Jack & Jill Politics

There are over 1OOO Federal Rights and Benefits denied LGBT couples and that is only on a national level. There are some LGBT couples that have been fighting for their civil rights for 40 years.

It's their turn for people to speak for them.
http://www.equalitymatters.org/

Wow... Exciting. Much props to CraigHickman for raising the flag for the notion that people can be both Black and gay simultaneously!

The commentary on this post makes it clear that this week's strategy is Divide and Conquer.

Don't be tempted to fall for it. Every group has its legitimate concerns. However, we all share common problems as well. Healthcare, education, climate change, job loss, homelessness to name a few. . .

Arguing about where are the blacks at the HRC event is not relevant. The LGBT communities have real concerns just like AAs, Hispanic, etc. Competing for POs attention is just childish. He is aware of ALL our concerns. He is right to address each group when possible while making sure to balance the load on issues that affects us all.

Val why is it Ok for Gay people to express their concerns about their rights but AA's cannot do the same? AA's are not treated equal in this country period. I know many want to believe we have over come but we have not.
To pretend that the gay rights movement, a mostly white movement, is not any less racist than the overall society is ridiculous. It is relevant to speak about it and relevant to point out their hipocrisy.
Divide and conquer??????????? When were we ever together?????
You have your opinion I have mine.

You know what is missing from the Gay Civil Rights Movement? Straight black people and LOTS OF THEM.

I have absolutely ZERO RESPECT for people who have been discriminated against sitting at home and letting it happen to others. ZERO.

I don't care what your personal views are on gay rights. EQUALITY is about sticking up for people different than yourself.

Think hard about what life would be like for you if no one different took a chance and spoke out~

I have absolutely zero respect for any movement that tries to browbeat and bully people into supporting it. You are alienating your potential allies with your tactics, so tone down the hostility. The bomb throwing does not help your cause.

You want to rally black folks to your cause? Well, you can start out by having your leaders like Dan Savage apologize for all the hateful shit they spewed out of their mouths about the black community right after Prop 8 passed because some crappy exit poll from CNN fed them a bullshit meme.

I don't believe we should make a diverse group of people pay for the wrongheadedness of a single "leader" in the movement.

How many times have the misguided remarks of a Black leader been propagandized to try to harm a slew of people?

Divide and conquer.

We know the symptoms. We have to stop taking the bait.

I am sure that this emotional issue can and will go on for days. God made everyone in his image and he didn't make not one single mistake nor any junk. HE loves everbody that he creates, unconditionally. Accept it, get over it, and move on with it. This week coming's debate among the Rushites and the clergy will begin all over again on this issue. It will be debated 24/7. Nobody has the answers re who & what is acceptable but God.

I believe that everyone oughta have the same freedoms that the Constitution provides for those who would call themselves "free" in this country. That would include: free to love whomever you want, free to join in union (not marriage) with whomever; I'll say it again, free to love whoever you want; free to (love) have sex with whomever you want; free to speak your mind however you want; free to love and raise "healthy" children wherever it can be found. It shouldn't be anyone elses concern in this place called AMERICA. Let America BE America and all that it affords to everyone living here. And until I get to Heaven and can ask the founding fathers (if their slave-catching and raping azzes are in Heaven) who wrote the constitution, "Did you mean to include my black azz as a citizen of the U.S. with all the privileges do me?" I am gonna assume that they DID mean me, Hispanic Americans, Asian American, Czech American, Gay and Lesbian Americans. THEY MEANT TO INCLUDE EVERY CITIZEN.

AAs, Hispanics, Gays, to name a few, are "huddled masses STILL yearning to be free in this country, still wanting to be afforded the SAME rights and liberties that the Constitution promises to white men. So, everyone just live your own damned best life. Quit judging!!

nice talking with u guys today.......check u out another day.......work calls in the AM.

Is it just me or does anyone else feel that when the president talks about creating jobs, housing, better education and schools and of which we as Blacks have the least of......Isn't that a part of addressing the problems of Black Americans?

It's the problem affecting ALL Americans.

Sure.

Then why do Black Americans keep saying that the president is not addressing our problems? I'm lost because I can't understand what there is especially that he has to do the Black Americans that he is not addressing. We certainly need healthcare, better education for our children, more jobs and all the other things that are in the works. I think I need to be informed on what I am not getting.

I am a big supporter of the Pres. However, it troubles me his constant hand holding of priviledged white gay people. AA's cannot get the Pres. attention about doing things specifically for us. If the Pres begins to speak ill of a white person the media has a nervous breakdown. Maybe if we start to criticize his babying of this group he will hear us.
AA's have the highest unemployment, disparities in education, many of us live in crime infested neighborhoods etc etc. To watch the President cater to a bunch of rich white people about issues that affects a small number of Americans is hard to stomach.

"Hand holding privileged white gay people." Trose1, I am anything but privileged and am not white. I am a Black gay man, who served in the military for a decade - before Don't Ask Don't Tell. DADT should be abolished and gay men and women should be able to serve without restriction. I am saddened you think issues that affect a "small number of Americans" are hard to stomach. I think it goes without saying you would not feel that way, if you were a member of that "small number."

runaway-Yes PBO is hand holding white gay people. DADT will affect only a small % of Americans. Gay marriage will affect a small % of Americans. These are facts.
Yes, white people crying that they are being opressed is hard for me to stomach when I see REAL oppression of Black people for years and years day after day.

YES!

"privileged white gay people"

whoomp, there it is. then again, they never liked him. i will trust Obama's judgement over what can be done, when. Democrats have numerical majority, it's not all on Obama.

I have thought the same thing TRose...Ima still support him though. Maybe he thinks it will be 10 times worse for him to rally AA issues because of the critics. But tomorrow Rush Limbaugh and the Rushites are going to light into his azz on the pro-gay stance so I don't know why he can't stand straight up for his own peeps. Michelle has a lot of work to do to get him to overcome his insecurities. I keep thinking maybe during his second term, he will warm up to US. Love him though.

"Maybe he thinks it will be 10 times worse for him to rally AA issues because of the critics. But tomorrow Rush Limbaugh and the Rushites are going to light into his azz on the pro-gay stance"

Totally AGREE!!

I have yet to figure out who is hated more by the right blacks or gays. Guess, I would have to say blacks, since the GOP has the LOGCAbin repubs...and they are lots of them in their midst. Like the former head of the RNC as well as Foley and that men's stall tapper from Idaho. Long as they DADT, gays were loved by the Bush admin..as well as the right.

He is still my main man!!! but the pandering is too much to bear. Sickening.

AA journalists continue to call him on it; he continues to ignore it. I trust him and I just have to trust he has good reason for his attitude toward AA issues.

"Maybe if we start to criticize his babying of this group he will hear us." I'm not a political strategist, but I'm pretty sure this idea is DOA. Maybe instead of poo pooing the effectiveness of the LGBT community, start watching and learning some lessons. Lesson #1 - The squeaky wheel gets the oil.

Again, I'm not a political strategist but I bet every Dem President/potential candidate/strategist has the following in their playbook: "African Americans - The Most Loyal Group. Make promises you really don't have to keep because they're not voting for another party unless the lord baby Jesus personally tells them to." In other words, Dems know that they don't have to work that hard (at all) for AAs.

I don't know if President Obama will tackle any of those issues you've mentioned as they relate specifically to AAs -- I don't recall him making any specific promises to the AA community to do so. The fact of the matter is that he doesn't have to. The only way Pres. Obama loses black support is if: (1) It's revealed that he's been having an affair with a white woman and (2) he divorces his wife for said woman. I'm joking, but you get my point.

What I'm more interested in is, why do you believe that he would do so? He has demonstrated a more universal way of tackling the nation's problems -- what lifts the nation, will lift the various groups within the nation.

Moth I don't disagree. I am saying grab on to that squeaky wheel and use it. Gay people are using the AA experience to further their own goals. What do AA's get out of it? We need to let the President know we want our issues addressed just like gay people. Period.
I don't know how effective the gay movement really is. They have more media outlets than AA's. They are able to get out their messages more effectively. However, they really have nothing to show for it.
Right wingers still have the upper hand and a ton of money.

"They have more media outlets than AA's. They are able to get out their messages more effectively. However, they really have nothing to show for it.
Right wingers still have the upper hand and a ton of money"


Gay individuals are disproportionately represented in media and newsrooms all over America. Homosexuals make up only 2% of this society.



The Gay agenda is a huge hoax, gays are doing far better than blacks, always haves..Blacks are not even represented despite having a population 6x gays.

Think about it...we do not have one black cable anchor...yet both Anderson and maddow have their own shows...both are Gay. No black shows on cable or network ..but we have plenty of gay characters all over the place.

