they can find that say's your "born" that way, its just a sinfull choice of a life style.
Just like sleeping with someone before your married is a choice and it's sinfull as well.
I would rather people wait for marriage before they do anything of the sort. but the bible say's sin is good for a season.
and eventualy your sin catch's up with you. not politions all the time? getting caught for things. Ted stevens. the Jefferson guy with the money in his freezer.
your sin alway's finds you out one way or another.
Like Romans say's.
God gave them up to vile affections or (feelings) if you dont know what that means. it's feelings they have that are sinfull.
we all are born into sin. some just choose to sin in other ways.
Tyvm? And no, homosexuality is NOT a choice. Engaging in sex is a choice, and yes gay people can be chaste, but being homosexual is not a choice. It is either a) genetic or b) influenced by environment at a very young age where there is no choice in the matter.
I honestly don't know where you come up with this...
SUSAN
very insightful posting today on this thread.
I may have been among the ones who might have jumped down your throat last week when emotions were even higher on this topic... although it was not personal
you seem to realize now after research & further reflection [which is dutifully aknowledged btw] that this issue just really rubs an extremely raw nerve for many of us - and as a result when we are [or even appear to be] further 'abused' we feel wounded so we act up & lash out with a vengeance in self-defense mode
this issue has vitually backed us up into a corner - so how do we get out from the mob that boxes us in ???
especially when people of good intent such as yourself were telling us that we are being counter-productive by vocally objecting to this perceived slight, and that we should just stay in our place like good children should & wait patiently for organic change to come about someday down the line...
sorry, we have learned the hard way that REAL change does not come in a vacuum & without long, hard, focused fights across the broad spectrum of discrimination
we are not demanding 'special rights' as the evangelicals & others claim - we are entitled to the same right and liberties as everyone no matter how large or small our constituency is
silence = discrimination will be tolerated, but that is not acceptable
I am thrilled to read how your personal perception of the events unfolding are continuing to evolve
is it possible that such an evolution of thought might spread wider & penetrate the public conscienci ? THAT would constitute advancement !
please continue to contribute, and have a very Happy New Year !!!
yes. you are right.
your enviornment can being on sin........like i said people choose to sin in different ways being gay is just one of thoses ways. There are many.
plus there is no genetic code, cells, or dna in your body that say your gain from birth.
because your not. they havent found one yet. and, well they never will. If they do say they'v found one. they'll be lying. simple as that.
Joshua-
Being gay is not a choice, and there are myriad twin studies that show that. Monozygotic twins (identical twins) have a much higher concordance of sexual preference than dizygotic twins (non-identical twins) thus showing a strong genetic component.
Hershberger, Scott L. 2001. Biological Factors in the Development of Sexual Orientation. Pp. 27-51 in Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Identities and Youth: Psychological Perspectives, edited by Anthony R. D’Augelli and Charlotte J. Patterson. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.
A good lay press article on sexual preference - it is most certainly genetic.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/10/health/10gene.html?_r=1&ex=1187236800&en=b8ee8ae30451c2e9&ei=5070
Joshua
you are just babbling from behind your biblical tales of fiction
cite real ascertainable proof for the hand of god in producing the bible
doesn't exist - it is a faith thang, nothing more
not that on the face of it there is anything wrong with 'faith' in concept
but your 'faith' in a bible produced & promoted by a select few people out to serve their own intersts & exert power over the masses has distorted the historical root 'faith' into a noxious brew of self-serving rules that are selectively interpreted as certain flawed men dictate
why are not articles of faith put to a vote btw ??? ordained by god through his mouthpiece the pope [who is voted into office using the worst of political machinations] ? I think not
plus, Joshua - how do you reconcile your biblical creationism with science & evolution ?
yet you are selectively aruing that god says hate gays while also trying to argue that gay is not an inherent human trait supported by evolution in all species as well as supported by science
you can't have it both ways - but you sure do try and fail IMHO
I posted last night that Joshua, by his own admission, is very young. His trolling around this site and arguing his holey babble and sin lead me to believe that he's fighting his own inner demons.
