In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

This is why sitting down and shutting up isn’t an option

Because if you don’t make noise, you don’t get listened to. Obama’s open letter to the LGBT community, posted without comment:

I’m running for President to build an America that lives up to our founding promise of equality for all – a promise that extends to our gay brothers and sisters. It’s wrong to have millions of Americans living as second-class citizens in this nation. And I ask for your support in this election so that together we can bring about real change for all LGBT Americans.

Equality is a moral imperative. That’s why throughout my career, I have fought to eliminate discrimination against LGBT Americans. In Illinois, I co-sponsored a fully inclusive bill that prohibited discrimination on the basis of both sexual orientation and gender identity, extending protection to the workplace, housing, and places of public accommodation. In the U.S. Senate, I have co-sponsored bills that would equalize tax treatment for same-sex couples and provide benefits to domestic partners of federal employees. And as president, I will place the weight of my administration behind the enactment of the Matthew Shepard Act to outlaw hate crimes and a fully inclusive Employment Non-Discrimination Act to outlaw workplace discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.

As your President, I will use the bully pulpit to urge states to treat same-sex couples with full equality in their family and adoption laws. I personally believe that civil unions represent the best way to secure that equal treatment. But I also believe that the federal government should not stand in the way of states that want to decide on their own how best to pursue equality for gay and lesbian couples — whether that means a domestic partnership, a civil union, or a civil marriage. Unlike Senator Clinton, I support the complete repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) – a position I have held since before arriving in the U.S. Senate. While some say we should repeal only part of the law, I believe we should get rid of that statute altogether. Federal law should not discriminate in any way against gay and lesbian couples, which is precisely what DOMA does. I have also called for us to repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, and I have worked to improve the Uniting American Families Act so we can afford same-sex couples the same rights and obligations as married couples in our immigration system.

The next president must also address the HIV/AIDS epidemic. When it comes to prevention, we do not have to choose between values and science. While abstinence education should be part of any strategy, we also need to use common sense. We should have age-appropriate sex education that includes information about contraception. We should pass the JUSTICE Act to combat infection within our prison population. And we should lift the federal ban on needle exchange, which could dramatically reduce rates of infection among drug users. In addition, local governments can protect public health by distributing contraceptives.

We also need a president who’s willing to confront the stigma – too often tied to homophobia – that continues to surround HIV/AIDS. I confronted this stigma directly in a speech to evangelicals at Rick Warren’s Saddleback Church, and will continue to speak out as president. That is where I stand on the major issues of the day. But having the right positions on the issues is only half the battle. The other half is to win broad support for those positions. And winning broad support will require stepping outside our comfort zone. If we want to repeal DOMA, repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, and implement fully inclusive laws outlawing hate crimes and discrimination in the workplace, we need to bring the message of LGBT equality to skeptical audiences as well as friendly ones – and that’s what I’ve done throughout my career. I brought this message of inclusiveness to all of America in my keynote address at the 2004 Democratic convention. I talked about the need to fight homophobia when I announced my candidacy for President, and I have been talking about LGBT equality to a number of groups during this campaign – from local LGBT activists to rural farmers to parishioners at Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta, where Dr. Martin
Luther King once preached.

Just as important, I have been listening to what all Americans have to say. I will never compromise on my commitment to equal rights for all LGBT Americans. But neither will I close my ears to the voices of those who still need to be convinced. That is the work we must do to move forward together. It is difficult. It is challenging. And it is necessary.

Americans are yearning for leadership that can empower us to reach for what we know is possible. I believe that we can achieve the goal of full equality for the millions of LGBT people in this country. To do that, we need leadership that can appeal to the best parts of the human spirit. Join with me, and I will provide that leadership. Together, we will achieve real equality for all Americans, gay and straight alike.

Thoughts?


67 thoughts on This is why sitting down and shutting up isn’t an option

  1. eh. There’s good and bad, but still that tone that is one thing I personally find disturbing in much of what Obama says. His continual references to reaching out to hostile groups and listening to what they say leave me uneasy.

    I’m also disappointed in his optimism regarding civil unions. New Jersey is a good example of why they are lip service only. Unless he’s going to push for a law that says all companies and government entities have to recognize civil unions as marriage, they just AREN’T the best solution and his insistence that they are is frustrating. It also shows a real lack of knowledge about the impacts of these things in the real world.

  2. *sniffles* Guys… look. The Democrats have remembered us again. Yay!

    See this, this was a good stand on LGBT issues. he made his point very clear. He is for inclusive ENDA and the Matthew Shepard Act. He wants to get rid of DADT and DOMA. All of these things will set this country in the right direction. And his position on HIV/AIDS! *swoons* I love this man.

    His continual references to reaching out to hostile groups and listening to what they say leave me uneasy.

    See. I don’t find it uneasy. I find it good. If he ignore the hostile groups, nothing will ever change. He wants to talk to everyone, even if he disagrees with them, and that is GOOD. We need a president who is willing to talk and listen to everyone, regardless of their personal views.

    Also, about Civil Unions, I don’t know if you watched the Gay Marriage “debate” or not, but he stated there that he wants there to be civil unions, which grants all the rights of marriage, that anyone can get through the state, and marriage with is a religious thing. He is changing the idea of civil unions. Which, is happy times!

  3. Like Astraea, I’m heartened and disheartened at the same time. It signals some progress and some attention to GBLT issues, but not a commitment to the ideal of full equality. *Sigh*

  4. Well I think he’s being realistic. The fact is, we just can’t make millions of americans believe something by telling them to put up or shut up. That’s what the Bush Administraion has essentially done to liberals the last 8 years. And obviously that tactic has worked out SO well for them. By completely ignoring what people who disagree with thiem say they’ve essentially made alienating the opposition a Standar Operating Procedure.

