Guest Blogger

Barack Obama: A Call for Full Equality

Filed By Guest Blogger | November 10, 2007 8:30 PM | comments

Filed in: Marriage Equality, Politics, Politics
Tags: Barack Obama, campaign 2008, Democrats, lgbt rights

[EDITOR'S NOTE:] Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama issued this guest post to explain his support for LGBT civil rights. This post was originally published on November 10, 2007; it seemed appropriate to reprint it now, the night before the presidential election.

Obama Guest Post.jpgOver the last several weeks, the question of GLBT equality was placed on center stage by the appearance of Donnie McClurkin at one of my campaign events. McClurkin is a talented performer and a beloved figure among many African Americans and Christians around the country. At the same time, he espouses beliefs about homosexuality that I completely reject.

The events of the last several weeks are not the occasion that I would have chosen to discuss America's divisions on gay rights and my own deep commitment to GLBT equality. Now that the issue is before us, however, I do not intend to run away from it. These events have provided an important opportunity for us to confront a difficult fact: There are good, decent, moral people in this country who do not yet embrace their gay brothers and sisters as full members of our shared community.

We will not secure full equality for all GLBT Americans until we learn how to address that deep disagreement and move beyond it. To achieve that goal, we must state our beliefs boldly, bring the message of equality to audiences that have not yet accepted it, and listen to what those audiences have to say in return.

For my entire career in public life, I have brought the message of GLBT equality to skeptical audiences as well as friendly ones. No other leading candidate in the race for the Presidency has demonstrated the same commitment to the principle of full equality. I support the full and unqualified repeal of the federal Defense of Marriage Act. 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. I will also fight to repeal the U.S. military's Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy, a law that should never have been passed, and my Defense Department will work with top military leaders to implement that repeal.

As 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. I will also 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. I have supported fully inclusive protections since my days in the Illinois legislature, when I sponsored a bill to outlaw workplace discrimination that expressly included both sexual orientation and gender identity.

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 GLBT equality to people who are not yet convinced.

That's why I brought this message of inclusiveness to all of America in my keynote address at the 2004 Democratic convention. I reiterated that message in the speech announcing my candidacy for President. Since beginning my campaign, I have been talking about GLBT equality on the stump, from rural farmers to Southern preachers. Just as important, I have been listening to what all Americans have to say in return. I will never compromise on my commitment to equal rights for all GLBT Americans. But neither will I close my ears to the voices of those who still need to be convinced. That is the work that we need to do if we are going to move forward together. It is difficult. It is challenging. And it is necessary.

The American people have been poorly served by two terms of an administration that seeks to manipulate us through fear: fear over national security, fear over immigrants and fear over gay and lesbian couples in loving relationships. Americans are yearning for leadership that will put an end to the fear mongering and instead begin empowering us once again to reach for the America we know is possible. I believe that we can achieve the goal of full equality for the millions of GLBT people in this country. To do that, we need leadership that appeals to the best parts of the human spirit, rather than the worst. Together, we will achieve real equality for all Americans, gay and straight alike.


Recent Entries Filed under Politics:

Leave a comment

We want to know your opinion on this issue! While arguing about an opinion or idea is encouraged, personal attacks will not be tolerated. Please be respectful of others.

The editorial team will delete a comment that is off-topic, abusive, exceptionally incoherent, includes a slur or is soliciting and/or advertising. Repeated violations of the policy will result in revocation of your user account. Please keep in mind that this is our online home; ill-mannered house guests will be shown the door.


Dear Mr Obama, just a minor clarification please.

You mention GLBT - but all your points (worthy though they are) are GLB only.

Do you have any specific policies regarding the Transgendered?

Do you favour, for example, modifications to ENDA as it stands, or do you see the removal of the exclusion of Transsexuals from ADA as being a better way forward? Or is it just too problematic at this time?

I'm right-wing, but also a foreigner, so have no particular dog in this fight. The intent is not to trap, just to clarify, and I realise that as a POTUS candidate, this cannot be very high on your list of Things To Do In My First Term. Nonetheless, please think on these issues, even if you are unable to answer in any way other than the usual vague generalities and motherhood statements that are the indispensible tools of the political trade.