Kids like Joshua, who feel compelled to engage gay people over these issues, are brainwashed by their parents. Either they see logic and turn away from the repression and hate or they become Republitards and have sex with the likes of Larry Craig in public men's rooms. Sadly, many turn to suicide.
No discussion of religion is valid when it comes to civil rights and the law. This is not a theocracy and we should not be legislating morality. No one should have the right to force others to live by their religious dogma. Joshua can worship a giant, purple, shit-throwing monkey in the sky, for all I care, but he has no right to tell us that his purple monkey, or Jesus, or Jehovah, or any other deity dictates that we are bad and going to some sort of afterlife punishment because of who we love. End. Of. Argument.
Rather than judging others as sinful, perhaps Joshua should visit Iran or Saudi Arabia if he'd like an example of what theocracy will do to a country. He'd have to control his inner urges, though. They hang gay boys in Iran, even the closeted ones.
The lady doth protest too much, me thinks.
Hahahahah Joe you're too much! But I agree, you gotta separate morality and legality. It's the only way to assure that justice is held over dogma.
JOE
you nailed it on Joshua [no pun intended]
and you didn't even mention religious clergy sexual abuses in the name of god
amen
joshua said...
marriage between a husbend and wife is in the constitution.
The troll is as ignorant about the Constitution as he is about the Bible.
Or, he's just a huckster here to stir up trouble.
In any case, ignore it.
DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS!
No discussion of religion is valid when it comes to civil rights and the law.
-Joe
Ummmmm, I think the Reverend Martin Luther King would have disagreed... Read his speeches.
We have waited for more than three hundred and forty years for our constitutional and God-given rights.
A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of Saint Thomas Aquinas, an unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal and natural law.
-April 1963 Letter from Birmingham Jail.
King also chose the out gay African American civil rights activist Bayard Rustin to organize the infamous 1963 March on Washington.
Mr. Rustin was a Quaker.
http://gaylife.about.com/od/gayrights/a/bayard_rustin.htm
Copy that, DNFTT!
Just catching up on reading, here are a couple of articles from TNR on Warren, another place for y'all to make your voices heard, and well written, if not agreeable, as well. Please note I do not endorse the positions, just recommend for broadening purposes, both of their opinions and yours if you wish to comment.
Into the Fold by John McWhorter
"Rick Warren is every bit as much in line with the black American soul as his fellow inaugural performer, Aretha Franklin."
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=9aeb2e37-c8ac-45d1-a4d3-9409ef43ab5b
Obama's New Pastor Problem? by Alan Wolfe
"Why Rick Warren's acceptance of Obama is more important than Obama's picking of Warren."
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=77a790f5-d349-4437-a322-6056770fb75f
Thanks for the response DCM in FL
Breaking troll promise above, Paul looks to me like a recovering addict: too extreme. Whosis will grow up in time, but his likely problem is now on record. This is not a place where people tend polite, is it!
dendi: as in that's just dandy
I don't think Joshua is a troll at all but just a totally confused kid who possibly is trying to learn something.I commend those posters who have taken the time to respond to him in the hope of showing him the truths from which his religious background has shut him off.
green libritarian:
It does not matter to me who quotes scripture or evokes their deity, whether it was MLK or Rev Warren. This is not a theocracy, therefore anyone who drags their religious dogma into the argument of civil liberties and law, diminishes their point. If we stick to the facts and leave a multitude of differing faiths out of the discussion, we'll find that all the bullshit is swept out of the way, allowing reason to prevail.
No one wins a faith based argument, because faith and logic do not coexist.
No one wins a faith based argument, because faith and logic do not coexist.
How true.As one of my favorite philosophers said:
"You cannot prove the nonexistence of God; you just have to take it on faith." Woody Allen
wv; ching Seriously.From one philosopher to another?
L said:
Murder is murder, and should be punished equally not matter who the victim is. The same applied for lesser crimes. I don't see how any other system is rational for those who truly belive in equality.