    The fact is, people that we don’t agree with have concerns, and they have a right to have those concerns addressed by their government to a certain extent. They have a right to a conversation. And by engaging them we may help some of them actually change their minds about gay people and same sex marriage. (Or other things.)

    If we simply put our foot down and say this is how it is going to be we are only going to alienate them and fill them with more hate and resentment. How can you combat hate by creating more?

    I think he has a realistic perspective and that gives me hope that he might actually be able to improve things for the GLBT community.

  5. For better or for worse, the Gay Civil Rights movement has hitched its wagon to the Democratic Party. And definitely for the worse, most Democratic politicians haven’t been willing to take a stand on the issue of gay rights. Sure, they might be willing to vote for gay friendly legislation, but when it comes time to publicly defend gay people, we hear things like “that’s an improper use of a constitution” or “this piece of legislation would harm unmarried straight people too.”

    It’s good that those arguments were deployed because they helped stop some unjust legislation, but those arguments are solely defensive; they will never move things forward. To move forward, we need arguments that actually mention gay people, arguments that demonstrate gay people’s inherent dignity and worth, arguments that are educational.

    Because of the symbiotic relationship between the Gay Civil Rights movement and the Democratic Party, we don’t just need those arguments, we also need Democratic politicians who are willing to make those arguments. This ground work is so critical to advancing gay equality that a politician’s willingness to do it is just as important, if not more so, then the politician’s policy views. Judging by his open letter, it seems like Barack Obama understands this, and that is one of the reasons I am supporting his candidacy.

    Another reason is that I am tired of seeing Democrats playing defense, not only on gay equality, but a host of issues. It’s also why private assurances don’t do it for me anymore. This ground work needs to get done for this country to move forward. If you aren’t willing to do this heavy lifting, then I’m not willing to support your candidacy.

  6. Obama makes me uncomfortable, but I voted for him. Clinton makes me uncomfortable in different ways. At the end of the day I think she’s too solicitous of corporate America and her judges would be bad on civil justice issues, while Obama’s I can’t tell, and while I don’t write about that on the blogs I care a ton about stopping the “tort reform” agenda that really means protecting corporate misconduct from accountability to ordinary people, and that for me was the tiebreaker.

    Having said that I both support and distrust Obama, I buth support and distrust what he said here. It checked all the boxes that I expect from a Presidential contender. I want marriage equality, but it wasn’t that long ago that signing for civil unions got Governor Dean death threats and I’ve seen the Overton window move. Marriage equality used to be out of sight, and civil unions was the typical lefty-progressive position, and most people in politics were against it. Now, the radical position is “marriage? why is the State involved?”, the lefty-progressive norm is full equality and left-of-center politicians are somewhere in the CU mushy area, with only conservatives dug into the no-rights position that used to occupy the vast middleground. As Jesse Jackson said, a party needs two wings to fly, and the Dems need real activists to keep pushing for the real goals while they ratchet the center closer. It’s unfair that eqaulity is achieved on the installment plan, but that’s how it gets done.

  7. His continual references to reaching out to hostile groups and listening to what they say leave me uneasy.

    I’ve been told, many times now, to just trust him and to understand that his way will “bring the opponents” round to “our” way of thinking.

    I don’t know what proof of this there is, but his supporters seem to believe it.

  8. Unfortunately, given the implacable hostility to gay people that exists among huge swaths of the U.S. population, this is probably as good as one can get from someone who actually has a fighting chance to be elected.

    It would be nice to have someone come out unequivocally in support of gay marriage with full rights, tell the bigots to get stuffed, and still win. I’d also like to win the Lottery while Scarlett Johansen gives me a foot massage, but that ain’t happening either.

  9. I’ve been told, many times now, to just trust him and to understand that his way will “bring the opponents” round to “our” way of thinking.

    I don’t know what proof of this there is, but his supporters seem to believe it.

    I’m not sure if that is the correct way of describing what he’s doing. I think he’s being realistic that not everyone is going to agree with him/us and if we ignore those people, they will get angry and mobilize against him/us. As the president (if he gets it) it is his duty to listen and talk to ALL AMERICANS. Even the nutty ones. Wouldn’t it be nice if Bush did that every now and then?

  10. Meggygurl, there’s evidence that civil unions have serious drawbacks. He can call marriage a religious thing, but until they make it illegal for atheists to get married and ask us to join in civil unions, it’s not really an accurate way to describe how the law treats marriage.

    Pam has a great post on how civil unions aren’t working in New Jersey.

    I’m definitely glad to hear support for all-inclusive ENDA and the Matthew Shepard act. I like that he includes gender identity. But we shouldn’t stop pushing for more.

  11. I’ve been told, many times now, to just trust him and to understand that his way will “bring the opponents” round to “our” way of thinking.

    I don’t know what proof of this there is, but his supporters seem to believe it.

    As a State Senator in Illinois, Obama pushed through legislation to require police officers to videotape suspects’ statements despite heated opposition from Republicans, Democratic prosecutors, and police departments and unions. He did it by sitting down with them and listening to their concerns.

    You’re right in being skeptical. Just because you have a conversation with someone doesn’t mean you will change their mind. But forgoing that conversation guarantees you won’t change their mind. All Obama is doing is promising to try.

  12. Civil unions are not a real solution. Their only use is as a interim step to help people accomodate themselves to the reality that equality will happen.

  13. Meggygurl, there’s evidence that civil unions have serious drawbacks. He can call marriage a religious thing, but until they make it illegal for atheists to get married and ask us to join in civil unions, it’s not really an accurate way to describe how the law treats marriage.

    Oh! I agree! Civil unions are not the same thing. But, I believe the point he was trying to make was that there needs to be civil unions, which grant you the rights, and marriage, which happens in a church. I’m not saying this is going to magically happen… but I think it’s a good idea. Clearly, he doesn’t have a very well formulated plan, but the fact that we are even TALKING about it makes me hopeful. Also, he personally is for gay marriage, if you watch between the lines when he talks. And as much as it hurts that he can’t come out and say that… look at the guys who did.

