Pelosi: DOMA repeal not a priority

I think there is a lot of talk going on,

Fingers in the wind kind of stuff, Here from Box Turtle  More about DADT being kicked down the road,

Administration Backtracking on Don't Ask - Don't Tell

Mean while, another story over at BTB,

Laurie Higgins Endorses the Bullying of Gay Kids

She is not pleased that Dr. Warren Throckmorton is suggesting that Christian kids should treat gay kids as they wish to be treated. She is angry that he wants them to stay in school on the Day of Silence. And she is particularly irate that Throckmorton opposes the abuse of gay kids.

If I make sense? it was quite by accident.

---

by: HappyCat @ Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 06:51:34 AM CDT

Pelosi's tossin' us under the bus already?

No surprise. Unfortunately.

---

by: the.sue @ Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 07:42:00 AM CDT

I feel the same, but trying to think of why?

  It just doesn't make any sense.  I heard a discussion on MSNBC if the LGBT issues would get the GOP united again.  I fell out laughing.  We saw what is left of the republican base with the tea parties, they are unified. No more spending, No more Taxes, No to the stimulus, No, No, No, No, No, No on everything.  Saying No to LGBT legislation would just add to the NO list.

 If these spineless Democratic wimps keep putting LGBT issues on the back burner, I will say NO to them come re-election time.

If I make sense? it was quite by accident.

---

by: HappyCat @ Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 08:02:06 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Under the Bus?

Unless I'm misreading, she didn't say that she wasn't going to focus on LGBT issues at all - rather that ENDA and hate crimes legislation were at a higher priority than DOMA repeal.

If you don't agree with her priorities, then we should debate that.  But "under the bus" seems a little overdramatic, to me.

"There are two kinds of people in this world -- the kind who separate the world into two kinds of people, and those who don't."  -- Gloria Steinem

---

by: red7eric @ Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 12:49:35 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

It's the "too much, too fast" bit--

That sort of language raises the question of what "little enough, slowly enough" would be.  The answer to that question is never very far from "nothing, ever."

---

by: M @ Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 16:24:01 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Correct me if I'm wrong

but that portion of DOMA that Liebermann and Collins want repealed...that can start in the Senate, right (it's not an appropriations bill).

Pelosi has the timeline and the legislative priorities correct, IMO, for the incremental approach. There is already brod support for ENDA and the hate crimes bill. But I do wonder if she is putting her finger in the wind.

Still, I tend to be more in favor of the omnibus bill, even if it all doesn't get passed. Put it all out there and do it in a big way. Then we can know who's a friend and who's not.

---

by: kevinchi @ Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 08:00:22 AM CDT

finger in the wind?

More like her head up her ass.

---

by: greatwhitebear @ Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 08:04:09 AM CDT

She signed war checks for Bush

Pelosi is embarrassed of her association with the city that repeatedly hands her tiara to her every two years.  She never hesitated to sign off on the Bush Co. war / occupation / torture festival year after year after year.  

If she can act all rebellious toward Bush and still smile as she signs off on the blood money, I have no faith in her willingness to push legislation that would positively affect hundreds of thousands of her constituents.  

She and Feinstein are cut from the same cloth and stupid Californian's / San Franciscans keep voting for them.  

Even getting the immigration reform passed that gives federal recognition to married couples would present an enormous complication to the unconstitutional scheme imposed on us by Bill Clinton (the originator of Pelosi-like Democratic back stabbing technique).  

Let's say a couple - one from US the other from England - are civilly wed in England and the immigration reform bill passes allowing the couple to move back to the US.  Where is that couple going to live?

Are they restricted to reside in states that have some version of same-sex relationship recognition?  If they spend any time in a state that discriminates against us, will their relationship be considered valid - but only federally?  How would that work for a couple that goes to Mardi Gras or the Grand Canyon or Las Vegas or Key West?  Would this be the case even if DOMA is partially repealed?  

---

by: Patrick @ Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 08:32:48 AM CDT

Agree with Pelosi in a way

Yes the omnibus bill sounds great but I'm not holding my breath just yet.

Many of you are so concentrated on marriage marriage marriage you fail to see the more important things.  What good is marriage if any day you could be fired just because you're gay?  What good is marriage if you could be gay-bashed and dead?