But murder isn't just 'murder' we have many types of homicide all categorized by the intent of the perpetrator.
Our legal system is based on the punishment fitting the intent behind the crime and all hate crime riders do is say that committing a crime merely because of what group a person supposedly belongs to is different and, in most cases, needs a more severe punishment than one committed for a more individual reason.
Having hate crime riders means we can have the punishment fit the crime without having a dozen types of crimes like we do with murder, or having sentencing guidelines so broad that they would fall into abuse.
Setting a fire in someone's yard as a halloween prank is different than doing so because the owner is of a particular race/religion/whatever and hate crime riders allow their punishment to reflect that.
haha. confused?.
sorry, but i'm no where near there. I have learned my political views from my parents true. As do quite alot of people.
I have my views just as you people have your's deal with it. I have to deal with yours all the time.
you hear opposition once in a while and you freak out. learn to take it in stride no one will ever believe the same way as you people.
I'm a christian conservative first. republican second. I will not change my view just as you wont change yours no matter how much we bicker.
@ Joshua
plus there is no genetic code, cells, or dna in your body that say your gain from birth.
because your not. they havent found one yet. and, well they never will. If they do say they'v found one. they'll be lying. simple as that.
If that really is your position,then there is no hope for you!
wv: polis Seriously again.The Greek word from which our word "politics" was derived.
hmm, I wont put it that way. that was alittle mean.
it just is hard to understand why you'd rather have less morals and not care as much about human life, but care more about animals and trees.......that's the thing I dont understand.
This is great for JOHN MCCAIN!!!
@ Joshua
it just is hard to understand why you'd rather have less morals and not care as much about human life, but care more about animals and trees.......that's the thing I dont understand.
To what are you referring?
Joshua, I respect your views. Obviously, we differ. The Church teaches that we must make decisions based on our conscience, and that it must be well-formed and well-informed. I'm not sure if you have many gay friends wherever you are, but you can easily support gay marriage without supporting the act/"sin." You look at these people and you see them as sinners, but you said yourself, love the person but hate the sin. However, if you love this person, how can you deny that person happiness in their own right? Just because they're a sinner means they have to live in misery the rest of their lives? Maybe you just have to meet more gay people and befriend them to understand, but these people are good people who just want to be able to be with the one that they love in the eyes of the law (not the eyes of God, we're speaking purely civil marriage, not religious marriage). And if you truly love the sinner instead of hating the sinner, then you would want them to be happy and would support gay marriage.
opus 132.
i'm refering to abortion. it's a baby. not a nonhuman life.
anyways. Brian I have said I respect your views even though we do disagree.
and I didnt say love the sinner and not the sin. but to me having them marry is a sin.
you dont understand my view because you never grew up as I have. and I dont understand yours because I havent grown up liberal.
haha, you'v heard this many atime. but marriage is between one man and one woman in the bible and that's why i believe gay marriage is a sin.
sure let them be happy, just dont let them marry, life isnt always fair as the world say's. sometimes you just have to live with it, you lose loved ones and you move on.
gay marriage will come no matter how many people on my side fight it because the world is getting more and more sinfull and people dont care who does what and how.
Lot's say you only have one life live it as you wish without rules. and that's the way we'll be if not worse off in the future in my opion.
Joshua:
About halfway down this thread you became a troll. Why? Because you are preoccupied with sitting in judgment of others rather than minding your own business. If you have a healthy mind and a loving heart you would only be concerned with living your life the way YOU feel is best and not dictating to others that they are sinful, immoral, and BAD. If you feel that your deity somehow communicates with you what is good and bad in your personal life, then follow his/her dictates. The line is crossed, and your mental health is in question, when you believe that your deity tells you to control others.
I, for one, do not give a purple monkey's ass what you believe, but I do care when small-minded bigots, struggling with their own sexuality, feel the need to control my personal behavior by promoting laws that impose religious dogma to justify their feelings of inferiority.
Your archaic, intolerant, controlling morality is not mine, so mind your own business!
haha. you make me laugh, I dont really care what you call me.