    But we shouldn’t stop pushing for more.

    You’re right, we shouldn’t. But, we have to take steps. As much as I would love to go all Martin Luther and hammer a list of 91 demands to the doors of congress, I don’t think that would be very effective. Let’s get equal rights in work (at least on the books!) then make some steps toward Civil Unions.

  14. It’s one thing to keep your ears open to other voices, it’s an entirely different thing to give lip service in an open letter while inviting religious biggots to help with your campaign.

    Are we ladies who periodically feel down about his sexist dogwhistles going to get a meaningless open letter next?

  15. I’ve been impressed since I first heard him speak about homophobia’s effects on how we deal with AIDS in this country, and I still think he is the only candidate who has spoken out this bluntly about the need to deal with it.

  16. It’s an entirely different thing to give lip service in an open letter while inviting religious biggots to help with your campaign.

    A good point. Which kinda negates the whole “he’s just promising to try” thing, doesn’t it.

    Are we ladies who periodically feel down about his sexist dogwhistles going to get a meaningless open letter next?

    I’m thinking we probably shouldn’t hold our breath.

  17. This isn’t everything I want, but it’s a lot that I want.

    Has Clinton outlined her “gay agenda” yet? I’d be interested to see how they compare.

  18. What is it about equality that no one seems to understand?

    The idea that marriage is “religious” appears to negate the fact that all marriages are CIVIL marriages FIRST — otherwise why require a license.

    The stance on Civil Unions is no more than doubletalk — a way to pander to all the homophobes while throwing us a bone.

    Are WE supposed to bow and scrape, tug at non-existent forelocks, while singing his praises?

    I’m really tired of all this Obama-as-messiah crap. At least we know Hillary works hard, understands, and has the ability to change with the times. After eight years of an empty suit in power, I see the very same sort of campaign out there selling us another underequipped, inexperienced, man who touts his “Christian” ideals.

    McClurkin was a deal breaker.

  19. You know, I think he’s supportive of GLBTQ Americans, and doesn’t waver on that. The whole civil union thing aside (I don’t believe marriage should be the government’s business at all, even for straight people), he’s probably our best shot at having someone who gives a damn about the GLBTQ community in the White House.

  20. Does Senator Obama realize that HIV and AIDS affects straight women too? It’s not just a gay thing.

    And yeah, it is “wrong to have millions of Americans living as second-class citizens in this nation.” So how about coming out for the ERA, or stating a well-defined on the immigration policies of the US?

    Furthermore, “domestic partnership, a civil union, or a civil marriage” does not lead to “equality.” It leads to “separate but equal”, and look how well that turned out.

    Yet more reasons why I didn’t vote for Senator Obama in my primary.

  21. As a State Senator in Illinois, Obama pushed through legislation to require police officers to videotape suspects’ statements despite heated opposition from Republicans, Democratic prosecutors, and police departments and unions. He did it by sitting down with them and listening to their concerns.

    Not only that, the legislature voted unanimously for that bill, which is an absolutely unbelievable legislative achievement on a very contentious issue.

    It’s interesting to contrast the wading into the primary over here (ZuZu appears to support Clinton) with the same over at Pandagon (Pam appears to support Obama). I’ve love to see them debate each other. I’d bet we’d learn a lot.

  22. I’m not going to debate anybody. I walked into that voting booth on Super Tuesday feeling like I could pull the lever for either candidate still in the race. I made my choice, but had something else been on my mind that day, I could have gone the other way. For that matter, I could have pulled the lever for Edwards, who was still on the ballot, or for Huckabee, just to fuck with the Republican results.

    Sorry to disappoint all of you who are searching through the entrails for evidence of my apparent support for Clinton, perhaps in an effort to find reasons to discount my criticisms of Obama.

  23. I think that no matter *who* we support, we should not give them a free ride on anything. Zuzu is right in that matter, if we just accept things, nothing will ever change. Obama is my choice, and I think he’s great. But can be be better? Hell yes! And we should push for that. Because, really. Just cause someone is good doesn’t mean you can’t want more for them.

    Obama I believe will go good things. But, we should push for him to do *great* things.

  24. http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0208/Selling_gay_rights.html

    Obama’s rally in Beaumont today was the highest-energy of this Texas swing, with a crowd that was about three-quarters black cheering at almost every turn.
    An interesting moment came when he was asked a question about LGBT rights and delivered an answer that seemed to suit the questioner, listing the various attributes—race, gender, etc.—that shouldn’t trigger discrimination, to successive cheers. When he came to saying that gays and lesbians deserve equality, though, the crowd fell silent.

    So he took a different tack:

    “Now I’m a Christian, and I praise Jesus every Sunday,” he said, to a sudden wave of noisy applause and cheers. “I hear people saying things that I don’t think are very Christian with respect to people who are gay and lesbian,” he said, and the crowd seemed to come along with him this time.

  25. perhaps in an effort to find reasons to discount my criticisms of Obama.

    There’s no “perhaps” about it.

  26. John, I wholeheartedly agree with your first comment about the rhetorical stance of the democratic party in terms of GLBT issues. The only politician I have ever heard make unqualified statements about the equality and worth of GLBT relationships and issues is Dennis Kucinich. Unfortunately, I do not support him in many other ways.

    I guess I understand why politicians feel the need to frame everything in a sort of hetereo-normative context (“this is good legislation because it helps you too, straight people!”) (and the reason is that they are afraid–not a good reason, but at least a reason), but I’m still baffled that the US has not moved on to a place where a politician can say, in public, that they support GLBT rights in all ways and have no reservations in saying so.