I'm happy in my partnership but I live in a state that has neither employment discrimination protection nor a hate crimes law.  So when Pelosi says getting those two passed is the top of the priority list, I say Hell Yes....they are.  Period.  ENDA is very timely discussion right now...in this economy especially, we can't take job security for granted.

---

by: RaleighRob @ Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 09:58:12 AM CDT

See, I get that

And living in Illinois, I know that I am just a little spoiled (?) because there are employment and hate crimes protections. (Marriage equality is one of the few issues left for Illinois.) But the state by state method really is creating a rift in the nationwide gay communities and the seams are now beginning to show themselves.

---

by: kevinchi @ Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 10:09:49 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I agree...

Don't get me wrong, I would love to wake up tomorrow to find DOMA gone, but I think its a matter of strategy. As we just witnessed in CA a lot of the arguments brought up against marriage (and I'm sure we would see them 10 fold for DOMA's repeal) really had nothing to do with marriage but EDNA and a hate crimes. So once we have those 2 the arguments could then be diffused in the minds of logical people.... lets face it the bigoted will argue the same tired points no matter what. I think DOMA and DADT will disappear at the same time. But, I would hate to think that everything is thrown on the table at once then we are in a worse situation than we are now due to the political give and take. I hope Obama and our house/senate have learned from Clinton's mistakes.  

...... Next time someone gives you a hard time for being LGBT... just ask them if they are unenlightened...or closeted

---

by: lisabrealty @ Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 10:22:45 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Strategy is one thing, duplicity is something else again.

If the Democrats think forthright legislation for LGBT equality is a bad idea (for reasons of strategy, or for any reason at all), why did they promise it?  Oh yes, they wanted our votes even though they have no intention of doing anything for us.

It's being reported today that Gates, Pope Obama's Secretary of War, is now saying that repeal of DADT is not only on the back burner, it's off the stove completely.  Gee, it would have been so much worse under McCain! Right.

How long before the LGBT community comes to its collective senses and says "A plague on both your houses!" in a national election?

Cynic, n.  A blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be.  
-Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary

---

by: QScribe @ Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 12:24:27 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Where to go from here?

You write:

How long before the LGBT community comes to its collective senses and says "A plague on both your houses!" in a national election?

And it's an interesting question.

As a gay man, gay rights are a primary issue for me, but even if the Democrats behaved with a little more integrity and didn't promise what they wouldn't deliver.  I'd have still voted for Obama last year.  In 2004, I didn't so much vote for Kerry as much as I voted against Bush.  I wanted Bush out, and Kerry was the best place to put my vote in an attempt to make that happen.

If we lived in a Parliamentary system, a third party would be a viable choice, but the way our system works, voting for a third party just isn't practical.  If the entire LGBT community voted for the National Queer Party, then both parties could drop us like a hot rock and guaranteed, they'd do nothing for us.  One might argue that neither party is doing much of anything now, and I understand that.  But if one party is going to move on ENDA and hate crimes legislation sometime during the next three years, then I will be happy to have voted for that party.  It's not full equal rights, right this very minute, but it's progress nonetheless.

And yes, I do think the country would be much worse under President McCain.  Much, much worse.  In a whole lotta ways.  

"There are two kinds of people in this world -- the kind who separate the world into two kinds of people, and those who don't."  -- Gloria Steinem

---

by: red7eric @ Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 12:59:11 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Not so sure

If the entire LGBT community voted for the National Queer Party, then both parties could drop us like a hot rock

And if they wanted our votes back, because losing our support cost them an election, what would they have to do then?  Deliver on their promises to us, maybe?  The Democrats are past masters at "promising action" on this LGBT issue or that one.  They have yet to deliver.  And until we shake them up good and hard, they won't.

Cynic, n.  A blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be.  
-Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary

---

by: QScribe @ Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 14:29:04 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Maybe someone from California can answer this

But isn't that part of the reason why Gavin Newsome handed out those same-sex marriage licenses? That is, there was the possibility that he could have lost to or split the votes with a Green Party candidate?

---

by: kevinchi @ Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 14:38:42 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

yes

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners.

Lurleen on Twitter.