We're downplaying what McClurkin did here. It would have been more understandable if he had just done his part on the concert, instead of taking a sarcastic jab at the "we're here, we're queer, get used to it!" motto, using a bully pulpit of his own to assert his deliverance of homosexuality through his god, and creating a climate where black gay men and women need to stay in the closet. Of all people, it should be understood by yourself, senator, that the black culture needs to do away with its nigh theocratic tendencies before any progress can be made on women's and LGBT issues. Furthermore, I remain unconvinced of your attempt to bridge relations, seeing that meager attempt at representing LGBT through a white gay pastor that did nothing but to reaffirm the erroneous belief that gayness is the "white man's disease," not to mention that the part allotted to this pastor was pitifully low-key.

As for the marriage debate, I am well aware that no candidate supporting full marriage in name will win, but please stop saying that the word "marriage" is of a religious institution. It is not. Marriage has long existed before Christianity came in and assimilated it into its laws. Don't misappropriate the word in order to justify civil unions, please.

Eric Resnick | November 10, 2007 2:54 PM

Forgive my increasing cynicism, but I am really getting sick and tired of this kind of pandering and positioning.

This is also showing a highly unflattering side of Barack Obama's personality that is well worth noting.

When Obama was an Illinois state senator, he spoke eloquently against the invasion of Iraq. It doesn't matter what a state senator thinks about a matter of foreign policy. Then, once he got to the U.S. Senate, where what he thinks about matters of foreign policy matter a whole lot, he never met a bill funding the occupation that he didn't like - until he got called on it. Then he voted against the most recent one, all the time telling us how anti-war he is and has always been.

Well, now, he got called on something again, and he's asking us to think he is Mr. Equality for LGBT people.

Obama is a lawyer, so he knows or should know that separate is not equal. He knows full well that "equality" is an absolute term. Comparative things are either equal or they are not. There is no equivocation. Yet, Obama, in his twistedness, still seems to think that civil unions are equal to marriage.

The rest is nonsensical babble and political posturing.

The fact is, only Dennis Kucinich supports full equality for LGBT people among the Democratic contenders, and he has for a long time. To hear Obama prattle on about being the only "leading candidate in the race for the Presidency [who] has demonstrated the same commitment to the principle of full equality" is insulting to me, and I hope, to you.

Obama says Donnie McGlurkin is "a talented performer and a beloved figure" as justification for hanging out with him.

Fine. The same could have been said about any number of hateful people with a following. It's no excuse.

And as long as we're talking about the "rockstars" of the presidential field, Hillary Clinton is no better, and for many of the same reasons.

I hope our community gets tired of crumbs, soon, and figures out a way to have a real (equal) seat at the table. It won't come from drinking the kool-aid of political hacks like Obama and Clinton.

Dear Senator Obama,

First thanks for writing this statement and making it available us here on the blogs. I think that's something to be respected and appreciated, and it's great to see you finally taking this issue on head-on.

I agree with you that a dialog between the faith-based communities and those who believe civil rights and basic human respect should not to offered in accordance with how closely one adheres to the tenets of a particular religion, if any, one chooses to follow, is one that's long overdue. As I'm sure you know, however, the biggest reason such a dialog has not been opened to any real degree is because of the open homo/transphobia and hostility toward those who are LGBT on the part of many in these faith-based communities.

Not only do these communities often demonize LGBT Americans, calling us sinners, deviants, and far worse, but those in the so-called "ex-gay movement" like McClurkin also promote the dangerous fallacy that sexuality and gender identity are behavior choices which one can "cure" themselves of through prayer and devotion to God. As you surely know, these teachings and the therapies which have been based upon them have been widely discredited and determined to be harmful and dangerous by numerous major US mental health and psychiatric professional organizations.

Rev. McClurkin is an active and public proponent of these dangerous and harmful theories. The problem I, and I'd suspect many LGBT people, have with this situation is not as much about simply McClurkin's status as an "ex-gay" minister, but the fact that he was allowed to promote this viewpoint for an extended period of time under your campaign banner and apparently with your blessing, or at least that of your campaign staff.

Frankly Senator Obama, in my opinion, allowing McClurkin to advocate these views under your banner directly conflicts with the oft-stated values you have been running on during this campaign. I'm therefore forced to question your judgment here and the political priorities inferred in doing so.