What this means is when anything is news for gays...they push it!! It is front and center on the news...reMEMber how they pounced on gays for Prop8?
Not only are gay issues disproportionately in the news but they lie. They tell people things about discovery a gay gene...they when it is proven false...it is never ever retracted.

Gay folks are NOT having a problem in this society...it is all hogwash!


Worst of all, gays discriminate against blacks and have all white gay restaurants, clubs..secret societies. Please, only black folks are stupid enough to buy into this human rights issue, when they are the most discrimianted against group in the society. Gay folks had the nerve to call themselves 'the new black' after Prop8 failed....they were screaming they were white and entitled and should not be treated like NIGgers!!

black folk need to wake up!!

HEAR HEAR I agree with everything u say. AA's are so messed up in the head AA's as a whole don't have a pot to piss in and some black gays are running around screaming about they want the right to get married. These same AA gays can get shot by policeman dead and no one ask a question. Talk about house negro syndrome!

We can quibble about whether they are using the AA experience to further their goals, but the "AA experience" doesn't belong to us -- it's an American experience. Every disaffected minority will "use" this experience as a model, just as MLK Jr. looked at what Ghandi and others did when crafting the strategy for the civil rights movement.

On the whole, the LGBT community has been pretty successful. Relatively speaking, a pretty wealthy group and they write (BIG) checks so the right people listen. And with the exception of California, they're doing pretty well with the state by state marriage strategy - DC will be next. Remember, Lawrence v. TX was just a few years ago. They've been making pretty steady tangible gains.

I don't know what you mean by them having more media outlets than AAs, but it seems as though they use what is available to them more effectively and they're not afraid to cause a ruckus.

IMO, therein lies the problem. They and other groups have a level of cohesiveness that is not found in the black community. AAs seem loathed to make that same kind of ruckus in the name of their interests. For example, when the LGBT community was vexed about the DOJs legal brief against same sex marriage, A-list gays (with a lot of noise) boycotted the DNC fundraiser and the administration started making amends. Can't mess with that $$. I can't think of anytime in recent memory that AAs did anything like that. The same goes for AIPAC, start messing around with their interests and they start writing checks or withholding checks --Whichever gets their point across.

When you ask what do AAs get out of it, again what we should we getting out of it is a lesson. The LGBT community, AIPAC and now J Street all have outsized influence compared to representation. AAs should be looking at what they did right and did wrong -- particularly J Street -- and try to figure out how to make that work for us. It's actually an imperative. If you hadn't noticed, AAs are no longer the favored minorities. Se habla espanol?

Every disaffected minority will "use" this experience as a model, just as MLK Jr. looked at what Ghandi and others did when crafting the strategy for the civil rights movement.

::

Bayard Rustin, an openly gay Black man and trusted friend of MLK Jr., counseled MLK on the Ghandian nonviolent strategy after attending a conference in India in 1948 and organized the March On Washington 15 years later.

Here's a chunk from his wiki entry:

Rustin and Houser organized the Journey of Reconciliation in 1947. This was the first of the Freedom Rides to test the ruling of the Supreme Court of the United States that banned racial discrimination in interstate travel (Irene Morgan v. Commonwealth of Virginia). CORE's Gandhian tactics were opposed strenuously by the NAACP, and participants in the Journey of Reconciliation were arrested several times. Arrested with Jewish activist Igal Roodenko, Rustin served twenty-two days on a chain gang in North Carolina for violating Jim Crow laws regarding segregated seating on public transportation.

In 1948, Rustin traveled to India to learn nonviolence techniques directly from the leaders of the Gandhian movement at a conference that was organized by Gandhi himself before he was assassinated earlier that year. Between 1947 and 1952, Rustin met with leaders of Ghana's and Nigeria's independence movements and, in 1951, he formed the Committee to Support South African Resistance, which later became the American Committee on Africa. In 1953, Rustin was arrested in Pasadena, California; originally charged with vagrancy and lewd conduct, he eventually pleaded guilty to a single, lesser charge of "sex perversion" (as consensual sodomy was officially referred to in California at the time) and served 60 days in jail. This was the first time that his homosexuality had come to public attention, yet he remained candid about his sexuality, which was still criminalized throughout the United States. After his conviction, he was fired from FOR, though he became the executive secretary of the War Resisters League.

Rustin served as an unidentified member of the American Friends Service Committee's task force to prepare one of the most influential and widely commented upon pacifist essays ever produced in the United States, "Speak Truth to Power: A Quaker Search for an Alternative to Violence," published in 1955. (According to the chairman of the group, Stephen Cary, Rustin's membership was repressed at his own request because he believed that his known sexual orientation would compromise the 71-page pamphlet once it appeared.) It analyzed the cold war and the American response to it and recommended non-violent solutions.

Rustin took leave from the War Resisters League in 1956 to advise Martin Luther King Jr. on Gandhian tactics as King organized the public transportation boycott in Montgomery, Alabama known as the Montgomery Bus Boycott. The following year, Rustin and King began organizing the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC). Many African-American leaders were concerned that Rustin's sexual orientation and Communist past would undermine support for the civil rights movement. U.S. Representative Adam Clayton Powell, Jr., who was a member of the SCLC's board, forced Rustin's resignation from the SCLC in 1960 by threatening to discuss Rustin's morals charge in Congress.[5] Although Rustin was open about his sexual orientation and his conviction was a matter of public record, it had not been discussed widely outside the civil rights leadership.

When Rustin and Randolph organized the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom in 1963, Senator Strom Thurmond railed against Rustin as a "Communist, draft-dodger, and homosexual" and produced an FBI photograph of Rustin talking to King while King was bathing, to imply that there was a same-sex relationship between the two. Both men denied the allegation of an affair, but, despite King's support, NAACP chairman Roy Wilkins did not want Rustin to receive any public recognition for his role in planning the march--though, in fact, he did become quite well-known. After the March on Washington, Rustin organized the New York City School Boycott. When Rustin was invited to speak at the University of Virginia in 1964, school administrators tried to ban him, out of fear that he would organize another school boycott there.

After passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and 1965 Voting Rights Act, Rustin advocated closer ties between the civil rights movement and the Democratic Party and its labor activist base. He was the founder of the A. Philip Randolph Institute, and a regular columnist for the AFL-CIO newspaper. He wrote an influential article called "From Protest to Politics," that led to a response by another civil rights activist, Staughton Lynd, called "Coalition Politics or Nonviolent Revolution?" Rustin was an early supporter of President Lyndon Johnson's Vietnam policy, but as the war escalated and began to supersede Democratic programs for racial reconciliation and labor reform, Rustin returned to his pacifist roots. Still, he was seen as a "sell-out" by the burgeoning Black Power movement, whose identity politics he rejected--though he liked to point out that he was one of the early sporters of an "Afro" style haircut..

During the early 1970s Rustin served on the board of trustees of the University of Notre Dame.

Throughout the 1970s and 1980s, Rustin worked as a human rights and election monitor for Freedom House. He also testified on behalf of New York State's Gay Rights Bill and, in 1986, gave a speech "The New Niggers Are Gays," in which he asserted,

Today, blacks are no longer the litmus paper or the barometer of social change. Blacks are in every segment of society and there are laws that help to protect them from racial discrimination. The new "niggers" are gays. . . . It is in this sense that gay people are the new barometer for social change. . . . The question of social change should be framed with the most vulnerable group in mind: gay people.[6]

Rustin died on August 24, 1987, of a perforated appendix. An obituary that appeared in the New York Times reported, "Looking back at his career, Mr. Rustin, a Quaker, once wrote: 'The principal factors which influenced my life are 1) nonviolent tactics; 2) constitutional means; 3) democratic procedures; 4) respect for human personality; 5) a belief that all people are one.'"[7]

::

Where would the Civil Rights Movement be without a Black gay man who wasn't afraid to form alliances and learn from the movements of other oppressed people?

He didn't do it cause he was gay..he did it cause he was black.
Even black gays if they are honest will admit, they have more discrimination based on race they they EVER get based on being gay.

Rustin was no different. In fact, during the 60s it was even worse for him being black. He served time on a chain gang cause he was black! Not gay..., and it has never EVER EVER EVER been bad like that for gays. EVER

Throughout the 1970s and 1980s, Rustin worked as a human rights and election monitor for Freedom House. He also testified on behalf of New York State's Gay Rights Bill and, in 1986, gave a speech "The New Niggers Are Gays," in which he asserted,

Today, blacks are no longer the litmus paper or the barometer of social change. Blacks are in every segment of society and there are laws that help to protect them from racial discrimination. The new "niggers" are gays. . . . It is in this sense that gay people are the new barometer for social change. . . . The question of social change should be framed with the most vulnerable group in mind: gay people.[6]

Just cause Rustin said it, didn't make it true. He had been gay all that time and was doing fine...it was his race that was the bigger impediment in American society.