    Obama’s insistence on NOT taking a stand on equal marriage for all really speaks to this fear in politicians–I have no doubt in my mind that Obama, in his personal and private life, supports equality of marriage rights. It really bothers me that he is afraid to make it his policy as a presidential candidate.

  27. It really bothers me that he is afraid to make it his policy as a presidential candidate.

    Me too. But, in all honesty…

    I don’t believe he would get voted in if he did. Sadly, America isn’t there yet. America likes their gays in a very Will and Grace 30 minute comedy. The idea that they are trying to break out of that and just be *people* is hard for a lot of people to handle. Marriage is too normal. If they give us that, then we might be actual people with actual feelings.

    And once we are humanized… they have to deal with the way they have been treating us for the last 40 years.

  28. Does Senator Obama realize that HIV and AIDS affects straight women too? It’s not just a gay thing.

    Bianca, in my experience most people who are interested in addressing the stigma attached to HIV and AIDS are aware that it’s not just a gay thing, and part of dealing with that stigma is making it clear that this is a problem which affects everyone. However, since AIDS has disproportionately affected the gay community (although I realize the numbers are shifted now) I think it would be harmful not to examine how many of the failures in raising AIDS awareness and making treatment available for those who need it are related to homophobia.

    I could be wrong, but it sounds to me like he is interested in making sure that people understand that a) it’s not “just a gay thing,” and
    b) even if it were, we would still need to deal with it and do our best for those who are at risk and those who are already infected, because gay people matter too.

  29. And once we are humanized… they have to deal with the way they have been treating us for the last 40 years.

    Oh, I wouldn’t worry about that. America has pretty much refused to deal with the way that it’s treated women, Native Americans, African Americans, or the poor so far, I doubt it’d start with the LGBT community.

  30. Notice that he says he’s called for an end to Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.

    What he doesn’t say is, “As President, I will end this policy.” (which the POTUS can do with a phone call.) Why? Because he won’t.

    He’s pandering to the LGBT community exactly as much as he calculates he can, without losing too many “mainstream” votes. Saying DODT is a dead letter in an Obama administration would cost him too many votes.

    Just another Democrat lying to progressives and hoping they’ll be too stupid to see through it.

  31. Oh, I wouldn’t worry about that. America has pretty much refused to deal with the way that it’s treated women, Native Americans, African Americans, or the poor so far, I doubt it’d start with the LGBT community.

    Sometimes, I feel so bad on behalf of everyone in this country, that I feel like I’m going to explode. My therapist has told me I cannot feel the need to make up for other people’s mistakes.

    For a country that loves life so much, they sure don’t give a fuck how they treat it. 😛

  32. Civil unions as they currently exist are in no way even “separate but equal”. They are so UNequal it is a joke. Here’s a nice link to the GAOs report of the 1,138 Federal rights & benefits of marriage that are not extended to individuals in state-recognized civil unions. If Obama can push through legislation that does grant those things to civil unions, it will actually be a huge step in the right direction — we will have then actually made it to “separate but equal.” And then that can be the jumping-off point for the next step.

  33. that. America has pretty much refused to deal with the way that it’s treated women, Native Americans, African Americans, or the poor so far, I doubt it’d start with the LGBT

    Ramen to that.

  34. Oh, I wouldn’t worry about that. America has pretty much refused to deal with the way that it’s treated women, Native Americans, African Americans, or the poor so far, I doubt it’d start with the LGBT community.

    I don’t know why but that statement irks me. Has enough been done? hell no, not even close. Has America pretty much refused to deal…? hell no. If we look at the last 40 years a ton of horrible shit has happened and is being perpetuated but also a lot of progress has been and continues to be made. America is dealing with the way it’s treated these groups, we see it every day in both our cities and towns and in laws that are passed and organizations that are put in place. Again its not nearly enough but it irks me when I hear/read comments like that that seem to write all the good, even if its not enough, off.

  35. Sorry to disappoint all of you who are searching through the entrails for evidence of my apparent support for Clinton, perhaps in an effort to find reasons to discount my criticisms of Obama.

    Not at all. Your past criticisms are perfectly valid and important points to make. Of course, you didn’t actually make any criticisms of Obama in this piece, so I’m not sure what you’re referring to now. I mean, your only post so far in this is a response to me, and your original post only had zero comment on Obama’s letter whatsoever.

    But look, I read this blog every day. And you really do target Obama more than the other candidates. Just like Pam targets Clinton a lot. Sorry if I’m reading too much into that for your tastes, but there’s nothing at all wrong with me pointing out that you or anyone else appears to have problems with one candidate vs. the other.

    Why that is engendering such a heated response from you, I don’t understand. You’ve made it clear—now at least (though I admit I might’ve just missed it before)—that you don’t support either candidate. Great. That’s exactly the context I was curious about and I thank you for that. I was wrong in my assumption that you supported Clinton, and I apologize to you for suggesting otherwise.

    By the way, BettyBoondoggle, if I wanted to really discount ZuZu’s criticisms, I would never use her support of one candidate vs. the other to do that. That’s just a stupid thing to do and it’s meaningless anyway. Hell, I supported Edwards and had big problems with his inability to fight for marriage equality as well (beyond civil unions). No candidate is perfect, after all. For all my (wrongheaded) assumptions about whether or not ZuZu supported one or the other, I’ve never found her criticisms anything other than valid. I’ve just wanted more context is all, and now I have some.

  36. Sickle – my comment wasn’t directed at you. Zuzu and I (among many others) have been dealing with some highly dismissive people on a different blog who have, literally, been accusing everyone of hating Obama, or searching for reasons to slam him, for days now.

  37. John says:

    Sure, they might be willing to vote for gay friendly legislation, but when it comes time to publicly defend gay people, we hear things like “that’s an improper use of a constitution” or “this piece of legislation would harm unmarried straight people too.”
    It’s good that those arguments were deployed because they helped stop some unjust legislation, but those arguments are solely defensive; they will never move things forward.