Without trying to be over-dramatic here, Senator, I think one thing should be abundantly clear to you and your staff by now, especially if you have been following the progress of ENDA through the House:

Ministers like Donnie McClurkin and those who believe as they do are the avowed enemy of the American LGBT civil rights movement. They are among the first and the most enthusiastic to speak out and advocate in opposition to treating LGBT Americans fairly and equally people under the law.

McClurkin, in defining homosexuality as something God delivered him from, promoted that viewpoint as valid and righteous from your campaign stage, and helped to rally and encourage that audience to stand against the fair and equal treatment of LGBT people under the law, to use his influence as a minister to make the road toward full equality and fairness for all LGBT Americans a little longer and a little rougher for all of us. Will all due respect, Senator, that's just not something I'm comfortable with being promoted by the campaign of a Presidential candidate who wants my support and my vote.

In short, having Donnie McClurkin as part of your campaign and allowing him to present his views under your banner hurts our movement and encourages people work against us at a time when we are vigorously fighting for equal protection and treatment by the laws of the country at all levels of government. Donnie McClurkin and those like him are not part of the solution, they are part of the problem.

What I would like to know, Senator, is what you're going to do when the next Donnie McClurkin seeks your support, endorsement, and validation of his views, especially once you are President. I believe that LGBT Americans have the right to ask this question, and we have the right to expect a direct and substantive answer.

For now I hold judgement on you Senator but are you going to vote for the currnet bill which tossed those of us in the T to the wolves or will you fight to have us restored to the bill?I would have prefered to have seen Mz Baldwins admenment go down in defeat than the nasty trick she pulled in pulling it before a single vote could be cast ya or nay.

Keep digging that hole..

First it was getting McClurkin to perform for you after he frontlined the RNC and despite the strongly worded HRC letter to the Republicans about him.

Then you bullied HRC into not complaining about the whole thing when you picked McClurkin for your campaign headlining.

Then your campaign actually allows unhinged McClurkin to emcee the whole event, giving him enough time to push the ex-gay agenda at the end of the event. It illustrates your incompetence that you cannot even control your own staff. Even Bush does a better job of controling his people than you do.

You then attempt to trivialize the whole thing by claiming that McClurkin only wants to conver the 'unhappy gays'. I mean seriously, does this sound like a sane stance?

Then you accuse the rest of the progressive movement and homos by saying we're 'hermetically sealed' from the community of faith. Do you realize we have our own progressive churches and religions? No, we're only hermetically sealed from the hatemongers that you are embracing.

Yet you still attempt to justify the whole fiasco by telling the gay community to STFU. I've had to live in this country for the past 7 years with a president who refuses to admit to mistakes. I don't want another 'Heck of a job Brownie' president, even if it's a Democrat.

As an Edwards supporter, your actions have angered me enough to throw all my support behind Hillary to ensure your defeat in the primary considering I'll be forced to vote for you should you win the Democratic nomination, Mr. Barak "I'll stand for anything but racism" Obama.

Cathy, a better question for Senator Obama would be whether or not he would even show up to the debates on ENDA in the Senate. He didn't bother showing up when the Senate took up the appointment of Torturer General Mukasey.

When you give microphones and a stage to those who lie about us and demonize us, you're not helping foster any sort of discussion. It's disgusting.

And when people use their religion to justify hatred and bigotry and restriction of rights--as you yourself do, there's no discussion possible in a political or governmental context at all. Our government is not based on religion, but on our Constitution. Remember that. It's vitally important to millions and millions of us.

Senator Obama,

If you believe in ending Don't Ask Don't tell, why do you refuse to introduce the legislation on in the Senate. The legislation has already been introduced in the House of Representatives, but we are STILL WAITING for either you or Hillary Clinton to introduce the legislation in the Senate.

For that matter. What LGBT related legislation HAVE you taken the lead on this year? Will we have a vote on Hate Crimes in the Senate this session? Will we have a vote on ENDA in the Senate this session?

If you really want to convince us you're an ally, don't spend all your time trying to figure out how to say the right things, and simply DO THE RIGHT THING.

When you've demonstrated leadership on LGBT issues in the Senate, perhaps we'll start to feel differently.