Gays are no barometer for anything other than their own sexual deviancy, which they want sanctioned as normal.

it is not normal..never will be ..

You said he did it because he was Black and that he knew he faced more discrimination as a Black man than as a gay man. So I pointed you to his remarks and you dismiss them out of hand because they contradict your assessment?

How convenient.

I suppose you know exactly how a Black gay man experiences discrimination because you have personal experience as a Black gay man?

I believe Rustin did what he did for the civil rights movement, and every other movement or cause to which he committed his time and effort, because he was a courageous activist compelled by the pursuit of equality for all. Or, to use his own words once more:

'The principal factors which influenced my life are 1) nonviolent tactics; 2) constitutional means; 3) democratic procedures; 4) respect for human personality; 5) a belief that all people are one.'"

No mention of race or sexuality.

If race nor sexuality were issues, then you would not have posted the excerpt which clearly showed that both were in his lifetime.

Rustin did it because he suffered as a black person. His challenges were no different than a black female. We are discriminated against both racially and by gender. The vast majority of whom agree that race is by far a much larger impediment for them in this society. So, for Rustin to turn around and claim he now wanted 'gay' rights...I am contending that was not comparable to racial discrimination in any way.



It still isn't. Even if Rustin wanted to say it was. It isn't.

If race nor sexuality were issues, then you would not have posted the excerpt which clearly showed that both were in his lifetime.

::

You're missing the point.

Good night.

Rustin was quite the man. Thanks for the reminder about him. I think I'll read a bio about him when I finish my Stephen Carter books.( I'm getting my best reading ideas from jjp)

I'm afraid you're not going to change the minds of the haters here but if you've got the stomach for the debate more power to you. I'm done. But I'll always read your posts.

I've always got the stomach, if not the time.

Be well.

must be 'cause you grow all that good healthy food.

Ha!

You make good points. However let me clarify mine.
When I say they have media outlets I mean voices. Rev Al and Jesse J. are civil rights leaders. They have been labeled trouble makers by the media and some AA's. AA voices have been silenced. Where is Carlos Watson? He is gone from MSNBC.
You say that the civil rights movement doesn't belong to us. Slavery happened to AA's not white people. The civil rights movement came about because of slavery. It belongs to those who it represented. AA's should OWN it.
White gay people should not be allowed to grab on to that at all. Jewish people don't own the Holocaust?
Many AA's have lost their identity. We have lost our culture. Many were running around screaming about a post racial society and singing songs about not seeing color blah blah blah. They listen to what the white man told them and have been hoodwinked.
Unfortunately, AA's are afraid to speak up. Sorry to say the President is one of them.

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. I believe Rev. Al and Jesse Jackson speak for a distinct demographic -- the young black male who was arrested/jailed/shot by police or some other white antagonizer. If you're a black woman or invovled in some black on black crime, don't bother about having your family ring them up for a march. Frankly, I don't know if there can be a voice for the black community -- it's too fractured, with diverse interests.

As for media voices, I don't equate a black face with someone who is going to push "black issues" or call attention to certain issues. There hasn't been a Max Robinson or Bernie Shaw in forever -- Carlos Watson never came close. The most prolific voices are in the black blogosphere, but for the most part they're preaching to the choir. Their message isn't being heard by the masses because the masses are likewise reading like minded folks.

I still can't agree about ownership of the civil rights movement. But...in playing devil's advocate, if we were to say that we own it -- that it doesn't belong to anyone else, then why should anyone else care about blacks and their civil rights? Why should anyone else help blacks assert/preserve their rights borne of their "own" civil rights movement?

Yes, you are correct that Jews own the holocaust but you know what, they don't have a problem with some other group likening whatever atrocity or tragedy to the holocaust. You know why? Because they understand that when someone likens their plight to the holocaust, they also have to relay the story of the Jewish holocaust in the telling of the comparison. It keeps the holocaust and the Jewish story alive in everyone's mind. They understand the power of that story, how to use it to their advantage and also what happens when people forget.

Jews don't have a problem with the holocaust because it pales in comparison to the history of slavery in America, and white America would rather point their fingers at the Germans, than be accountable for their own barbaric history. Consequently, school children know about the jewish holocaust but not one damn thing about what was perpetrated right here on American soil for over ONE HUNDRED years, not no darn SIX year war, where Americans are the good guys vs. the Nazi. They prefer to talk about the 6M Jews the Germans smoked than the 12M africans that died in the diaspora of the transatlantic slave trade or who were lynched right here on America soil, while they fought Germans.

America doesn't teach her own brutality history.

Despite, Roots having the highest rating ever, it has never been re=broadcast cause American can't stand to look her own self in the mirror. The shame of their heinous and barbaric acts as well as the depravity of enslaving &selling their own flesh and blood is just too great of a stain on what they proclaim America to be. They don't want their children to know they are descendants of viscious and hateful socipaths who raped and beat their own offspring. So, we get treated to the Holocaust as the greatest human travesty man perpetrated against man. cause it is GERMany's stain...and it is false. The rest of the world knows it. too.

America has no problem allowing gay rights groups to diminish the CivilRightsMovement either, cause then they will have trivialized it in a way no one gets to do to the holocaust. Making the CivilRightsMovement equivalent to deviate sex, suits white America just fine.

"then why should anyone else care about blacks and their civil rights? Why should anyone else help blacks assert/preserve their rights borne of their "own" civil rights movement?"

Whites didn't care about blacks, they cared about themselves!! CivilRights was a moral issue. A moral issue about humanity and the very principles the US Constitution is based on, the ideals of America were at the core of the CivilRights movement. The civil rights movement was about white American standing up for their own American beliefs and country. Otherwise, it would have never been successful.

Gay rights is not nor has it ever been a moral issue. Gay folks have always been accepted in this society and allow to flourish based on capitalism..blacks never were. And whites understood that. They understood that a caste system had been imposed on blacks to force them to remain on the bottom of the economic rung. That was not EVER true for GAYS...ever, ever, ever.

Thank you!!!!! white people---- gay, straight ,crooked and crunked don't care about Black people. Black people think they care for us. White people have never wanted to give up anything to AA's without a struggle. They demean us and some of us stand there and take the crap like fools. Gay is the new Black. How offensive was that slogan and u had AA's defending white people over that. Again, house negro syndrome in full affect.

And we remember that gays, Romani (gypsies), and other "undesirables" were also slaughtered. I love your point that they/we understand that when someone likens their plight to the holocaust they have to keep the Jewish story in mind. That's powerful and helps me understand why I dont' mind when someone speaks of a holocaust. I didnt' understand the fuss about likening our present health care sysytem to a holocaust, while some non Jews, like Rachel Maddow, was really upset by it. I guess she was trying to be a good ally, but I didn't get it.

"Because they understand that when someone likens their plight to the holocaust, they also have to relay the story of the Jewish holocaust in the telling of the comparison. It keeps the holocaust and the Jewish story alive in everyone's mind."

Great point.

I don't know about 'our issues' addressed just like gay people, to be honest, for me. I want the big universal stuff taken care of first. Everything else would fall into its place. If Democrats with a majority can't take care of the big stuff (and Obama is not a dictator), how are they going to take care of each own niche groups issues? Can't. In my opinion.

Whenever the discussion of AA's issue starts, a debate about personal responsibility comes up. Now that is an issue in some Black communities not all. Institutional racism is a big problem and it is never addressed. Education, Employment, and Housing discrimination needs to be addressed by this President. Let Bill Cosby handle the personal responsibilty stuff.

And no one talks about pedophilia when gay issues come up...ooooo noooo...they claim it is always consenting adults.
All those altar boys? Foley and the Congressional aides.

But gays denounce the pedophilia rampant withing their communities...even that French guy Mitterand wrote a book about how he liked BOYS!!...

Pleeease...this is the biggest tripe ever perpetrated.

There is no such thing as a homosexual..there are only INDIVIDUALS who committ homosexual acts.

They are not some special minority...that is the first lie...that takes the society on a slippery slope to 'civil rights' homosexuality is not some protected group...it is INDIVIDUALS...sex is something you do..not who you are.

"I want the big universal stuff taken care of first."

Ain't nothin universal about gay rights. Besides, gays have always been in the upper eschelon of gov't...gay guys were corporate execs looong before 'affirmative action' and they are in every friggin industry and they are in medicine, literature, arts..social sciences.

Unlike blacks. This whole issue is a complete farce..simply cause they want to tell folks what they do? I don't think so.

Yes, because they're men. Not because they're gay.