If you can't stand my point of view just dont read it then. i mean that's why you can click on other pages for you to look at.
I'v heard you yet i dont go off cussing and w/e else you are doing having diarrhea at the mouth I guess. learn to control it better. thanks ;).
Joshua, it's naive to assume that just because I'm liberal I grew up in a liberal household. I actually grew up in a very religious household, and it was quite difficult for me to come to terms with my sexuality and my liberal beliefs when I attended Catholic school and sat through years and years of religion classes.
You fail to comprehend, though, what we're asking for. We are asking for civil marriage, not religious marriage. We don't ask to be joined in union in front of God. We just ask for the government to recognize our union and give us rights. And no where does it specifically say marriage is for one man and one woman. It may come out against things like homosexuality and adultery, but the Bible never explicitly says that.
To be frank, the Catholic Church actually allowed homosexuality in its early years. It wasn't until the twelfth century, under Pope Gregory VII and Pope Alexander III, that homosexuality became banned. And those popes enacted the policy (Canon 11 of the Third Ecumenical Council of the Lateran) in order to gain political power.
It was there, in the twelfth century, where the Catholic Church went from an accepting religion to the oppressive ogre that it is today. And I assume that you are Protestant, because you always refer to Christian rather than Catholic. So in the Protestant Reformation, several of Martin Luther's 95 Theses opposed this ban and sought to repeal the bans on homosexuality. Most Protestant sects were also very liberal towards homosexuality in their formative years, though that quickly changed (for political purposes) first in England (with the Puritans of the 1600s) and then in other Christian sects.
As you see, the early Catholic Church was very accepting of homosexuals. Jesus did fulfill the Jewish law, so the bans in Leviticus were not seen as consequential. And Paul's words are not Jesus', so his views are not universal of the early Catholic Church. Prejudice in religious institutions of homosexuals is a rather recent thing, and I would hope that someone as involved in faith as you would be able to see the political mechanics of recent political/religious leaders.
I actualy also thought you might have grown up like that. in a religous home.
Many people though such as yourself fall out of that in there 20-30s which, well I dont always understand why. but all things happen for a reason. I do not believe the catholic church is what God inteded at all.
I'm not catholic nor do I inted to be. i'm baptist and from the south which might explain alot for some of you guys.
But the catholic church is to far into works based faith insted of believe God sent Christ to die for them. so I do have disagreements with them on thoses issues.
My bro would probly be kind like you and many others he chose his own way he wanted. he's not liberal per say just doesnt live as we would like.
I dont want anyone to hate me for my views, but if you must then go ahead. I try not to hate you guys for yours. I like having conversations about subjects as this. I actualy believe i'm more conservative then my parents on certin things. shocking to most people.
Joshua:
Did I hurt your feelings? I hope so! Because every time you belittle someone by telling them they are sinful and immoral, you do more that hurt their feelings. You cut gay youth to the core. At your young age you've already become the same type of judgmental, intolerant, bigot who drives gay teens to suicide. It's verbal and mental abuse to preach your condemnations at others. Especially the young who are struggling to come Out and be themselves.
As for your sexuality, I have come to believe that you find your closet a nice warm place to preach from right now. It probably keeps you from slitting your own wrists because of all the hate you've heard about people who, down deep inside, you know are like you.
If you were 100% straight, I doubt very much that you would be so concerned with those who are not. The biggest homophobes, whether they are religious bigots or gay bashers are usually the biggest closet-cases.
Mind your own business and you won’t seem so much like the lady who doth protest too much!
haha. you talk about my words cutting, yet you dont feel anything call christians bigots, and intolerant. try your own preaching first.
this can go either way. let's just stop talking about this between each other because we are making no progress from my view of this conversation. nice talking to you. ;)
joshua said...
sin is good for a season.
joshua,
What season? Summer? Spring? Winter? Autumn? Or some other season?
Come on, do tell us, so we can avoid or participate in sin in the appropriate season!!!!
As to genetics, I'm sure you have an extremely limited, if any, knowledge of that subject. After all, having some knowledge of genetics would lead you to also have some knowledge of natural selection and evolution, which you so blatantly state is false.