---

by: Lurleen @ Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 16:15:22 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

yes, and

it's "lost" more than "split the vote".  Second place in the election where Newsom was elected was the Green candidate.

---

by: M @ Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 16:47:35 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Whatever his motivation was...

Newsome has never stepped back from his support of full equality.  
See the film "Pursuit of Equality".  After seeing that, there is no reason to suspect his motivation.  A politician he is, yes.  A politician who will be remembered for his historic non-violent direct action of civil disobedience, a bigger YES!

---

by: Karen in Kalifornia @ Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 17:10:05 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Not taking anything away from Newsome

He did and continues to do the right thing, just as David Paterson is doing. But...let's face it, he stood to lose something otherwise would he have stepped forward into equality?

 

---

by: kevinchi @ Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 18:00:45 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I feel for you if you think

the only reason a politician stands up for equality is because they "stood to lose something otherwise'.  You know, some politicians actuallly believe in equality.  

---

by: Karen in Kalifornia @ Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 18:05:23 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I didn't say it was the only reason

don't put words in my mouth, Karen. But the prospect of winning or losing an election is a motivating factor most of the time. Let's keep this real, now.

An LBJ type of politician is very, very, rare. And even then, Congress may have been able to override LBJ's veto on the Civil Rights Act anyway.

---

by: kevinchi @ Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 18:16:07 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

This is how I look at it...

Before Obama ran for potus he was for full equality and in order to become an electable candidate he changed what he said about that as well as other things. Now that he is in office for the first time (that I know of) we have a potus that said at one time we LGBT's deserve to be equal. So now my hope is that is what he still believes and that is his true goal. I will give him this one term to prove to me that he can get us there. By that I mean if we don't at least have EDNA and the hate crimes bill passed or repeal of DOMA/DADT then he can forget my vote in the next election. If he/dem leaders promise do put it to a vote after the next election he can feed that line of bull to someone else because I will jump ship. At this point I feel that ENDA and hate crimes are doable RIGHT NOW!! It is the fastest way to effect the most LGBT Americans. I hate to say it but I think going for DOMA first would end up taking us backwards. For those that are in states that have everything but federal marriage and or state marriage I'm sorry but there are a lot of us that have nothing, or can just visit our spouse in the hospital. After EDNA/hate crimes I say go for it ... full speed ahead.    

...... Next time someone gives you a hard time for being LGBT... just ask them if they are unenlightened...or closeted

---

by: lisabrealty @ Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 13:01:29 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I disagree, he is just a politician

Obama only had the pro gay marriage position in 1996 during the primary, when he still had the strong possibility of running against Alice Palmer, the person who had endorsed him(a political unknown) to take over her seat, but then came back into the race. If she had been able to run, he would have had an almost impossible primary, and would have had to go to the left to get support, which is what he seemed to be doing in this case.

Obama changed his stance in the 1998 election, to undecided on gay marriage, when he had no overwhelming political reason to support it. He was also undecided on DADT.

---

by: pataphysician @ Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 16:51:49 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Exactly as I've been saying.

They won't do anything for us until they think that losing our votes might cost them an election.

And we all know that the Democrats can't walk and chew gum at the same time, so expecting them to waffle on more than one LGBT issue at once is asking for disappointment.

Cynic, n.  A blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be.  
-Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary

---

by: QScribe @ Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 17:16:25 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

All the more reason ...

To ensure Obama knows if he doesn't get things done.... not just talk about them, and get committees to look into things, and put out feelers, but actually change laws... or... its Dennis Kucinich in 2012. He would never throw us under the bus and he does not need counseling as to why we need rights and protections.  

...... Next time someone gives you a hard time for being LGBT... just ask them if they are unenlightened...or closeted

---

by: lisabrealty @ Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 17:48:06 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Old and silly argument

Employment protections are not a constitutionally mandated issue, unfortunately.  

There is no conflict in state or federal constitutions that require or prevent equal hiring practices for LGBTs or anyone.  Legislation is created to extend the principle of equal opportunity in employment.  

Turning our citizenship into a priority list of tasks accomplishes absolutely nothing - other than causing a false tug of war within our population and offers support to the arguments of populations that would deny us everything.

The principle behind the push for marriage equality has far reaching implications that would affect the right to employment and protection from hate crime and full immigration rights.  