Which is my point. they have all the individual rights they need to succeed in this society and they are not discriminated against.

they simply want society to sanction their deviancy.
'=

I see. What about lesbians, bisexuals and transgendered? You know very well that they do not have equal rights in this country. Through each post on this topic you've made your disdain for homosexuals clear. You believe them to be "amoral," "depraved" and "deviant." I get it. What I don't get is why you persist in attempting to wrap your bigotry in so-called facts. You know, it is possible to be a bigot and still tell the truth of the matter.

For example -- with respect to your last response -- you could just wrote, "Yes, those deviant, amoral gays are discriminated against and I could care less." See you're able to show your disdain for the LGBT community AND tell the truth -- that they are discriminated against.

"What about lesbians, bisexuals and transgendered?"

What about them. You think you born bisexual or is it that you just can't choose what you like more sexually..so you don't?

Transgendered, if it is chromosomal..it is Exeeedingly rare. If you talking about folks changing their sex...guess what that is a CHOICE.

Puhleeeze...facts are the truth. I have disdain for the complete sham and hypocrisy of the gay agenda. I have respect for individuals who do have basic human rights and those should not be denied. But I will not agree to tolerate what it is clearly deviant sexual acts as normal and to be sanctioned by society.

"Yes, those deviant, amoral gays are discriminated against and I could care less."

Point of fact...I said the exact opposite...they are NOT discriminated against as INDIVIDUALs and I oppose any laws that grant them tax dollars and benefits based on what their sexual proclivities ARE.

You know I am not sure why transgendered people don't break off from that group. They may have a case for being a special class of person. Not sure but just sayin.

I agree.

Continuing the HRC Discussion
by John Cole

I used to think the most annoying people to argue with were Clinton supporters during the primary last year. I may have to re-eavulate that assessment. At any rate, back to my earlier post on the bizarre freak-out from the online gay activists to Obama’s speech at the HRC. Some times I don’t think people read what I say at all. For example:


I love this blog but I have a genuine problem with someone who is straight telling gay people to relax regarding DADT and DOM. We just don’t have the luxury of waiting. Sully is a self-righteous tool sometimes and definitely does not speak for the gay community, but honestly John. What we are asking for is so simple and quite small. I would rather not be lectured.

Precisely where did I say to be patient? To state it again, since you all apparently did not read it the first time:


Yes, you have every right to be pissed at the current state of affairs, because I sure would be pissed at being treated as a second class citizen if I were gay, and yes, if I had my way these things would already have been taken care of, and yes, you may have heard parts of his speech a year ago.

If I were gay and being treated like a second-class citizen, denied the rights straight people have, I would be blowing shit up, so I am not telling you to shut up or be patient. What I am telling you, however, is that the response from last night is completely and totally unproductive. In fact, it could actually be destructive to the cause.

The past eight years the Bush administration declared open war on the gay community. Now, you have a President who has openly declared his support for the causes, and not only that, campaigned in support of those issues, and then just took to the microphone and gave a long speech in support of those issues. And the response? This is typical:


He has not even remotely tried to use the bully pulpit. He has not expended one iota of his capital to move anything through Congress…and DADT is rejected by something like 60% plus of the American people!

As I noted in the comments, what exactly do you think the bully pulpit is? When the President takes to the podium at the HRC dinner, and openly, publicly, and I think, passionately supports your cause, that is using the bully pulpit. There isn’t some magic podium with a sign that says “Bully” on it from which a speech can be given and all the wrongs in the world are righted.

And despite the fact that Obama’s position is a 180 degree turn from the previous administration, which declared open war with the FMA, he is greeted with catcalls of “what have you done for me lately” or “just words,” feeding the right-wing narrative that Obama is all talk. Well played.

Nothing constructive is ever built with negativity. Period. So instead of blowing up at the first President in my lifetime to openly advocate for gay rights, why don’t you do something constructive? Why don’t you embrace his message? How about an ad campaign that has Obama speaking from the HRC declaring support for your goals, and asking Congress whether they want to join you and the President in achieving those goals? How about going to Harry Reid, who is in a tight election as it is, and asking him whether or not he will join with the President and the gay community to end DADT and DOMA? How about stating that you stand in unison with the President, that you intend to work with him to achieve those goals.

I understand that may not be as cathartic as knee-capping your own guy while chanting “just words,” but it might be more productive. And it isn’t settling. It isn’t telling you to shut up or relax or be patient. It is telling you that working to change the status quo is more productive than hurting your own team, even though throwing eggs and making farty sounds with your armpit is more fun.

And by the way, while you all are weakening your own team, Maggie Gallagher and Focus on the Family are all raising money to turn things back to the way they were on January 19th 2009. While you may not realize things are a lot different now, trust me, those guys do.

This is what I wrote to a White friend of mine who emailed me about the speech with his concern that it was "just words" and wanted to know where I stood.

::

I'm of the belief that "just words" is a faulty phrase. As a writer, I believe language is very powerful.

You can't change people's consciousness if you don't have the courage to say what needs to be said in order to help change it.

The president of the United States has validated the lives of all people in public, in mixed company, all over the world.

Remember Clinton sold out and signed DOMA into law in the middle of the night three weeks before he was re-elected with a landslide majority of gay votes. Why did we give him a second chance but are questioning Obama's commitment to equality 9 months into his presidency?

Because it's easier to question the Black man than the White man. We all have issues to work through and many of us don't even know what they are.

If NOTHING gets done in this administration on the issues most important to us, it will be OUR failure, not his.

He's shown his leadership. Now what are we going to do to back it up?

::

I think Cole hits the nail on the head with these paragraphs:

Nothing constructive is ever built with negativity. Period. So instead of blowing up at the first President in my lifetime to openly advocate for gay rights, why don’t you do something constructive? Why don’t you embrace his message? How about an ad campaign that has Obama speaking from the HRC declaring support for your goals, and asking Congress whether they want to join you and the President in achieving those goals? How about going to Harry Reid, who is in a tight election as it is, and asking him whether or not he will join with the President and the gay community to end DADT and DOMA? How about stating that you stand in unison with the President, that you intend to work with him to achieve those goals.

I understand that may not be as cathartic as knee-capping your own guy while chanting “just words,” but it might be more productive. And it isn’t settling. It isn’t telling you to shut up or relax or be patient. It is telling you that working to change the status quo is more productive than hurting your own team, even though throwing eggs and making farty sounds with your armpit is more fun.

I agree with all that you have said Craig. I also heard Hillary Rosen who basically said the same thing. I think this POTUS is doing the best he can, one issue at a time. At it relates to specific LGBT issues, why are they a bigger priority than any other on the POTUS' plate? This healthcare issue is bigger than he and all of Congress. I agree with his support of the LGBT issues, and just like the civil rights laws, IT JUST TAKES TIME FOR IT TO SINK IN. The Hispanic community thinks Immigration Reform should be a priority. African American's think everything African American should be his priority for sure. Patience has never been a great virtue of gay activists, but it's time to just "get in line" there are bigger fish to fry first.
I agree that change will come in laws and more importantly in attitude, it just takes time.

You going to Oslo?

I'm not going to Oslo.

I hear ya Craig.

I hate it when people do this, but I have lesbian and gay friends who I love, and who I think love me. I believe that they should have the same rights as I do as a str8 woman.

But to say that Obama speaking at HRC is just a speech ridiculous.

How many SITTING Presidents have spoken to the HRC, or the GLBT community before Obama? Not FORMER...SITTING??

Clinton also addressed the the HRC as a sitting president. But he waited till his second term and a few years later signed DOMA anyway.

Our President's committment is unwavering, yet all we hear from GLBT are nattering nabobs of negativism.

"After not quite nine months in office, the Obama record on gay rights is not a blank slate. He's made some key personnel appointments, and stood by them when the right launched anti-gay attacks. The administration has presented a package of domestic partnership benefits for federal workers, addressed the diplomatic passport issue, issued a strong Pride Month proclamation, hosted a White House event to honor the 40th anniversary of the Stonewall riots, and is moving towards signing an expanded hate crimes bill into law."


Now, our President is stepping into the same political quagmire minefield as Clinton. Making the mistake of talking about DODT at the same time as healthcarereform...that was a recipe for political disaster for WJC and lord knows it will likely be for this administration too in 2010...and we don't NEEd this type of repeat. Especially, when the case can be made that he is 'ignoring' McChrystal advice (which IS his Presidential perogative!) while at the same time working to abolish DADT over the objections of the military brass as well....just one big friggin hotmess Obama don't NEED this!!

President Obama though is a man with the courage of conviction, politicals be damned...so what does he do?

He delivers one of the most forceful speeches ever by a U.S. president in support of gay rights:

"I will end 'don't ask, don't tell,' " Obama told the nation's largest gay advocacy group. "That is my commitment to you.... This fight continues now and I'm here with the simple message: I'm here with you in that fight." He also highlighted his support for repealing the Defense of Marriage Act and making the Domestic Partners Benefit and Obligations Act law. The president went on to say, "Nobody in America should be fired because they're gay, despite doing a great job and meeting their responsibilities. It's not fair, it's not right, we're going to put a stop to it."