I have an eye disease, one that is autosomal dominant. Do you know what 'autosomal dominant' means? It means that only one parent needs to carry the genetic cause of the disease for a descendant to have the disease. And then, by probability (another subject that I perceive of which you have very little knowledge), each descendant will have a 50% probability of having the disease. But if both parents have the disease, then the probability of each descendant having the disease goes up to 75%.
In the case of the eye disease I carry, it has been shown through many studies that the disease is genetic - only descendants of people with this disease have the disease. Siblings who don't have the disease don't have descendants with the disease.
However, the gene that causes the disease has not been identified, and its location in the genetic code still has not been found. Researchers at many centers throughout the US have isolated a general area of a specific chromosome where they believe the gene is located, but they have not isolated the specific gene yet. There also is some indication that it may be a combination of two or more genes that causes the disease to be expressed, or the degree to which the disease is expressed, as the disease doesn't express itself in the same manner or degree from one generation to the next.
By your logic, since no gene has been identified as causing the eye disease that I have, I don't have the eye disease, as the disease cannot exist. My doctor will be very happy to hear that, even though he has many patients with this disease, and I have several dozen relatives with this disease.
Joshua:
Any so-called Christian who sits in judgment of me and tells me I'm "sinful" and "immoral" because of who I am IS AN INTOLERANT BIGOT. Period. I meant my words to cut you. Maybe that's the only way you'll be shocked into realizing how hateful your words are. When you attack people for who they fall in love with (something no one can control) you attack their humanity. No matter how you feel about gay people, no one is forcing you to say hurtful things to them. My hope is that you'll remember the hurt you felt when reading my words and refrain from sitting in judgment of, and attacking people who are doing you no harm. You’ll have no issues with getting your feelings hurt as long as you mind your own business.
Stay nice and warm in your closet. It's a cold cruel world out there. Peace!
I felt no hurt by your words at all no worrys ;).
I hear it day long on the more liberal news channels republicans and christians have to grow a thick skin.
i'v been called far worse haha. no worry's.
joshua said...
I hear it day long on the more liberal news channels
And those channels would be?
Ain't no leeberal channels.
The ones that aren't knee jerk right wing (like Faux News is) -- like MSNBC, CNN, & the majors -- are still just as myopically interested in promoting invented controversies like this Rick Warren non-issue (& the "Blago non-connection" story, the "dissing Hillary" non-story, the "not enough women appointments" controversy, etc. etc.).
It only matters to the pinkest of the GTLB community that was too stupid to figure out how to organize CALIFORNIA on the prop 8 issue. If they can't organize CALIFORNIA they clearly aren't trying.
I'm sure they were taken by surprise by the fact that conservative churches and pastors would be agin'em. (this is sarcasm for the intelligence impaired.
If they want to choose who gives Obama's invocation, they shou;d run for prez themselves & appoint whomever they want.
LOOMIS
or is it DOOFUS ???
that is just plain ignorant stoopid blather you spewed above
'THEY' includes ME & WE could give a flying F what YOU have to say fwiw...
your illogical irrational opinions [which presume facts not in evidence and incorrect assumptions] do not pass the smell test on any level cuz...
perhaps, your piehole needs a refill ???
Nate,
Your post implies that the Obama team made this change due to the Warren controversy, but the entire text has been "front and center" under the Civil Rights Agenda of change.gov since at least Nov. 18 (http://www.towleroad.com/2008/11/obamas-changego.html), well before the Warren invitation.
Told ya'll not to feed the troll, an especially ignorant one, at that.
It does not matter to me who quotes scripture or evokes their deity, whether it was MLK or Rev Warren.This is not a theocracy, therefore anyone who drags their religious dogma into the argument of civil liberties and law, diminishes their point.
-Joe
It may not matter to YOU, but it does to vast majority of the population.
The REVEREND Dr. Martin Luther King accomplished more for civil rights in this country than anyone, justified much of his work based on his faith in God and the true teachings of Jesus Christ.