David Mariner
www.davidmariner.com

Senator Obama is right that it's important to have discussions about LGBT issues with people who disagree with us. McClurkin's appearance in South Carolina, though, was not as part of a townhall discussion on our issues. The point was pandering. Obama didn't give McClurkin a microphone to engage in a debate about marriage, the military, civil unions or adoption. He gave him a microphone to spout his anti-gay views and try to win nay-sayers over to Obama's campaign. It wasn't about engaging voters on issues; it was about stopping to whatever level necessary to boost lagging poll numbers and a sliding campaign.

Jeff

Well showing up to do your job is improtant my boss would fire me in a minute if I didnt show up to work!Btw in Georgia we have no GLBT rights bill so were stuck with what everyone has which can be right scarey so we hae lots of hiding in plain sight folks of all kinds.Then I get to be tripple whammied im Bi im Trans and im pagan in the bible blet.So enjoy your rights my firneds and stop ya whineing and lets get working on a good bill we all can live with!

sounds good, until you figure...
what the f*ck do you think we have been doing!?

You fell all right saying that "[t]here are good, decent, moral people in this country who do not yet embrace their gay brothers and sisters as full members of our shared community."

Would you be willing to say, "[t]here are good, decent, moral people in this country who do not yet embrace their African-American brothers and sisters as full members of our shared community?"

No? Why ever not? Hey, thanks for finally confirming that you're a homophobe... so that GLBT people won't be fooled into voting for you.

Hey, Barack - how's this:

There are good, decent, moral people in this country who do not yet embrace their Negro brothers and sisters as full members of our shared community.

Do you FUCKING GET IT NOW???

Let the fires rage.........Obama is the only one willing to step into the fire. Remember Afghanistan-Iraq maybe Iran next....It's all about engaging......does anyone remember invade the evil forget the talking. He will engage and we will be better for it.

anon-no-more | November 12, 2007 9:18 AM

Anyone who use their religion or religion in general to deny gays their rights (including marriage) just doesn't get it. Or, they do get it but are unwilling to say so to the public.

Despite what Obama says, there are NO good, moral people who don't support the gay citizens of the country anymore than there ar good, moral people who don't support blacks. Bigotry is bigotry even when it against gays and it is WRONG. Obama wouldn't put up with it if it were directed at blacks. But, for some reason he is wants to have a dialog with bigots when the bigotry is directed at gays.

Back to the point about religion. There are churches in this country that are fully accepting of gays. They even support gay marriage and would perform religious marriage ceremonies for gays. In fact, Obama's church is one of them. So, anyone using religion to justify being against gay marriage is favoring one religion over another. That's a big NO-NO in this society.

We don't ban divorced Catholics from getting re-married even though their church will not marry them or recognize their marriage as valid. So, what does any individual church's view of gay marriage have to do with anything?

Lastly, civil marriage has nothing to do with religion. So again, using religious beliefs to deny gay marriage is just irrelevant.

The roar of the laugh track overlapping the end of each sentence grew so loud that I was unable to finish reading Obama's statement. Huge and sad is the disconnect between his words and himself.

Ummm...Rick? Neither the talking nor the engaging on either Iraq or Iran seems to have taken place while Mr. Obama was in the US Senate. Until somebody called him to task for it.

And Mr. Obama? I, too, appreciate your post here in an effort to open a dialog about your position on LGBT rights. But doing so now is like attempting to open a dialog on Buchenwald after the end of WWII. You can't unring a bell, as hard as you might try. I'm sure David Duke is also a good, decent, moral person beloved by a certain segment of this country's population. How about having him emcee one of your events and giving him an open mike to air his beliefs?

I won't engage in the race baiting that doesn't justify anything Senator Obama has or hasn't done.

BUT - I would like to know how he, or any sitting President, could repeal DOMA or any part of it. Seriously, I need to know how that is possible. Wouldn't it require an act of Congress that the President would sign off on? Executives do not create or pass legislation.

Is the repeal of DOMA something you believe is right, or is it something you can achieve as President?

Also, by stating your position that the states should have leeway in determining what kind of legal recognition same sex couples should have, you show your lack of sincerity.

You said: "But I also believe that...states (should) 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."