ThankGod for Gallagher.


Pray for this nation...Pray for this President...pray, pray, pray.

I don't agree with you about gay rights, I believe that gay people deserve equal rights under the law.

I believe gay people have all the equal rights under the law they deserve.

1954:
"I believe Negroes have all the equal rights under the law they deserve."

The biggest mistake folks make is comparing gays WANTS to the CivilRightsMovement for blacks.
There is truly no comparison. It's an insult to think that discrimination based on race is somehow in any way analogous to sexual behavior. It's not.

Further, no on is denying gays, individual civil rights. What their agenda is about has everything to do with sexual choices and not human brutality and lynching for over 100 years.

The very premise that gays use is specious. Alcoholics, diabetics and obese folks would be special groups too if gays are,,,,it is all about behavioral choices.

Are you whiterosebuddy?

I missed a big chunk of time here. Did you get another screenname?

Hey Craig,

I been lurking...who you think perpetrating..?

That's both ignorant and hurtful. Do some homework.

You better do the homework. You can buy into this complete nonsense if you like. but I know the research. I know it well....what is ignorant is how gays have been allowed to perpetuate this complete inane idea that somehow what they do sexual should be sanctioned as if it is special.

Please...just STOP with the hurt. Any one advocating and who want to insist they get to shape children's minds and twist and distort them into believeing same sex partners are acceptable needs to be squashed!

You are hardcore. I like it!!!!! I agree with u. I am sick of this crap. The woo is me white person is to much to take.

Squashed? Really? So how would you like the squashing be done? Like they do it in, say, Iraq?

Are you advocating violence?

No. I want the advocacy squashed. I want folks speaking out against it.

An African American preferably a male needs to get on national tv and call out the gay white racists. Who is thinking about violence?

I asked a question. It was answered.

thank you
don't need violence we just need someone who understands the issue and can speak about it cogently to refute, rebutt and denounce the whole absurbity of the gay 'rights' movement.

We need someone to stand up and say they are not a protected class and that what someone does sexually does not make you a special group anymoreso than an alcoholic is a special group .

I agree. Who will this strong Black person be? Just as Rep Grayson found his voice, AA's need our voice. The craziness must stop.

T rose, they will not let black males on TV to speak out for black causes, so why would they put a black face on ChildrenRights causes?

Remember they tried to depict Obama as a child molester at one point during the campaign.

Perspective, Please
by John Cole @ Balloon Juice

I’m still sick as a dog, hacking shit up and feeling miserable, but I have to get this off my chest.

Could someone please tell Andrew Sullivan and the rest of the crowd that the last President, a fellow named Bush, dedicated his administration to openly persecuting homosexuals through the FMA and through ballot initiatives in tight races in 2004 all while his Justice department refused to hire and even fired gays and lesbians or anyone who had any ties to organizations that might associate with gays and lesbians.

The President before him, a Democrat by the name of Clinton, passed DADT and signed DOMA.

Now, you have a President who not only campaigned on and has stated repeatedly that he will work to end DADT, DOMA, and any number of other issues important the cause, but who went to the HRC, proudly took the podium, and advocated his support for their cause in front of the entire nation.

And the result? He’s getting shit on for not doing things fast enough. It is almost like they think the speech to the HRC was a policy meeting that was supposed to unleash the new steps the administration is taking to achieve these goals. It wasn’t. This was a speech to the HRC, but this was also a speech to the entire country. Yes, you have every right to be pissed at the current state of affairs, because I sure would be pissed at being treated as a second class citizen if I were gay, and yes, if I had my way these things would already have been taken care of, and yes, you may have heard parts of his speech a year ago.

Big difference though. Then, it was Candidate Obama. Now, it is President Obama. And while you may be too shortsighted to recognize it right now, it was a pretty damned big deal what happened last night. So some perspective would be nice.

/rant

"too shortsighted"

thank you, thank you, thank you John Cole.

"And the result? He’s getting shit on for not doing things fast enough"

Yep...giggles and shyts!! That's the gay way, right?

This video shows his reception after being introduced.

The minute-long ovation must surely have been a big old congratulations gesture for just winning the Nobel Prize.

It was nice to see.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=raCFfXfw9O0

Word to future politicians, don't make promises during ur campaign because Americans will expect return in less than 12 months in the office

That said, I am glad that they are going to repeal that ridiculous DADT

I watched the Presdient's speech last night. It was good. I am not sure he can do much of anything for gay people. The right wingers are strategizing as I write to try to sabatoge anything gay.
I could not help but notice that the crowd was ALL white. Is it me or is there an issue with a group screaming about civil rights not having any AA or Latino's visible?

The crowd was not all white. Look again.

I was not at the dinner. I don't know how many AA's were in attendance. I am relating to this thread what I saw on TV. What I saw on TV was nothing but white people. I am assuming there were some AA's in attendance but they were hidden inside a blanket of white people. My issue is that a group that is squawking about equality should have some awareness that having a diverse audience might be a plus. Obvioulsy, from what I saw AA's were not part of the eqaution.

"My issue is that a group that is squawking about equality should have some awareness that having a diverse audience might be a plus."

That was the problem. That's the problem now. And I think it's going to be a problem into the foreseeable future. I remember what should have happened after Donnie McClurkin.... and what happened instead.

"My issue is that a group that is squawking about equality should have some awareness that having a diverse audience might be a plus."

::

Define "diverse audience" for me please. How many people of color must be in attendance before the audience can be considered diverse? Does regional background count?

Well Craig, I really don't know how much of a problem the gay rights movement has with a lack of diversity in their leadership, but it's obvious that all the people here who are arguring that this supposed lack of diversity is the reason for their lack of receptivity to the gay rights movement are making straw man arguments. I don't think they'd be any more receptive if half or more of the leadership was black. Ironically, it's the same sort of dishonest rhetorical game that anti-black whites play with blacks. I think the gay rights movement should ask itself if it really needs support from the majority of black straight people.

I could not help but notice that the crowd was ALL white.

And therein lies the problem with the Gay Rights Movement.

Isn't the real problem they have with the gay rights movement the fact that it's...gay?

Plant, I don't have a problem with gay people, but I do have a problem with gays blaming black people because Prop 8 passed. If they had made a concerted effort to reach out to the black community on the issue by having black members of the LGBT community talk to the black community, perhaps the turnout would've been different. In the past, right here on this blog, we've talked about how rich white gays have co-opted the gay movement and asked "Where are the gays of color?". Hence my comment "And therein lies the problem with the Gay Rights Movement". Nowhere in my statement is there any semblance of homophobia or anti-gay sentiment.

It seems, though I can't back this up with another concrete example right now, that disenfranchised groups lash out at a different disenfranchised group when things don't go their way.

At some point, I think we will all recognize this as a reflex brought about by the legacy of intense divide and rule in this "melting pot" of a nation and not be so quick to take the bait.

Or maybe I just hope so.

why do u make that judgement?

I made a couple of judgments. Which one are you talking about?

"Plant, I don't have a problem with gay people, but I do have a problem with gays blaming black people because Prop 8 passed."

Yes, some did do that...some. You sound like a white person talking about "black people" this, and "black people" that.

"If they had made a concerted effort to reach out to the black community on the issue by having black members of the LGBT community talk to the black community, perhaps the turnout would've been different."

I don't think it would have been different, because those blacks who are against gay rights are steadfastly against it, and seeing a lot of blacks in the leadership wouldn't have looked encouraging to them, it would have looked disconcerting. By the way, what would have been different? First you deny that blacks were not to blame because Prop 8 passed (which is true), and then you say that if they had performed effective outreach, then...blacks wouldn't have caused Prop 8 to be passed?

"In the past, right here on this blog, we've talked about how rich white gays have co-opted the gay movement and asked "Where are the gays of color?". Hence my comment "And therein lies the problem with the Gay Rights Movement".

First of all, I said what I did to Craig because every time this discussion comes up here, most of the people who jump in with the argument that they oppose or don't care about the gay rights movement because there aren't many blacks in the leadership, go on to condemn the idea of gay rights generally. It's the same kind of rhetorical weapon anti-blacks whites use when they bring up slavery, and unless a black person all but denies slavery didn't happen, they say "See? black people need to stop living in the past".

"Yes, some did do that...some. You sound like a white person talking about "black people" this, and "black people" that."

You're reaching. My statement was: "Plant, I don't have a problem with gay people, but I do have a problem with gays blaming black people because Prop 8 passed." That doesn't equate to your allegation.

"I don't think it would have been different, because those blacks who are against gay rights are steadfastly against it, and seeing a lot of blacks in the leadership wouldn't have looked encouraging to them, it would have looked disconcerting."