    Honestly, all I really want from politicians and judges are the laws that treat me fairly, and if that means some slippery rhetoric to pass them, fine. Because I don’t think politicians making strong statements will actually change people’s views on gay people. What really makes for changes of heart is when folks have to knowingly interact with individual gay people in their lives, and learn to see them as real human beings. Just living our lives as out queer people is what will eventually change the social landscape. And the right laws, with real enforcement, can give people the freedom they need to come out without fear of losing their jobs or their homes or their benefits. So I feel like the laws have to come first, then the attitude change can follow, and it won’t follow directly from politicians’ words, but from the space created by just laws that lets LGBTs to make our own selves heard.

  38. I think it’s important for us not just to discuss Obama’s and Clinton’s specific plans, but also to discuss the bigger issue here.

    A minority of the population directly benefits from LGBT-equality and -protection legislation. A majority of the population is “uncomfortable” with or actively hostile toward LGBT equality and protection. Which means, in a democracy, that LGBT-equality and -protection legislation is going to be very difficult, if not impossible, to implement at the federal level.

    Every oppressed minority group faces this situation, and has to craft political strategy with it in mind. Do we focus bit-by-bit on changing people’s minds, on moving them from actively hostile to “uncomfortable” and from “uncomfortable” to supportive, knowing that this process takes generations of baby steps to yield significant improvements? Or do we try to circumvent the unsupportive majority and get the improvements we want now? Which approach is likely to be more effective? Which is more ethical? What do we risk if we choose one and not the other?

    In the current political landscape, I don’t see how we can circumvent the unsupportive majority. We can’t turn to the Constitution, which is supposed to protect minorities from majorities, because the courts don’t reliably interpret it as providing LGBT equality and protection. (And securing justices who DO interpret it thusly relies, once again, on a democratic majority). Are we going to take up arms? Didn’t work real well for African-Americans in the 70s. I’m willing to be patient and accept piecemeal change — but it’s because I don’t see a real alternative.

    Personally, I’m supporting Obama because he believes, as I do, that enough of the “uncomfortable” people can be moved to indifference or supportiveness, and they can be so moved quickly if the thing’s done right. I’m supporting him because after seeing his speech on religion and politics, I think he’s got a decent shot of helping something like that along. And I think his proposed “baby steps” are actually significantly beneficial. They shouldn’t be the end of LGBT rights, but they shouldn’t be dismissed as trivial, either.

  39. Why that is engendering such a heated response from you, I don’t understand.

    Because long before I cast my vote, whenever I pointed out that Clinton was getting shit on by misogynists, and that a great deal of the panicked opposition to her from progressives (even those who considered themselves feminist allies) was reeking of misogyny, I was dismissed because it was assumed that I was a “Clinton apologist.” Because I’ve been compared, in great detail, to John Yoo just because I asked what rules Clinton was breaking by asking for the FL and MI delegates to be seated at the DNC. Because people seem to be counting up how many posts I make about one candidate or another trying to discern some kind of pattern. Because I can’t make a criticism of Obama without someone demanding to know why I haven’t made an equivalent criticism of Clinton. Because I’ve been outright accused of wanting McCain to win and being single-handedly responsible for losing American women’s reproductive rights for daring to criticize the apparent front-runner’s commitment to women’s issues.

    Because, frankly, I’m sick of this whole fucking primary season, and there are people who I can no longer call friends or respect because of the way that they’ve behaved since it became Obama vs. Clinton, even though they had previously been quite reasonable people.

  40. Well, I certainly contributed to that over here by being a bit boneheaded, so sorry to add to the frustration. 🙂

  41. there are people who I can no longer call friends or respect because of the way that they’ve behaved since it became Obama vs. Clinton

    I’ve heard similar reports of the vitriol between Clinton- and Obama-supporters — or between perceived Clinton- and Obama-supporters — but have seen very little of it firsthand. Thankfully. It completely mystifies me. Some very smart people will probably be able to write several very interesting books about what put so many democrats at each other’s throats.

  42. It’s not just me, either. A friend who is a blogger has told me that she has been berated in very personal ways and had her essential character questioned by people who’ve known her for years and have been to her home on many occasions because Obama lost her support during the Alito nomination.

  43. As one of the LGBT American’s he’s presumably addressing, what most disturbs me is his continued refusal to pull Donnie McClurkin from his musical entourage. I understand that it helps him reach out to religious black communities, but there are so many black pastors out there who aren’t preaching lies about gay people. McClurkin is someone who alienates LGBT voters. You’d think politically astute Obama would realize this.

  44. I’ve heard similar reports of the vitriol between Clinton- and Obama-supporters

    Just be greatful you’re on the net. There was a fight between a clinton supporter and an obama supporter only a few miles from where I live! Here’s part of the news story; “”Their verbal argument became physical. One began choking the other, and then the victim of the choking took a kitchen knife and stabbed his brother- in-law in the stomach”…gotta love it, guy’s still in the hospital I think.

  45. Lemme give you gals the “other side’s” perspective on your quest for “equality” with respect to being allowed to re-define marriage via the courts.

    Knowing why people who disagree with you disagree is the first step in formulating arguments. Just assuming they’re all a bunch of knee-jerk bigots, prejudiced with antiquated ideas sets you up for a rude awakening when you run into people who disagree not for “biblical” or “personal” reasons but for more philosophical ones. Like the governing principle of fairness.

    Equality under the law means something – that the rules ought to apply to everyone equally. But if a player in baseball decides that for him, an “out” is not 3 strikes but really 4, he’s not demanding to be treated equal with everyone else on the field. He’s demanding the right to change the rules.