Senator Obama, that is remark is practically glib. You are throwing words at the dilemma and not expressing an iota of intelligent thought to the difficulty of your poorly conceived solution.

Imagine if the same theory were applied to all marriages. Different sex couples moving from state to state - in New York they are married, but in Pennsylvania it is a civil union and in Maryland their relationship is a domestic partnership. That is absurd. Should each state draft its own set of laws using its own language to ensure equality? You know that can never happen. America has already dealt with this dilemma, if you recall.

It is counter to the intention of the Full Faith and Credit clause of the US Constitution.

But you already know that, don't you? As a US Senator you must have a thorough understanding of the US Constitution. After all you did make this remark:

"Federal law should not discriminate in any way against gay and lesbian couples."

Should we then assume that it is OK for individual states to do what the Federal govt shouldn't do?

How is that a respectable position?

Your words sound better when you speak of what you believe is right. You don't succeed when you offer solutions or explanations. That isn't inspirational - or electable - to me. You aren't alone in this flaw, though. You are just like Senator Clinton in this regard.

Furthermore, I second what has been said previously about McClurkins appearance. You did not say one thing in your introduction at that event regarding the rights of LGBT persons. How exactly do you think that engages people in a dialog?

Thank you for writing. Now get your foot out of your mouth so you can speak more clearly and I'd consider voting for you.

"beloved figure among many African Americans and Christians around the country. At the same time, he espouses beliefs about homosexuality that I completely reject.
"

So by your line of thinking, it would be okay for someone else to have a KKK clansman working as part of their campaign? I reject the KKK way of thinking, but recognise that they are a popular group in some parts of the US of A.

You wouldn't have a problem with that would you Senator?

Go blow smoke up someone else's ass.

I agree wholeheartedly with beergoggles, amberglow, and Steve Ralls!

I'm so sick and tired of hearing these pathetic and intelligence-insulting excuses from the Obama campaign that I could scream.

What part of allowing McClurkin a half hour to rant and spew his bigotry qualifies as "bring[ing] the message of GLBT equality to people who are not yet convinced"?

The only things that would possibly make me ever consider voting for Obama after this McClurkin fiasco is an unambiguous apology from Obama to the entire gay community.

timinchicago | November 12, 2007 3:13 PM

I'm disappointed but not changing my support

As a long time obama supporter, even before he won the Senate primary, I'm clearly torn by this issue, however, i have come to conclude that it's not a deal breaker for me, this gay white man. I think that he got caught in a situation that even he could not dig himself out of without significant political damage. Does it indicate that he places practical politics over principle at times? clearly, that I will not argue.

I think the campaign screwed up in not vetting the singer, and then was stuck, and couldn't withdraw him without significant political damage. I think that any VIABLE presidental candidate has to make these choices at times. Is it right? no. Should we be upset? of course Should we continue to push him to stand on civil rights principles? yes.

Obama has never claimed to be the best candidate for LGBT concerns, he always used the term "leading" candidate. He knows Kucinich and Gravel are further along then him on this issue. The language in the Bilerico memo was "leading candidate"

I think when Obama speaks of a dialogue, he is not referring to doing it specifically at the Gospel event, but he has demonstrated his entire life about speaking to unfriendly audiences about homophobia, and no, not just in the 2004 Convention. And he backs it up with legislative support.

I do not understand how anyone can view his record of legislative support as compared to that of Sen Clinton, and by association, Bill Clinton, and not see that he has been far more active on real LGBT support. I will never forgive the Clintons for Don't Ask Don't Tell, and Doma, and then using DOMA passage in 1996 re-election Christian radio ads. If we compare those shortcomings on LGBT issues, I'll take the Gospel event fiasco over the Clinton's record anyday. I am not a supporter of Edwards for other non-LGBT related concerns so I cannot speak to his record for I have not researched it.

I agree, let's see what he does with ENDA and the T issue, and push him to support. He has been more outspoken on the record in support of the T in LGBT than other candidates, both in Illinois and on the campaign trail. I also agree to demanding how the repeal of DOMA would work, and how he would achieve it.

And lastly, I do applaud him for "not running away from it". He could just ignore this controversy and not address. He has responded to it pro actively. You may disagree with how the response has occurred, and what was said, as I do with some of it as well, but he is certainly not running away from it.