Now, who's generalizing?

First of all, how do you know that? What is your proof that an honest outreach to the Black community from the gay community would not help to form an alliance?

First you deny that blacks were not to blame because Prop 8 passed (which is true), and then you say that if they has performed effective outreach, then...blacks wouldn't have caused Prop 8 to be passed?

My comment was in response to the lie that Blacks were to blame for the passing of Prop 8. Don't lie and complain about Blacks not supporting you when you did not make an effort to gain their support.

First of all, I said what I did to Craig because every time this discussion comes up here, most of the people who jump in with the argument that they oppose or don't care about the gay rights movement because there aren't many blacks in the leadership, go on to condemn the idea of gay rights generally.

And you used my quote, lumping me in with those who are against gay rights, which is why I corrected you.

First you deny that blacks were not to blame because Prop 8 passed (which is true), and then you say that if they has performed effective outreach, then...blacks wouldn't have caused Prop 8 to be passed?

::

This is one of those million-dollar questions.

"Now, who's generalizing?"

Well, not me, because I spoke not of "blacks", but blacks who are against gay rights.

"What is your proof that an honest outreach to the Black community from the gay community would not help to form an alliance?"

Have you read the comments in this thread? How do you think an "honest outreach" would have resulted in these bigots forming an alliance with the gay rights movement any more than an "honest outreach" to the KKK would result in that organization forming an alliance with black people? How would they form a coalition with people whose main argument is that there is no common ground, and are offended...outraged by the fact that gay rights leaders characterize their movement as a civil rights movement? No amount of "outreach" would have made any difference.

I agree with trose1. I like you, Craig and I usually agree with what you type, I have three words: Republican National Convention. Uf the RNC can be lambasted, how much moreso can an audience made up of AFFLUENT gay WHITES?

where ARE the gays of color, affluent or not, in positions of real authority within the HRC or the gay momvement? again, I remember what happened after the Donnie McClurkin fiasco, and the problem still hasn't been addressed. I don't think it ever will be.

Kind of like affluent white women and feminism................. and 'wait your turn' to women of color, but pitching a biatch when women of color focus on issues of color.

where ARE the gays of color, affluent or not, in positions of real authority within the HRC or the gay momvement?

::

I don't know what you consider real authority, but off the top of my head and with one Internet click, here's a brief list, in no particular order:

Phil Wilson
Staceyann Chin
Thomas Glave
Lisa C. Moore
Thomas Glave
Lupe Valdez
Sultan Shakir
Denise Simmons
Keith Boykin
H. Alexander Robinson
Donna Payne
Jarret Barrios
Cornelius Baker
Stampp Corbin
Wilson Cruz
Bishop Yvette Flunder
Earl Fowlkes
Mary Morten
Vernita Gray
Robert Meza

::

Without those brave queens, most of whom were people of color, who rioted at Stonewall, there would be no modern gay rights movement. Most social movements get co-opted by big money, but that's only part of the story.

I've criticized the gay movement for the reasons you state here, minus the Donnie McClurkin fiasco. (That's a whole other story and I'm not going to go there).

But I'm also aware that there is now and always has been leadership in the gay movement that isn't White and isn't affluent. That notion of the gay rights movement in 2009 is not exactly accurate. But people of color who are not gay tend to use that as an excuse for too many things. Lack of diversity in leadership (however one defines diversity) is NOT, from my perspective, the core of the problem with the gay rights movement.

The gay rights movement, despite all that mythic white affluence, suffers from severe impotence and has since the mid-80s.

But that's a whole other essay.

You seem like a very intelligent person. I am not sure why u cannot understand. Let me try this. If on a tv screen when a camera shows an audience and one cannot see with the naked eye a person of color. Again, I am not saying they were not in attendance. I did not see any when the camera panned the audience.

I never said I didn't understand. I asked you to define your terms. You have refused to answer my direct question.

I didn't ask it out of sarcasm.

Besides you and me, any other regular readers here gay? My hunch...not many. I always look for your input Craig, on all topics, but feel supported particularly here with you speaking on gay issues. thanks.

I'm not gay but have lived my entire life on Miami Beach. I grew up seeing gays and lesbians living as couples and having families, just like everyone else. I just can't fathom a world where the people who babysat me, are some of my family's closets friends,confidants, and neighbors don't enjoy the same rights.

I'll be the first to admit that Miami Beach is a place unto itself - outer wordly. Very few places in the US can mimic its rhythm, but it certainly is a more tolerant, happy place.

"I grew up seeing gays and lesbians living as couples and having families"



Your experience exemplifies my point. You were exposed to the sexual deviancy as a child and now you think it is norm and you have no problem sanctioning the behavior...cause it was impressed upon you as a young person.

You even assert that gays have families when everyone knows that it is false..samegender people cannot reproduce with each other. If they have families it is because they adopt kids or nowadays get IVF or dare I say it...they choose to have HETEROsexual relations.

Which is all about choosing ...they already have all the rights they need under the law, as INDIVIDUALS.

No need for samesex marriage.

Nope, no problem sanctioning the union of two people who love each other and want to have loving families. I'd much rather see a child grow up in that environment than one that is intolerant and bigoted.

Good night.

Same here, lizadiamond.

There are quite a few...maybe they will name themselves...

I could not help but notice that the crowd was ALL white.

And therein lies the problem with the Gay Rights Movement.

ahahahahahahahaahahahahah

I happen to know several African American men who attended the event and HRC's Regional Field Director for Baltimore, Maryland and DC is an African American man (Sultan Shakir). He's been very visible in leading the charge to get the DC Gay Marriage Bill through -- it's expected to pass.

As for "Latinos," since they can be of any color, how would you know they weren't "visible" simply by eyeballing the audience?

"As for "Latinos," since they can be of any color, how would you know they weren't "visible" simply by eyeballing the audience?"

The same is true for AA's.

I should have said "of any race."

I think I stated from what I saw on TV. There were several shots of the audience. For an organization screaming about equality, they seem to be lacking in that word. I should be able to see Black people or people of color in the audience. I mean come on.
They were in DC. Where is the outreach to the community?

OIC..I am not supportive of this issue...period...so..lack of outreach is OK with me.

I think the timing of all this is disasterous in terms of what all the president has on his plate,....there is no UP side to this for the nation nor millions and millions without healthcare or jobs nor those stuck over there fighting in that godforsaken sand pit in the middle east...it just makes no sense politically for this to be in the news!

POC, with any sense would rather have healthcare insurance, a job and their loved ones home from war...than to traipse to DC over some trivial matter such as DADT or the DOMA.

IOW's to make a long story short...I agree with you.

Just when is the right time for a group to agitate for their rights -- or as you put in a previous post "this mess?" From your posts on this issue, I get the feeling the answer is never.

LGBT POC who have any "sense" understand all too clearly that the rights they seek are inextricably tied to healthcare, jobs and the war. Same sex couples have no right to health care coverage, family leave, child custody protections, tax protections, inheritance protections, and pension plan options. And maybe if we didn't have DADT, a good many of the Arabic speaking linguist wouldn't have been discharged from the armed services. I'm thinking LGBT POC and their families and supporters seem to have pretty good "sense" when it comes to this issue.

I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that someone whispered in the ear of Ghandi, Cesar Chavez, MLK, Medgar Evers (BTW, he's getting a Navy ship named after him), Shriley Chisolm, and the like that it was "disasterous" for them to move forward and advocate for what they thought was right -- thank goodness they didn't listen.

"Just when is the right time for a group to agitate for their rights -- or as you put in a previous post "this mess?" From your posts on this issue, I get the feeling the answer is never."

Regarding, this mess, your feelings are 100% absolutely corrrect!

"someone whispered in the ear of Ghandi, Cesar Chavez, MLK, Medgar Evers (BTW, he's getting a Navy ship named after him), Shriley Chisolm, and the like that it was "disasterous" for them to move forward and advocate for what they thought was right -- thank goodness they didn't listen."

But their calls/causes were morally right & dignified and humanely justified...this mess bout gays is amoral, depraved and has no justification when it comes to human rights whatsoever. Just straight up narcissism.

"But their calls/causes were morally right & dignified and humanely justified...this mess bout gays is amoral, depraved and has no justification when it comes to human rights whatsoever. Just straight up narcissism."

Ahhh...now we've gotten to the heart of the matter. Just straight up bigotry.

You call it bigotry ..I call it morals.

You call it bigotry...I say a society is judged by how it treats it's children.

You call it bigotry...I say narcissim

Samesex preference individuals can work where they choose, be educated and have housing where they choose. I completely support non-discrimination for those basic human rights.

Marriage and warping young children is where I draw the line.

That's not bigotry...it's just common sense.