I say we have no choice but to defend our right to constitutional citizenship - equal protections, due process and full faith and credit - or we have no ground to stand on when we claim to be discriminated against at the workplace.  

You want to sue because you were turned down for a job because the employer suspects you are LGB or T?  Under DOMA you should have no expectation of equal protection.  Depending which state you live in, your due process has been taken away by layers of legislation and constitutional amendment that imposes an impossible burden as a member of a minority population.  

What makes you think you will get a job if the country allows you to be denied the choice of establishing a recognized family or places restrictions on your immigration rights or allows your citizenship to be marginalized at the ballot box?

The "marriage marriage marriage" whining you do doesn't advance employment rights.  The whining helps make it continue to be possible to discriminate against us.  

You are missing the point.

---

by: Patrick @ Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 10:43:51 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

All the more reason to push for an omnibus bill

Plus, not everyone wants to get married, though I think everyone wants the right itself. But what about those of us that want to stay single

Frankly, Patrick, this is a very class-based argument, which IS even more of a division within "our population" than even race.

---

by: kevinchi @ Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 10:54:34 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

No, a Practical and Pragmatic argument

I really don't get your argument.  How can DOMA have an effect on employment?  ENDA would ban employment discrimination...it has nothing to do with whether I was single or married.

Hell yeah I want marriage equality as much as the next gay.  But if I gotta target my energy towards getting ENDA passed vs repealing DOMA, you can bet I'm choosing the first one.  Every single LGBT in this country (that's not in a state with its own discrimination law) could easily lose their livelihood on a whim of a homophobic boss.  A marriage certificate ain't gonna mean a hill of beans in that situation.

Won't mean a hill of beans either if you're gay-bashed to death...thus my other emphasis on the hate-crimes law.

Sure...if you live in a state that has its own anti-discrimination law, I can see why you think repealing DOMA is so important.  But for those of us in the other 30+ states that don't...it's ENDA that's the higher priority.

---

by: RaleighRob @ Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 12:31:52 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

i keep seeing an error regarding hate crimes legislation,

and that is that people seem to think that queer bashing will stop if hate crimes legislation is passed.  it won't.  what will happen is a possibility of an enhanced sentence for convicted bashers.  the legislation may have a deterrent effect, but since when have laws ever stopped criminals from doing their thing?

i think the matthew shepard act is very important and i hope it passes, but let promote it for what it is, not for what it isn't.

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners.

Lurleen on Twitter.

---

by: Lurleen @ Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 12:54:37 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Of course not, Lurleen

nor will employment discrimination stop if ENDA passes.

Discrimination and bigotry doesn't stop because the law says so. It's also about changing hearts and minds.  

---

by: kevinchi @ Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 12:58:41 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

But it's important

What ENDA and hate crimes legislation would do is give those who are fired, discriminated against, or violently attacked a legal recourse with which to seek justice.

In the case of employment discrimination, millions of gay people could be fired tomorrow just because they are gay, and nothing could be done about it.

Victims of violent crime do have legal recourse, but hate crimes legislation would bring us closer to justice by ensuring that perpetrators aren't slapped on the wrist and making it very clear that "gay panic" defenses are absolutely not allowed under U.S. law.

No, the law doesn't change hearts and minds.  But it does draw a boundary around what is and isn't okay in this country.  And it has to be not okay to discriminate or inflict violence on someone just because they're queer.

"There are two kinds of people in this world -- the kind who separate the world into two kinds of people, and those who don't."  -- Gloria Steinem

---

by: red7eric @ Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 13:03:49 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Exactly, that was my point

I am trying to move from thread to thread too fast before my lunch ends. :)

---

by: kevinchi @ Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 13:09:05 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I consider hate crimes laws to be feel good laws.

Of course they don't prevent a single crime, but they make some in oppressed communities feel better, I guess. I'm against them on principle, but don't feel it's worth arguing about.

If Angie Zapata's killer is convicted of the bias crime charge, guess how big the addition to his sentence will be?  One to three years.

---

by: Pollyanna @ Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 18:44:20 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Heres a example...

An Onondaga County, New York grand jury has ruled the murder of a transgender woman was motivated by hate, possibly adding 5 years to the murderer's prison sentence

In the current state of the country and our jury system, it is possible for murders of LGBT to serve a fraction of the time they would serve if they killed a white male. While I doubt it will deter many murders, it will ensure justice has a better chance of being served.