    And maybe for the sake of peace the rest of the players say fine, OK, for you and for us, from now on, an “out” = 4 strikes, not 3. Yeah, we’ve expanded the definition and it’s all peace and love again.

    But the principle has been established that any one person can unilaterally change the rules of the game and force the rest to accept this change. Just because.

    No longer is it a question of majority vote, it’s now “anyone can veto the majority”.

    If an absolute minority has a different definition about some term (what marriage is) and institution (marriage) than the majority how is it “equal rights under the law” to allow this minority to force ITS new definition on the majority?

    We’re not claiming you can’t fight for this new definition via a constitutional amendment – that is always open to your group. Nor are we claiming you are not allowed to work via a legislature to get your way.

    No, the complaint is, you are doing end-runs around democracy to foist your particular definition on us via the courts.

    Marriage has long meant “one man, one woman”. Yes there have been multiple examples of coupling in past cultures but there were definate terms for those liaisons that were not called “marriage” in the West. Fornication, adultery, polygamy, incest, etc. are all terms for various forms of sexual unions that definately occured but were not confused with “marriage”.

    Saying you are being unfairly discriminated against because your definition is not accepted by the majority is sort of a begging the question about what sort of super-duper rights you claim to have that the rest of us don’t – to wit, the right to re-define terms of public impact via the courts.

    Naturally you want the outcome so you don’t care how you get there, but consider what will happen when the principle is established that ANY minority can foist ITS novel definition on THE REST OF US via the courts.

    Like, say, the word “public”. As in “public schools”. Ah but you’ll counter, everyone knows public means tax-payer funded, blah blah blah…. to which a new minority might say “yeah well, maybe for YOU, but for us, it means whatever it is we want it to mean which is a school funded by taxpayers but run by our church according to our rules”. In other words, A RE-DEFINITION.

    How absurd you say, that’ll never fly… the majority won’t let it. Why not? If your minority can demand the rest of us bow down to your re-definition of marriage, why shouldn’t we expect another minority to come along demanding their definition of “company” or “business” or “property” not be equally foisted on the rest of us simply because they find life without that novel definition hard to take?

    I understand that you want what you want and ergo, this means ‘you have a right to it and the rest of us must stand down and shut up on penalty of being unfair’ but it just seems like turnabout is not fair play here. Indeed once the principle is established that majorities have no rights, how are we going to avoid anarchy and ultimately the rise again of the principle that might = right?

    Again, you want a certain outcome. You feel good about that outcome. But the means by which you accomplish it in American Law has a funny habit of becoming precedent for others to advance their goals – and the end run around legislation does not bode well for our Federated republic.

  46. The fighting between the Clinton and Obama factions in my office is real. The most recent salvo is from a Clinton supporter who announced she is voting for Nader because Obama is sexist AND another JIMMY CARTER.

    Unity – we could stand to take a few lessons from the GOP coalition that has dominated American politics. The religious nuts, fiscal conservatives and neo-con hawks had less in common than Obama and Clinton groups, yet we have a harder time sticking together. Clinton and Obama have many common policy goals and ideas.

    Where they differ is on where they want to take the Democratic party. Clinton, to the center, and Obama to the center-left. Hillary has openly adopted Bill’s philosophies. Unfortunately, Bill was responsible for pushing the center to the right and that’s part of the reason we are in the mess we have now. Clinton ally Terry McCauliffe turned the party into a corporate cash cow that wrote off half the states. My vision is closer to that of Howard Dean: we Democrats will fight in all fifty states and will never concede a seat. Dean’s strategy is different than the McCauliffe-Clinton triangulation model. And my vision is closer to Obama’s because of that. We will never convince evangelical gay-haters, but we must convince independents and people who are on the fence to join our party.

    There is much I admire about Hillary Clinton. I just wish we could get a glimpse of what she really believes and what she will do – not what Bill and the pollsters say she must believe and say to get elected. Is she getting a fair shot from the media? Of course not. But we knew this would happen, which is why I was opposed to her candidacy. Because when it comes to the Clintons, the haters come out. After 20+ years in the public eye that isn’t going to change. It’s a shame, but they had a good run. I still believe the best place for Hillary is on the Supreme Court. Probably the haters would prevent her from being confirmed. But we desperately need someone with her intellect evening out the court. I love the idea of Scalia and Alito having to see Hillary every day, it may drive them from the bench.

  47. There definitely has been a lot of personal garbage being lobbed back and forth between Clinton and Obama supporters. Every blog I’ve visited lately seems to have a couple of trolls on either side of the fence who seem to magically appear in every thread to toss bombs at their rivals. Speaking as someone who just wants to see the GOP get creamed, I don’t like seeing it happen to either side.

  48. Bea, I understand your point. However, HIV and AIDS are now disproportionately affecting black American women. I don’t have a link to the statistics (because I’m lazy) but has been a significant shift over the past few years. Yet black people and women for some reason don’t warrant their own open letters from Senator Obama.

    Oh, I wouldn’t worry about that. America has pretty much refused to deal with the way that it’s treated women, Native Americans, African Americans, or the poor so far, I doubt it’d start with the LGBT community.

    I hear that, Roy.

    frankly, I’m sick of this whole fucking primary season, and there are people who I can no longer call friends or respect because of the way that they’ve behaved since it became Obama vs. Clinton, even though they had previously been quite reasonable people.

    I’m sorry to hear that, zuzu. I do understand where you’re coming from. This election has brought out the irrational and crazy in many individuals. Luckily none of those individuals are my friends. My friends could barely understand how to vote in a primary, much less work themselves into a frenzy over the candidates.

  49. “Clinton ally Terry McCauliffe turned the party into a corporate cash cow”

    Huh? How is a political party a corporate cash cow?