Considering that we live in a country where you can get a drive thru wedding with an Elvis impersonator within and hour or two of meeting your "spouse," divorced on a whim, where there is a sky high divorce rate, close to 70% of African American children are born out of wedlock and nearly one in four young black male dropouts are incarcerated or otherwise institutionalized on an average day ... I'd say that whatever mockery of marriage and warping of children that you're so concerned about began with and is maintained by us heterosexuals. I don't see any reason not to let LGBT community in on all of this "common sense."

where there is a sky high divorce "rate, close to 70% of African American children are born out of wedlock and nearly one in four young black male dropouts are incarcerated or otherwise institutionalized on an average day "

And we don't need to add homes with gay partners to this dysfunctional mess. Children do not deserve it...just as they do not deserve the skyhigh divorce rate and NO CHILD deserves to be raised without a mother AND father in the home. Decades of research demonstrate that is disasterous for the child to reach their full human potential.

Society's children are already bearing the brunt of those adult irresponsibilities, our prisons are full, there is a rise in juvenile deliquency who develop into non-functioning adults as well as murderers and sociopaths along with a high illiteracy rate and drug addiction.

We do not need to add to this human misery by creating deviate norms for domestic homes.

You cannot justify MORE wrong by pointing to what is already wrong...

Cildren deserve to be raised in a loving home by people who are respectful, kind and compassionate towards one another.

Children deserve to be raised in a home that allows them to reach their full human capacity.'

Gay domesticity does not do that. Neither does divorce. Neither does single parent households.

I agree: Common sense common among bigots.

Folks call you lots of things when you stand up for the rights of children.
Doesn't bother me one lick.

Proud to be a bigot saving children's minds and hearts.

Check the national statistics for the demographics of those who commit the most crimes against children in this nation and then get back to me on saving children's minds and hearts.

Don't need to.
I repeat..you can't justify MORE wrong by pointing to what is AlREADY wrong.

Children do not need to be raised with deviant beliefs that society SANCTIONS.

I

I repeat: Check the stats.

I repeat
NO
NEED
TO

If you smoked
marijuana
and wanted to
drive it would
be equally bad
as drinking/

We fuck up the government for the last 30 years and expect overnight changes. Ain't that a shame...

It would have been interesting if people paid attention the same way they do now, during Reagan, Bush I, Clinton tenure. Yeah maybe, just maybe things would have been substantially different.



I will say the government fuck the people!
Because in yr. democracy money DO talks!

… Other than that yr. RIGHT!

But this mindless name calling by the DOGmatic right and the salivating hope of the hungry left IS a good thing for this administration in the END, it puts those in between the trenches, surrounded @ the left and right to choose the path of the reason, because the climate is for NO second guess.

I love America.

We fuck up the government for the last 30 years and expect overnight changes. Ain't that a shame...

It would have been interesting if people paid attention the same way they do now, during Reagan, Bush I, Clinton tenure. Yeah maybe, just maybe things would have been substantially different.

But now, people are eager to yell now.. Obama is lying to us blah blah.... I don't see where he lied on the war, he said i will end Iraq and proceed with Afghanistan. So why are people surprised or acting shocked?

He never told you single payer, he said public option, why are people shocked?

Gay rights, he is not going to spend political capital now to get it done, period. Wrong or Right, he just wouldn't. That would take him down Clinton Route. I can see the repeal next year but this year nope.

I don't expect Obama to fix the whole government or foreign policy of the US. Maybe make an inch of change. America is an Empire, its been an empire since World War II. If Eisenhower could not end the Military Industrial Complex, you think Obama can take it on himself? If FDR could not kill off the entire financial greed system stemming from the FEDs, you think Obama can do it himself? You really think Obama can clean out a system that is effectively compromised for the last 30 years or more?

The only reason people are yelling now is that there is an economic crisis. But they have been people warning for a long time, warning about the effects of deregulation, the war in iraq, the taliban -- I remember seeing those women come to DC to beg for aid from the US government and educate about the destruction of Afghanistan but the Congress was worried about Clinton's sexcapade, there was the Unions warning about the effect of deregulation under Reagan, warned of the shipping of jobs under NAFTA, warned of US becoming an empire.

So simply put, there is a limit of how far Obama can go; there are just too many influences in DC. DC is a corporation with many subsidiaries. America became a full fledge corporation effective Jan 20 1981 and has been run that way ever since.

So please everyone needs to manage their expectation.

"America became a full fledge corporation effective Jan 20 1981 and has been run that way ever since."

::

Say it again.

Say it again.

Say it again.

"But now, people are eager to yell now.. Obama is lying to us blah blah.... I don't see where he lied on the war, he said i will end Iraq and proceed with Afghanistan. So why are people surprised or acting shocked?"

They hear what they want to hear. I noticed it first with Pelosi, and the reaction to her.

That is unrealistic. Expectations have to be set high otherwise we end up with the ordinary. Ordinary isn't going to cut it this time. Too much damage has been done to the economy. Social unrest will become worse as a result.
Ideally we have seen the best of us when the economic pie expands. This isn't going to happen for longer than we think. So you need to expand the idea of possible to keep social unrest from going out of control. Every social issue has to be seen as an expansion of freedom that grows the economic pie. You need to expand the idea of what the economy is in order to find the next thing that drives it back to growth.
Thinking ordinarily will not make this happen

Agree with you and that is why we can not afford to run the country like a corporation. The goal of a corporation is maximize profit for the shareholders, in this case the shareholders are not the people but the top 1%, and like you stated above, it is dangerous.

I think if there is a common ground that the left right and middle can reach, it is a consensus is that we cannot continue to run this nation as if it were a corporation. Pure and Simple. We can't do it that way. Not at all. It is a failed experiment.

More importantly than ever we need innovation in this nation from the people. However, certain folk think they can wait another 4 years to stall. If anything we ought to have learned after the Bush administration debacle, it is that time waits for nobody. The rest of the world is moving forward economically and we are stagnating. We are stuck in a rot of hate and cesspool of disillusion. We still cling to this thought that we are #1 and we can keep fighting stupid fights and we still think we are #1. We got competition now, we got to come together. I think Graham smelled the coffee too, he has realized that this nation cannot afford this garbage.

Agree with you that we have got to change the economic set up. The only way we can change it, is if we are all on the same page. I rather be on the same page with every left, right and middle person asking the fed to open its book. I rather be pushing with everyone to ask Obama to start dealing with these so called "too big to fail" industry through anti-trust laws.

I don't know..

"We fuck up the government for the last 30 years and expect overnight changes. Ain't that a shame...

It would have been interesting if people paid attention the same way they do now, during Reagan, Bush I, Clinton tenure. Yeah maybe, just maybe things would have been substantially different.

But now, people are eager to yell now.. Obama is lying to us blah blah.... I don't see where he lied on the war, he said i will end Iraq and proceed with Afghanistan. So why are people surprised or acting shocked?

He never told you single payer, he said public option, why are people shocked?

Gay rights, he is not going to spend political capital now to get it done, period. Wrong or Right, he just wouldn't. That would take him down Clinton Route. I can see the repeal next year but this year nope.
"


---

I agree with it overall but the quoted part is what I have been thinking . In the beginning I let myself get carried away with those in the gay community that were disappointed that things weren't happening fast enough. But we can't expect things to change over night. Its like gaining weight. You gain it over a long period of time but expect it to all go away in a few months. It's hard work (politics and losing weight lol ) but that's not to say don't try. The gay community doesn't have a better ally than the President. And if they want to throw him away they'll never see progress.

Thank you aleth always the voice of reason.

So what would you consider to be realistic expectations for Barack Obama?

I listened to the speech and couldnt help contrasting the fact that gay rights groups are rallying behind a specific agenda: Repeal DADT and DOMA, and sign the Matthew Shepherd Act. I find it curious that Obama is catching a lot of flack over those three pieces of legislation which, if they were to be passed tomorrow morning, would do nothing to affect the lives of just about 97% of the people of the United States. Gay marriage can become a reality tomorrow and the systems of economic and racial inequality will still be in effect. DADT can be repealed tomorrow morning and we're still occupying two countries....perhaps we need to raise a different set of questions from our government and elected officials, and truly demand a different kind of politics that goes beyond symbolic gestures.

I'm not sure the three issues you point out here are simply symbolic.

The "so-called" (to use the president's phrase) DOMA is a farce forcefed(?) down Clinton's (willing?) throat by the far right and is probably unconstitutional.

DADT may not affect a majority of people who consider themselves LGBT, but it's discrimination, pure and simple. Since when did ending discrimination undergirded with the force of federal law become a symbolic gesture just because it doesn't affect a majority of Americans?

And if you've witnessed and/or experienced a gay bashing and lived to tell about it, calling the Matthew Shepherd Act a symbolic gesture comes across as callous. Not saying you are, but that's how that comment comes across.