So, I have a question for all. What candidate, that is in this race, with any reasonable chance of being elected, would be satisfactory to you?

My next question would be...is there harm in working with someone who is 'somewhat willing and teachable' rather than backing someone who is not?

It seems that Obama and Clinton are the most viable candidates for this community right now. Are the great? Are they even good? Are they 'teachable'? Can we work with them? Can we make progress with them?

You have to start with lemons in order to make lemonade. I think it is better to start with a sweeter variety of lemon, but then I am an eternal optimist and cling to the hope that intelligent people can learn and grow.

We have to vote for someone lest we abdicate all responsibility for what our government does. So I am interested to hear what you all have to say. Who are you going to vote for and why and is there any chance at all of your candidate making it to the White House? If not, how does that further the political/human rights agenda of the GLBT community?

I don't support any of the candidates, hava.

On one hand, it is still too early, even though this is little more than 10 weeks left before the ridiculously early primaries are decided in this fiasco of an election cycle.

On the other hand, I am growing more comfortable saying that I might not vote for any of them - in a primary or in November 2008.

I'm sick of giving my support to an idiot that has no respect for my citizenship and is willing to continue the occupation of the Middle East while allowing the insurance and oil and telecom industries to run our government.

It has to stop somewhere and obviously doing the same thing (voting for Democrats because they aren't Republicans) isn't accomplishing anything.

Something has to change. Repeating behavior and expecting a different result is idiotic.

By not supporting or voting for anyone are we not then placing the decision in the hands of others?

I am sorry, but this entire episode has and continues to cause me a lot of pain. As a previously strong supporter, I don't think that Sen. Obama gets this problem. Donnie is not a person who is an example of "... good, decent, moral people in this country who do not yet embrace their gay brothers and sisters as full members of our shared community." While there are people in that categore (and thus hope for change and reconciliation on this issue), Donnie is a closeted queen who is doing this ex-gay charade for monetary reasons.

If he were a young person hiding his or her sexuality because of fear of losing a job at the gas station (to paraphrase Rep Frank on ENDA) I might see more leeway, but that is not what is going on here. THIS IS UTTER BULLCRAP.

"By not supporting or voting for anyone are we not then placing the decision in the hands of others?"

I don't really feel like there is a valid choice in my hands right now.

I'm carefully avoiding these trite knee-jerk reactions:

(it has always been this way, choose the lesser of two evils, the Dems are bad the Reps are worse, save the Supreme Court by strategically voting even when 7 out of 10 positions of any Dem candidate is unacceptable and it's already too late to save the SC)

and trying instead to consider what might happen if we withheld our support and screwed with the expectation of continuing the status quo.

They can't win if people don't vote for them. If people keep voting for them even when their positions are ill conceived, dangerous and corrupted by corporate concerns, then they will continue to do what they are doing...because it works for them and our votes just keep encouraging it.

We sound like the beaten wife on a Lifetime movie, "I know my husband doesn't mean to hurt me."

Instead of playing the same victim role portrayed in multiple made for TV movies, we need to consider the Farah Fawcett version of the story instead and set the damn bed on fire.

Patrick, some morons on the left tried your "punish the Dems by not voting for them" strategy in 2000. They threw away their votes on that hopeless old fool Ralph Nader. The only things they have to show for it today are 8 years of Bush, the Iraq war, greater income disparity, millions more without health insurance, 8 more years of delay in starting to address global warming, and a right-wing Supreme Court. I'm astonished that after just being subjected to your cutesy experiment for 8 years, you think it's time to screw the country for 8 MORE years to try to "teach the Dems a lesson."

Oh steve...you are right. We probably deserve to be treated this way.

If only we didn't make the democrats so angry they might stop funding a war they say they oppose...and they wouldn't appoint bigoted federal judges like Leslie Southwick...and they wouldn't approve an attorney general that believes in torture...and they wouldn't have ex-gay charlatans help them raise money...and they wouldn't hide behind the injustice of leaving citizenship rights to be determined by each state as they see fit...and they wouldn't chop the T off of LGBT in order to have a legislative victory when they are unable to get any other one...and they wouldn't talk about not yet crossing a bridge to understanding marriage equality...