  50. Just be greatful you’re on the net. There was a fight between a clinton supporter and an obama supporter only a few miles from where I live! Here’s part of the news story; “”Their verbal argument became physical. One began choking the other, and then the victim of the choking took a kitchen knife and stabbed his brother- in-law in the stomach”…gotta love it, guy’s still in the hospital I think.

    The funniest part of that story was that they were both Republicans.

  51. I was disappointed when I saw Clinton on the Ellen Degeneres show talking about how she supported civil unions, but didn’t say anything about supporting marriages. Awhile ago, I believed strongly that civil unions were not any different from marriage, but, well, as above evidence proves… it’s not.

    So I’m sad to see my candidate not being as strong about this issue as she could be.

    But then again, when I compare Obama and Clinton, I still feel like I need to choose the person who has proven herself. It may be because I don’t trust easily (I mean, I get tired of people lying to me), but I don’t want to hope my politician will get stuff done. I want proof that he/she has and can and will continue to do so.

    I mean, Bill Clinton was thinking about running for office in 1988, but he waited until he had more experience. I think Obama will make a good leader, but I’m not ready for him yet. Not until he has a substantial track record that proves what he’s done and that he’ll back what he says he backs.

    Side question: Is anyone else having conversations with significant others/friends/family members about moving out of the country if a Republican is elected?

  52. I know that this letter doesn’t offer everyone everything we want, but it offers a hell of a lot more than I’ve ever seen any serious candidate offer. I agree that it seems Obama is being realistic, I also agree that his banging the drum of civil unions makes me uncomfortable. Still, it isn’t as if marriage equality is a theoretical issue for Obama. He has stated in public that many of his views on the issue are informed by the struggles his parents faced.

    As for who would be a better candidate on LGBT issues, Ill just say this. Obama challenged the African American community on it’s history of homophobia in King’s church on the man’s day of remembrance and was greeted with booming applause. The Clintons threw the gay community under the bus at the first sign of trouble and implemented the DADT policy which, if anything, made LGBT service members less safe than they had been before.

  53. An interesting moment came when he was asked a question about LGBT rights and delivered an answer that seemed to suit the questioner, listing the various attributes—race, gender, etc.—that shouldn’t trigger discrimination, to successive cheers. When he came to saying that gays and lesbians deserve equality, though, the crowd fell silent.

    this is why i like Obama. he talks to unfriendly crowds about issues they disagree with. (as he did telling the automakers they need to make more fuel efficient vehicles, to stony silence.) just that statement, is very good from a politician.

    but to be greeted by the silence of disapproval, and then continue the arguement, to not just make his point and move on, but to try again to convince the audience that they are wrong, is just amazing:

    So he took a different tack:

    “Now I’m a Christian, and I praise Jesus every Sunday,” he said, to a sudden wave of noisy applause and cheers. “I hear people saying things that I don’t think are very Christian with respect to people who are gay and lesbian,” he said, and the crowd seemed to come along with him this time.

    at first the audience was unfriendly to LGBT rights, then they applauded him for saying some attitudes towards gays are not very Christian. he changed their attitude on the spot.

    this is EXACTLY what we need in a president. to me, stopping the hatred, whether of gays, Muslims, immigrants, anyone with dark skin or a “funny” accent, that is Job #1. it is not enough to hope the GOP loses votes because of this hatred (as the Dems seem to be doing with immigration). because even if the ReThugs lose, the hate remains in people’s hearts. Obama seems to have the ability to talk to people about their problematic beliefs, and even change them. this response is an example of that. if he can get support of Christian audience, one that had just greeted him with silence on his support for gay rights, he is doing more than any likely presidential contender has ever done.

    personally, now i’d like him to do the same thing with immigration.

  54. Because, frankly, I’m sick of this whole fucking primary season, and there are people who I can no longer call friends or respect because of the way that they’ve behaved since it became Obama vs. Clinton, even though they had previously been quite reasonable people.

    It’s not just me, either. A friend who is a blogger has told me that she has been berated in very personal ways and had her essential character questioned by people who’ve known her for years and have been to her home on many occasions because Obama lost her support during the Alito nomination.

    Zuzu,

    Though I have not had it nearly as bad as you have recounted, I’ve had a taste of this phenomenon from a few college classmates I still keep in touch with along with some friends I keep whose political opinions are way to the left of the American Progressive left (i.e. Unreconstructed Maoists, Marxists, etc).

    I’ve been accused by many of them of being a corporatist tool and a warmongerer with the same levels of ethical complicity as W for even considering Clinton and Obama as viable candidates in the primary/general election. What makes this easier for me to take than what happened to you is:

    1. Their political views are so far to the left of the American-Progressive Left that no Democrat….or even most of the third party candidates would satisfy them.

    2. The knowledge that nearly all of them are overly sheltered upper/upper-middle class mostly White American-born kids* who never experienced or knew anyone who had first-hand experience of living under a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist society.

    * Though they are legally adults, their occasional behaviors including the way they approach political discussions seem to indicate otherwise. They do have their amusing moments, however.

  55. Ugh, Trustafarians.

    The Clintons threw the gay community under the bus at the first sign of trouble and implemented the DADT policy which, if anything, made LGBT service members less safe than they had been before.

    I really get sick of this comparison. For one thing, it was not “The Clintons” who implemented DADT, it was Bill, alone. Why? Because he was president, not Hillary. And Hillary’s running now, not Bill. Even if she supported the policy at the time (and do you really think that she could have publicly undermined him by announcing her opposition?), it was his signature on the bill.

    Second, it’s a bit disingenuous to compare Obama’s 2008 statements to Bill’s 1993 compromise. The landscape has changed considerably since then; could Obama have gotten applause for the same speech to the same audience 17 years ago?

    If you’re going to compare anything, compare Obama’s 2008 position with Hillary Clinton’s 2008 position. Or Obama’s speech during the campaign to Bill’s campaign promises.