How did Dr. King diminish his point by "dragging in religious dogma to his argument?"
A large majority of the top scientists in their field, a very logic based profession fields are people of faith. Are you saying their work is hindered because they some sort of belief in a higher power? How so?
The concept of religious freedom, including freedom FROM religion, and the separation of church and state, was pioneered by William Penn, a Quaker, and expanded upon, by Thomas Jefferson, a Deist, and follower of the teachings of Jesus Christ.
You and Joe are having a discussion in which you disagree.That does not make him (or you) a troll.
green libertarian:
MLK was a preacher; therefore it is without question that he would use his sermons as a place to promote equality. But that does not mean that the civil rights movement of the '60s was built on a religious argument.
You are obviously offended by non-believers and show your intolerant colors. To use myriad of faiths, feelings, or belief systems to argue a civil matter of treating everyone equally causes division, since people cannot agree on differing matters of faith that cannot be measured or proven. As I told Joshua, worship whatever you see fit, but to tell others that your deity says this or that only takes logic and reason out of the equation.
BTW: Your insults were not very Christian, so perhaps you proved my point about what happens when religion is thrown into what should be a secular discussion.
You are obviously offended by non-believers and show your intolerant colors.
-Joe
Am not in the least offended by non-believers, on what basis do you make that assertion? Please be specific.
BTW: Your insults were not very Christian, so perhaps you proved my point about what happens when religion is thrown into what should be a secular discussion.
Insults? Please provide a specific instance of where I have insulted anyone. Be specific.
And, asking again, second time:
How did Dr. King diminish his point by "dragging in religious dogma to his argument?"
Oh, perhaps you illogically think I was referring to you as the troll to be ignored?
Naw, to the careful reader, it was clear I was talking about Troll Joshua, which some of you just couldn't resist responding to.
GREEN
since you think you know it all...
please cite evidence to support your statement that "The REVEREND Dr. Martin Luther King accomplished more for civil rights in this country than anyone..."
better check the definition of 'accomplish' first btw
while MLK was a great [but deeply flawed] man in many ways, in reality he was a symbolic leader of a broad coalition - and just one of many in the long fight for rights
he did 'accomplish' becoming an icon & winning the Nobel Peace Prize - but he alone did not accomplish the advancements
in fact, by definition LBJ gets more credit for the actually accomplishment of the Civil Rights Act because he pushed it through congress
Al Gore became an icon of environmentalism & also was awarded a Nobel Peace Prize [which is an 'accomplishment'] - but Gore does not get credit for solving global warming
so quit nit-picking on Joe B cuz your argument & circular logic is flawed more so than the valid points Joe raises IMHO & fwiw
unless you are just trolling for a fight maybe...
This is the 199th post on this thread.In case you don't know,you can continue to post but posts after 200 will not be visible here.
To see them,click on "Post a Comment" and scroll down the window.
This is a public service announcement.
DCM, I seek clarity, understanding, and truth. I've been known to to wrong, and if I am, I appreciate a reasoned and logical correction.
Joe has accused me of being intolerant and insulting. I don't see that I've I have done that, and seek clarification of that serious charge.
I'll not digress into extraneous issues such as Al Gore, it is not relevant. Unless you care to charge he has not stopped global warming because he is a believer. Which would be absurd. Drop it.
Any serious scholar of the civil rights movement knows that without MLK and MANY other persons of faith, LBJ would have not had to do jack shit about civil rights.
If you do not understand how the protest movement, the marches, the inspiring speeches, all of it, organized by Dr. King affected not only the conscious of the population, but affected legislation to redress, well, then, why are you constantly preening about the success of your attending a gay rights march in '93, and wanting to have another one?
For the fun it of, or for actually accomplishing the long denied full civil rights of gay people?
Non-believers are 15% of the population, and probably less than 10% of the senior judiciary. Good luck with those odds, should you decide to deride and mock those who because of yes, horror of horrors, their religious beliefs tell them that equal rights for ALL people should be the law of the land.
Post a Comment