It is probably right that we submit to their will. They know better than we do. Don't question them...just accept that they have our interests at heart...not their own, right? They really love us, don't they?? Of course they do, Steve...of course they do.

Here is another ice pack for the black eye...shhhhhhh

Hey now, let's not pin Mukasey on Obama. He didn't vote for him. You have to actually care enough to show up to vote.

Dear Senator Obama,
If you do as you say you will again have my support. Untill then.......NO. We have been hood winked before and we will not take it. Get rid of the biggots and we will listen to you. Your former supporter, Crazy train tranny.

Black queer woman living north of the 49th. Observer. Blogger.

I don't think this candidate invented the split everyone is noticing where homophobia is concerned. Black community, overwhelmingly christian colonized has been a place where many people would support someone like the ex-gay minister and feel sweet and well justified doing it.

White gay communities have historically not dealt with the issue of race thereby not being well positioned to throw adequate support behind black gays, lesbians, trans people, queer people attempting to have their voices heard in their own communities or elsewhere.

Black queers do not have many allies in high places, if any at all.

We're vulnerable to politicians who can and will do or say anything they feel they need to if it will mean additional votes.

Black people on the whole seeking a way out of profound disenfranchisement are collectively, whether they be queer or straight, also in a bind because everyone likes to utilize us, push our buttons, exploit our historic weaknesses for a vote.

I personally never liked Obama even before he did this massive gaff. Like all politicians he smiled too much.

Don't care for any of the affluent, power hungry high level civil servants vying to rule the amerikkkan state.

None of them are trustworthy or worth one single vote. I understand that people have to sell themselves and each other on the voting charade, have to sell themselves on the idea that voting for one of these well dressed liars will somehow make a difference.

Who am I to stand in the way of that logical reasoning?

He really shouldn't have posted here. It just makes him look like he's really trying to work something that doesn't come naturally.

darkdaughta
http://darkdaughta.blogspot.com

Dear Mr. Obama, and I propose the same question to Mrs. Clinton, would you both please have someone look up the word EQUALITY? Equality is fair and 'equal' treatment for ALL. It means there is no one person or body granting equality, we are all just equal. Your description would mean someone 'owns' equality to grant. The only acceptable platform for EQUALITY is EQUALITY and that is, everyone gets the SAME that everyone else has...including choices of marraige, adoption, divorce etc. A marraige recognized in each state, in a church, synagogue or a mosque, or on the street...anything else is merely acceptance and tolerance, again assuming there is a superior person or body doing the tolerating or accepting and it is yours to grant or not. I will not vote for you until your message is EQUALITY without restictions! Mrs Clinton has a bit of a track record with the LGBT community (Also not equality platform but I believe she will get there faster) so I am sticking with her for now unless one or the other can convince me you know the true meaning of EQUALITY and will provide it to me. Then you have my vote. At this time I have absolutely no interest in getting married and don't think I ever will but I believe in my right to choose...and that is what is equal to me. Equally yours Chip Liedel

Still "jumping the broom" here. Why? Because
"There are good, decent, moral people in this country who do not yet embrace their gay brothers and sisters as full members of our shared community." Embrace? What a joke. The bottom line is they want us to disappear.

My family taught me that I am judged by the company I keep. Guess I won't be having coffee with Mr. Obama.

julie rieger | November 9, 2008 2:39 PM

interesting reading...thankyou

It's interesting to re-read this now, three years later. He got our vote, and asked us to believe, but what has he done to show he meant it? Look at DADT...he's ignoring it. You put it in his face and he acts like it doesn't exist. Doesn't say a word. Just asks for our continued support for the issues HE BELIEVES in, but where does that get the LGBT community?

I find that no matter what I did in the election with my vote, it didn't help. Personally, I believe that when I waste one vote on you this election, I won't waste it a second time in the next one. He has four years to prove himself, but all I see right now is Barack Obama treating the LGBT community like it doesn't even exist.

After all, he got what he needed from us.

Yes, it is interesting, indeed. I couldn't vote in your elections because I'm not from there. Nonetheless, even if I could have voted he wouldn't have gotten my vote. Sheister. I would have voted for Cynthia McKinney who puts her money and her life where her words are. I already pegged him as a con artist and I think I was right on the mark.