  56. Because, frankly, I’m sick of this whole fucking primary season, and there are people who I can no longer call friends or respect because of the way that they’ve behaved since it became Obama vs. Clinton, even though they had previously been quite reasonable people.

    How are they going to unite the parties if they can’t unite the Democrats?

  57. I really get sick of this comparison. For one thing, it was not “The Clintons” who implemented DADT, it was Bill, alone. Why? Because he was president, not Hillary. And Hillary’s running now, not Bill.

    Sorry, but I have to disagree here. In her open letter, linked above, Clinton says,
    I am proud of my record as First Lady, as a U.S. Senator and as a candidate for President in working toward the fair and equal treatment of LGBT Americans.

    If she’s going to claim that being First Lady counts as experience, then I’d say she has to claim the good as well as the bad. That includes DADT, and DOMA–which, I noticed in that letter, she never once mentioned. Until DOMA’s repealed, it doesn’t matter if it’s called domestic partnership, civil unions, or marriage, because that law says that the federal government can’t recognize it.

  58. I like everything Obama stands for. His ideals are immaculate, impressive. But for the life of me, through all of his beautiful rhetoric, I have -no- idea what his plans are for anything.

    Clinton makes known her plans and while I’m really not about to invite her over for dinner (she’s not my kinda girl-friend, you know?), I’m more interested in taking her campaign seriously. She takes the questions first, she outlines clearly her intent and watches as Obama paraphrases everything she’s said while not saying anything at all, really.

    He seems a lovely man, more like-able, even sincere. But that’s not the job he’s up for. Not on my little dem vote.

  59. I really get sick of this comparison. For one thing, it was not “The Clintons” who implemented DADT, it was Bill, alone. Why? Because he was president, not Hillary. And Hillary’s running now, not Bill. Even if she supported the policy at the time (and do you really think that she could have publicly undermined him by announcing her opposition?), it was his signature on the bill.

    Please, Bill and Hillary campaigned as a package deal the first time around. They almost did this time around until Bill let his inner redneck peek through in South Carolina. Hillary has pounded the drum of her experience as First Lady counting as political experience. She spearheaded at least one major policy attempt publicly under her husband. The Clintons have been fighting attempts to release data about what, exactly, her role was in Bill’s administration. She can’t have it both ways. She cannot take credit for the achievements her and her husband had when he was president but back off from the failures.

    As for her publicly condemning him, yeah, I realize she couldn’t do that. Hell, she couldn’t even publicly condemn him for his constant sexual harassment.

    Second, it’s a bit disingenuous to compare Obama’s 2008 statements to Bill’s 1993 compromise. The landscape has changed considerably since then; could Obama have gotten applause for the same speech to the same audience 17 years ago?

    If you’re going to compare anything, compare Obama’s 2008 position with Hillary Clinton’s 2008 position. Or Obama’s speech during the campaign to Bill’s campaign promises.

    No, it isn’t disingenuous. This isn’t about political landscapes or compromise. This is about right and wrong, about civil rights, about the rights of the LGBT community to be treated like human beings. In 1993 Bill Clinton took all of his promises and made a half-hearted token gesture because he figured it was the thought that counted. Besides, what was anyone going to do, vote Republican?

    As for the question of whether or not Obama could have gotten applause for that line 17 years ago, I don’t know if he could have. I’m pretty sure he still would have said it. Unlike Hillary (or Bill) he has a history of fighting for civil rights, of standing up and putting his own well-being on the line for others. Both Hillary and Bill only have a history of doing what they need to in order to advance. Thats the comparison.

  60. Please, Bill and Hillary campaigned as a package deal the first time around.

    Which was 16 years ago. And they didn’t do it the second time, nor did they do the same when Hillary ran for Senate.

    Persisting in spreading the meme that she’s not running for President in her own right but simply to allow her husband to have a third term is misogynist.

    As for the question of whether or not Obama could have gotten applause for that line 17 years ago, I don’t know if he could have. I’m pretty sure he still would have said it. Unlike Hillary (or Bill) he has a history of fighting for civil rights, of standing up and putting his own well-being on the line for others. Both Hillary and Bill only have a history of doing what they need to in order to advance. Thats the comparison.

    Well, that’s a nice bit of retconning, but we still don’t know what he would have done. And trying to compare Obama’s campaign promises to Bill’s record after getting into office (instead of his campaign promises) is disingenuous. Because, yeah, Bill promised pretty much what Obama’s promising now, but he couldn’t accomplish it once he got into office. Obama’s not president yet, and if he does get elected, he may very well not have a filibuster-proof Democratic majority in Congress, and even if he does, it’s a sure bet that at least some of them will balk at a progressive agenda because their seats are vulnerable.

    Also, do you really think that Obama hasn’t done what he needs to do to advance? That’s the whole reason his running to the right is justified — oh, he’s just doing that so he can get elected. And this is different than any other politician (including the Clintons), how, exactly?

  61. Also, do you really think that Obama hasn’t done what he needs to do to advance? That’s the whole reason his running to the right is justified — oh, he’s just doing that so he can get elected. And this is different than any other politician (including the Clintons), how, exactly?

    Obama runs to the right on issues where he has to to avoid definitively losing the election, but he’s so far taken progressive stances wherever he can as a matter of principle instead of to try and win a few extra votes.

    Last year, Hilary Clinton publicly came out and said that she didn’t give a shit about trans inclusion in ENDA because her gay friends hadn’t told her it was a problem. She changed her mind a few weeks ago. Obama was fighting for trans inclusion in anti-discrimination laws back when he was in the Illinois legislature. The Clintons were responsible for putting in place DOMA and DADT, with Hilary only changing her mind when her prior support became a political drag; Obama actually opposed things from the beginning. This things matter, damnit – or at least they do when it is your rights that are being used as a political pinball.

Comments are currently closed.