It's always the right time to fight for equality. But as I said in another comment, it's US who have to do our part, not just the President who simply doesn't have the power to make any of these changes on his own.

Craig: I'm actually for equality. At the same time, our country's homophobia is part of a larger issue; a larger evil that affects us all. The point I've been trying to make is not against equality; rather, i want for all of us (straight or gay) to work for a better society; to imagine a better world free of Domas, discrimination, and wars of imperialism among others. For instance, repealing DADT tomorrow will not change the fact that gays will be openly serving in two illegal, unjust, and inhumane wars. And who benefits from that? Instead, what I'd like to see groups like HRC doing is to call on folks NOT to allow themselves to be used as tools for the American Empire. Why seek participation (and legitimization) in an organism (the U.S arm forces) whose raison 'd etre is one of oppression for peoples all over the world?

As for the Matthew Shephard Act: I can tell you that last year in Brooklyn an immigrant from Equador was beaten to death by a group of thugs because he was holding hands with his brother. They saw these two men and immediately thought they were gay...and worthy of a beating. I've been around my brother and mistaken by gay before....I wouldnt want no one beating me up because of my sexuality. In cases like the one I just mentioned (and Matthew Shepard's own) I'd like to see these bastards publicly hung. No questions asked. At the same time, I'd like to see real equality that goes beyond the symbolic act of marriage. I want my gay Black and Latino friends to be able to send their children to the same schools white folks send theirs in White Plains, New York. I want my gay friends to have the same access to health care as some of our wealthier white friends do......I want my gay friends' parents to be able to retire in dignity ......

Marriage is an economic institution, not only a powerful cultural symbol. While some couples may not, for all sorts of reasons, take advantage of the economic advantages marriage provides, the advantages are there to be exploited. Some of what you want your gay friends to have would be much easier to have if their unions were recognized as marriage on a federal level.

As for this:

"Instead, what I'd like to see groups like HRC doing is to call on folks NOT to allow themselves to be used as tools for the American Empire. Why seek participation (and legitimization) in an organism (the U.S arm forces) whose raison 'd etre is one of oppression for peoples all over the world?"

You get no argument from me at all.

The amount of money that a gay couple loses over the years versus a straight one is mind boggling...that is victimization from the government.

Health insurance benefits for domestic partners are not a pre-tax benefit because the federal government doesn't recognize the union as marriage.

That alone is a huge source of the lost money to which you refer.

"would do nothing to affect the lives of just about 97% of the people of the United States."

All the more reason, to not prioritize it..when 100's of millions are unemployed and without health insurance.

Obama should stay focused on what the nation needs most..the economy and health care.

This other mess is not worth the political costs when as you noted, it will help so few.

IOW;s agree agree agree!!

Agreed with you.

That's why I think its essential to know the entire system is compromised and anybody that wants to change from within the system is doomed.

i am convinced that neither the right nor the left is the RIGHT on all the issue

But if we use that argument that only a small majority would benefit then civil rights would never have been on the front burner. Where's the idea of the least amoung us affecting all of us? I am not gay and some of the actions of late has made me roll my eyes but why shouldn't they have the same opportunities in career or marriage as everyone else?

Should we not have apologized to the interned Japanese...I mean they were not very many and the number of ethnic Japanese overall is small.

I am reminded of the phrase, "No justice, no peace."

'But if we use that argument that only a small majority would benefit then civil rights would never have been on the front burner. Where's the idea of the least amoung us affecting all of us?"

False analogy/dichotomy.

First of all the only way you can identify this 'minority' is by self disclosure of sexual behavior.

Second, Civil rights was not about a small minority but an entire nation with a history of brutatlity and barbaric behavior towards human beings based on their race NOT their behavior. Behavior is voluntary, race is not. No individual acts created the hostitily it was simply being of that race.

Third, America is not affected by what folks are able to do sexually within the privacy of their bedroom. The impact of samesex partner homes is far more deleterious to the foundation of our society as it warps children into believing that deviant behaviors are normal.

Once samesex partners is legalized they WILL be able to teach a child in K, 1st and 2nd grade that boys marrying boys is normal and the same for two girls marrying. And becasue it is legal there will not be shyt you can do about it. So, the impact on society is just unacceptable. Despite alcohol being legally, no one teaches that in the classroom to minors...but they will do this with same sex marriage, to promote 'equality'...I say BullSHYT!!

There is no least amongst us when it comes to sexual choices in the privacy of one's home. Point of fact, whatEVER individuals do sexual is unknown unless they CHOOSE to create public awareness of their sexual proclivities.

Lastly, there is justice and there is peace when folks remember that sex is private and no one needs to know about it outside of your selected partner. Single individuals in this society all have the same rights and marriage is not a right.

Once samesex partners is legalized they WILL be able to teach a child in K, 1st and 2nd grade that boys marrying boys is normal and the same for two girls marrying. And becasue it is legal there will not be shyt you can do about it. So, the impact on society is just unacceptable. Despite alcohol being legally, no one teaches that in the classroom to minors...but they will do this with same sex marriage, to promote 'equality'...I say BullSHYT!!

This is BULLSH*T!!!

What gets taught in schools is absolutely irrelevant to the legal status of same-sex marriage. SAME SEX COUPLES EXIST AND HAVE THEIR OWN KIDS THEY ARE RAISING. That is a plain old fact. Whether that fact gets taught in schools happened before California attempted to ban gay marriage and it will happen afterwards.

Lastly, there is justice and there is peace when folks remember that sex is private and no one needs to know about it outside of your selected partner. Single individuals in this society all have the same rights and marriage is not a right.

Simply ignorant. Quoting from Loving v Virginia, 1967 US Supreme Court case legalizing interracial marriage in the 16 states which banned it at the time: "The right to marry is one of the fundamental rights of man."

Your first premise that it is a chosen behavior is where we part ways. I understand if you or others have problems with homosexuality. But should that be the basis for denying someone the same benfits as others? I do not think that loving someone is a problem or something that threatens my way of life. I fear how people hate instead.

"Your first premise that it is a chosen behavior is where we part ways."

So you think homosexuals are animals lacking the capacity to choose to act on their sexual desires?

You think humans can't choose their sexual behavior..like celibacy, promiscuity, adultery, chasity?

All human behaviors are chosen...because we are not animals compelled to act..we have reason and free will.

There are no benefits that gays are denied. None. No matter who you love, love is no reason to advocate for deviant behaviors harmful to society.

Lots of folks love alcohol and drugs..societies has law to prohibit those behaviors as well for the benefit of the larger society.

I fear people who claim to desire to protect the least of amongst us, can't get up the morals and courage to protect children from depraved sexual behavior being a norm.

It is very small minded to have a vested interest in individual sexual proclivities vs. the rights of children to grow up in a world protected from the influence of deviant sexual behavior projected as a norm.

Religions (often) are chosen as well. People choose to believe in a "God" and in this country they are protected from discimination in employment because of that choice.

Why is it that sexual orientation and gender identity should not be an identity characteristic which should be included in civil rights laws (liek hate crimes, employment non-discrimination and public accomodations)?

Just because someone is "gay" does not mean you know a DAMNED thing about their sexual proclivities. All you know is what the gender is of the person they like to sleep with. Period.

And you think that's a good reason to deny them equality under the law, in a country which has denied so many other minority groups equality under the law?

The mind reels from the blatant hypocrisy.

We just do not agree..I will leave this debate, neither of us will change our minds.

U make a great point!

As I stated above, its going to happen whether now or tomorrow. DOMA will be repealed and so will be DADT policy.

In my initial post I said Obama whether right or wrong does not want to spend political capital on this, as Clinton choose to go that route and ended up with DADT just to appease his opponents.

I think the president will have to get it done next year, hell by feb. because he promised this, but I get a sense they don't want to get into more fight with the religious right.

But Lilytiger, you make an excellent rebuttal and counter argument, you are indeed a tiger. Lol

Thanks!

A lot has changed since the early nineties. I am a brown mixed person and so I have heard some things outright from the white population. I help an elderly white woman. She was talking about her rise in the Forestry industry without a college degree. She then mentioned that a Black woman had come in for an interview for another position back in the 50s. She was around the corner so she could hear all that was said. This woman noted that the Black woman was far more educated and more well spoken than she. She thought she was fabulous. After the interview was over and the interviewee had left she popped into the office to ask her boss when they were going to hire her. He said Never (mixed in with derogatory words). My elderly woman said that she was responsible later for the hiring of blacks into the Forestry Industry. We sat there feeling good and then she said "But then when they (you all) started pushing too hard for way too much, it wasn't so good"

I sat there and thought, people like to bequeath gifts and feel good about it. But there is a lot of tallying up whether someone deserves more and when it should arrive.