It seems to me that in many cases of LGBT murder/violence the theme seems to be an eye for an eyelash...

...... Next time someone gives you a hard time for being LGBT... just ask them if they are unenlightened...or closeted

---

by: lisabrealty @ Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 19:28:59 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Can you point me towards any data?

In the current state of the country and our jury system, it is possible for murders of LGBT to serve a fraction of the time they would serve if they killed a white male.

I googled around a little but couldn't find anything to support this assertion.  
Also, I assume you meant "non-LGBT male" or "non-LGBT person", not "white male," since obviously white males are in the G,B and T part of the community.

---

by: Pollyanna @ Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 20:21:50 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

don't be so literal!

we all know that killers of lgbt people get a slap on the wrist.  why else would autumn and so many others be compelled to attend the trial of angie's murderer, for example.  the twinkie defense, the shock defense - they're all used only by killers of lgbt people, to my knowledge.  dan white was just the first famous one.

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners.

Lurleen on Twitter.

---

by: Lurleen @ Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 20:28:45 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I can't tell if you're being serious,

but just in case you are, then I'm one who doesn't know that "killers of lgbt people get a slap on the wrist."  If you really meant, we can all come up with at least one example of what we consider an egregious miscarriage of justice concerning an LGBT victim, then yes.  And, of course, Dan White and the twinkie defense comes to mind first.

And if by "literal" you mean, needs proof, I plead guilty.  If this particular outcome you claim is so self-evident, it should be easy to prove. Anyway, I really think you're wrong.

As far as the Angie Zapata murder, I think that's a terrible example of a trial that anyone in their right mind would be afraid could go seriously off the rails.  I remember watching the entire press conference that the Sheriff (I think.  Anyway, chief law enforcement officer with jurisdiction) held right after they captured Andrade.  It was clear he was appalled by the crime in and of itself, but I was seriously impressed with how sensitive he seemed to the nuances of the transgender aspect.  He said all the "right" things as far as I could tell.  Then their suspect confesses and the prosecutors throw the book at him.

Aside from the unfortunate matter of the judge deciding the cops didn't stop questioning the killer when they should have, I think everything has been going along great, and with unusual speed.  But let's not let the facts get in the way of an alternative reality, I guess.

---

by: Pollyanna @ Sat Apr 18, 2009 at 00:17:35 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

yes I did mean non-lgbt white male ...

and here is an example for you

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...


...... Next time someone gives you a hard time for being LGBT... just ask them if they are unenlightened...or closeted

---

by: lisabrealty @ Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 21:21:51 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Priorities

The speaker said that her two legislative priorities for the LGBT community are passage of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act and the federal hate crimes bill; the latter was introduced in Congress earlier this month.

...a funny kind of priority that makes ENDA, that hasn't even been introduced as a bill yet...? In fact the only time I've heard Democratic leadership even mention ENDA is the two or three times I've seen someone corner Pelosi on marriage and she mumbles "uh, ENDA and hate crimes first". They say these are the "priorities" but they seem like a surprisingly low-priority priority.

And the thing is, frankly, if the plan actually was "we'll work on ENDA and Matthew Shepherd this year, we'll work on marriage equality and DADT when that's out of the way", I'd be totally happy with that. There really are limits on how much Congress can do at once and real Democratic power is relatively new. I just want to see some progress, some momentum.

But it seems like gay rights are the one part of the Democratic agenda that's gotten no attention this year. Even immigration reform there have been publicly visible meetings with the leadership, even if no action has been taken.

I realize there are excuses for why this might be (no al franken, they're busy with the budget) but those excuses are running out very, very quickly.

---

by: mcc @ Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 10:29:40 AM CDT

Rereading this:

And the thing is, frankly, if the plan actually was "we'll work on ENDA and Matthew Shepherd this year, we'll work on marriage equality and DADT when that's out of the way", I'd be totally happy with that.

I don't think I was clear here. What I meant was: But this doesn't seem to be the plan. The plan seems to be more, at some unspecified point in the future they'll start talking about ENDA and Matthew Shepherd, and everything else is to be pushed out to some even more nebulous point beyond the end of those battles they haven't started yet...

---

by: mcc @ Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 11:26:45 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Gay rights are NOT "part of the Democratic agenda"

They are a Democratic talking point, designed to get our votes, period.  The national Democratic party has no intention of doing anything for us.  They make that clearer with each passing week.  They won't change their tune until we start taking our votes elsewhere.  If the loss of LGBT votes looked like it could cost them an election, we'd have what we want in no time.  Until that happens, they have no incentive to behave any differently.

Cynic, n.  A blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be.  
-Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary

---

by: QScribe @ Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 12:31:43 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Yep.

Which was part of the reason why I posted that "Houston: We Have a Problem" diary a week ago. Florida is one state that can flip on LGBT votes alone. Oregon is another possibility that I can think of off of the top of my head.

This is the type of political "strategery" that our side needs to do.  

---

by: kevinchi @ Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 12:36:51 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

And Ohio.

And any of the swing states where they win by a margin of two or three points. And until we wake up and force them to realize we can influence the winds, this is what we'll get: pandering.  

---

by: Kokas @ Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 14:00:32 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Why not Texas?

I believe the Dems will target Texas for 2012. Huge gay population in Texas...

This is what we need to mobilize and do!

---

by: kevinchi @ Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 14:06:33 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The problem,

as usual is the HRC and the other gay rights groups that still believe the "Mr. Nice Gay" strategy works. It didn't work in the 90's during the Clinton administration and never will. The key of any civil rights movement is that rights are never given freely by the privileged majority; they must be demanded.

---

by: Kokas @ Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 14:31:21 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

HOMOPHOBIA - "a complex and difficult problem"

RE: DADT - "Everybody in this room knows that this is a complex and difficult problem."

YES. Homophobia and having a bunch of straight little "soldiers" who act more like "wimpy, p*ssified little f*ggots" (borrowing from HET MALE vernacular) when they are "sexually threatened" is a complex and difficult problem.

But why not have a teaching opportunity here?  

Why not ENLIGHTEN these HET MALES to the REALITY that is LIVING AS FEMALE, where being hit on by those who repulse you is a daily event?

Decades MORE of Psychological Abuse? - OR - Stonewall.  Nationwide.  NOW!

---

by: John Bisceglia @ Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 15:29:15 PM CDT

Agreed...

I wonder if I could get away with "straight panic" if I shot and killed the next guy that hit on me... I do get disgusted and repulsed when it happens.

...... Next time someone gives you a hard time for being LGBT... just ask them if they are unenlightened...or closeted

---

by: lisabrealty @ Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 16:11:56 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

A Queer Party...

You bet.

There are any number of localities we where we could win, but winning is not the point. Whether locally, state wide or nationally we'd win just by running. Running would help organize, politicize and energize our communities and move them to the left.

It's unlikely we'd win many races on our own even if the economy is teetering on brink of a depression, and even if the US military meatgrinder is churning out causalities among GIs and muslims all over South Asia.  

There are other forces stirring in the trade union movement and in African American circles that are beginning to take a long hard look at independent political action. They could win and if they move into the political arena we should support them without question. They'd turn the Democrats into Whigs and the Republicans into Jefferson Davis Democrats.  

Until now the Coalition of Black Trade Unionists and the union funded and union led Labor Party have been held in check by the AFL-CIO bureaucrats but that won't last forever. When they begin to move we should join them as individuals and as allied groups.

-----------------------

I may not post for awhile because of a death in the family.

So if you don't hear from me for awhile just remember Bill's Three Principles of Responsible Citizenship:

1. Despise Democrat Party Leaders
2. Ridicule Republican Party Leaders  
3. Build independent political parties and movements

The looter rich much prefer working with Democrats like Obama and the Clintons - they're greedier, they fool more people and they're able to get away with a lot more than Republicans.  

---

by: donal1944 @ Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 18:08:56 PM CDT

Sorry to hear that Bi...uh, donal

take care!

---

by: kevinchi @ Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 18:17:45 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Sorry for your loss

I am just getting back online after a death in our family, too. Deepest sympathies from me & Phyllis.
S

susanferman.wordpress.com

---

by: Susan_F @ Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 20:46:35 PM CDT

[ Parent ]