Obama on the LGBT record - what does it really say?

Can't make everyone happy

Whenever I hear the name Barack Obama, I think of this:  

You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time.
Abraham Lincoln, (attributed)

He said this in 2006 and repeats it to this day:

"I'm a Christian, and so although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman.''
--Barack Obama --During a taping of WBBM-AM's "At Issue''
--Chicago Tribune
Nicole Ziegler Dizon
Associated Press Writer

Obama has made it clear to me that his Christian beliefs will dictate his life and mine too.  

~LeslieK

 

You may not be gay, but you may be next.

---

by: LeslieK @ Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 08:36:39 AM CDT

Some thoughts

Is Obama's courting of the religious vote problematic to you?

Yes and no.  I agree that there are plenty of people out there who are both religious and progressive, and I have no problem with Obama indicating respect for religion, promising to defend freedom of religion, etc.  I am, however, disappointed that when responding to the claims that he was raised as a Muslim that his response was to proclaim his Christianity rather than take the opportunity to promise that as the leader of a secular republic he would defend the religious liberties of all Americans, regardless of whether they believe in the same god he does or no god at all.

Is it essential to you that Obama support full marriage equality in order to trust him on LGBT issues?

Yes.  While not everyone agrees that marriage should be held up as a norm for everyone to aspire to, or that it should be a function of government, I think that support for civil unions but not marriage equality is a logically indefensible position.  The only possible purpose of a separate distinction for some people's relationships is discrimination.  The effect of the discrimination may come in the form of law that is not equal in fact, in the perceived social status of the participants, or both, but in any case harm to LGBT people results.  Someone who claims to be a product of the improvements wrought from the racial civil rights struggles should know better than to advance separate but equal as a policy prescription.

In an age when even Bill O'Reilly has had to admit that the arguments for restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples have no merit, Obama's failure to publicly support marriage equality cannot be defended as a necessary political triangulation.  Sure, there is a double-digit percentage of Americans who would not support a presidential candidate who endorsed marriage equality.  I think the vast majority of them would never vote for Obama in any case.  What is gained by publicly taking a controversial position in support of fundamental principles of justice more than makes up for what is lost by not courting a few people who refuse to act rationally on this issue.

What statement or act would make you comfortable that Barack Obama will follow through with public support of our issues once elected?

While the President cannot control the actions of the Congress, and so couldn't force a change to Don't Ask, Don't Tell, for example, he or she does have a lot of freedom to help us in concrete ways.  Obama could name some fair-minded people and promise to appoint them to influential government posts, for example.  He could also describe specific directives to be issued to government agencies within his first 100 days.  A change in priorities at the CDC to make concrete improvements in the rising rates of new HIV infections in the GLBT community would be a big plus in my book.

---

by: pgraydon @ Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 08:56:01 AM CDT

He co-sponsored a trans-inclusive civil rights bill in Illinois

That's enough for me.

In 2008 - that should be enough for anyone.

Kat

>^..^<

---

by: KatRose @ Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 09:03:52 AM CDT

And yet

it isn't. Not for me.

Cause any fool knows, a dog needs a home; a shelter from pigs on the wing

---

by: QueerInSoCal @ Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 11:50:58 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Words, California, and 2004

As a gay guy engaged to be married in California - the state where Obama is collecting $$ today - I cannot separate the Democratic candidate from the words he chooses, the last campaign for the presidency and the ongoing events in this state.

Directly addressing your points, Pam:

1)  Obama has to be able to speak to/deal with some crazy and messianic and corrupt world leaders as President.  Dealing with religious leaders in this country is good practice in (what should be) a safe place.  As long as Obama keeps his cards close to his chest - on our issues as well as theirs - I don't care if he addresses them.  Even though I think religionists should not get more consideration than the secularists, this is a hair splitting issue.

2)  Supporting full marriage equality - this isn't a fair question.  It would be just like asking him if he supports abortion in every home, or is opposed to prayer, or believes in flag burning as a form of free speech.  There are ways for a candidate to support this issue without quoting Gavin Newsom.  

3)  In respect to #2 and this question, I would consider supporting his election if he stopped publicly defining marriage using the language of the vilest, most bigoted and disrespectful segment of the population.  

I might even contribute to his campaign if he defended my right to citizenship and access to public accommodations as spelled out in the CA decision.  He practically does this in the clips of speeches, but then he talks out of the other side of his mouth off camera.

If Obama - even using safe and nuanced language - asked voters in California to consider the families that are punished and marginalized by ballot box bigotry and/or said that the consideration of the equal protections of LGBT citizens reminds him of how much he appreciates what others have done to help him enjoy his equal protections and/or urged people to understand the court ruling and consider voting against the amendment...I would even work for his election.  

4)  I reserve judgment on his 100 days until he wins them.  In this next 100 days of his election campaign, I want him to stop saying "marriage = one man + one woman" and I want him to explain how a federal civil union plan (suspending disbelief of its passage by Congress) would help LGBTs living in the scores of states that have limited - if ANY - relationship recognition.  

If his idea won't help those people, then he should urge states to stop amending against LGBT Americans and defend our constitutional rights and cease playing us for fools.

Clinton spoonfed us affirmations and then stabbed us in the back.

Kerry kicked us in the gut before tossing us to the curb (and Feinstein defended him).

I remember all of it and I'm not letting him forget it.  The audacity of my hope has been trounced and taken advantage of by his party repeatedly.  He is doing better, but the bar is set much higher and THAT is the fault of the Democratic Party.  He has got to do better.  

---

by: Patrick @ Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 09:16:46 AM CDT

Offensive comparisons

It would be just like asking him if he supports abortion in every home, or is opposed to prayer, or believes in flag burning as a form of free speech.

I know where you're coming from, but I have to point out how awful that sounds.

"Our Liberties We Prize and Our Rights We Will Maintain" -- Iowa state motto

---

by: Sportin' Life @ Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 09:51:51 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

ok...let me rephrase

It would be like asking him if he believes in abortion on demand or asking if he supports the rights of students to pray in school.  The question is more controversial than it has to be and when it is presented in this context, the answer is always the same - of course he can't support full marriage equality and win the election.  It is a misleading scenario and it doesn't address the problem.  

In other words, it is an unfair proposition to present the question in terms of an either / or dynamic.  

A candidate can believe in free speech without citing flag burning as an example of its expression.

It is fair to advocate for the right of women to make choices about their own bodies, but it probably wouldn't help to say that abortion is a valid choice.

Religious freedom is important to many people, but it is not necessary to suggest legislating prayer in order for it to be practiced.  

Thus, it is perfectly reasonable to defend the equal protections of LGBT citizens that are destroyed by the state amendments and DOMA legislation without (necessarily) advocating for full marriage equality.

---

by: Patrick @ Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:29:11 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

A very good point, when put that way

Being in favor of "gay marriage" isn't necessarily what's needed.  It's being in favor of equal protection under the law, and being clear about what that means.

All the Democrats have to do is support the Constitution, ffs.

Which reminds me: Obama promised to filibuster any bill which awards retroactive immunity to telecom companies that have illegally spied on American citizens.  It remains to be seen for sure, but apparently that promise was a lie.

"Our Liberties We Prize and Our Rights We Will Maintain" -- Iowa state motto

---

by: Sportin' Life @ Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:47:03 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

My reactions

Is Obama's courting of the religious vote problematic to you?

I sense a palpable difference between King George II and the rest of the fundies "I have faith, and you have to follow it," religious memes and how Obama discusses his faith. Although I am generally uncomfortable with any discussions of faith (I'm a New Englander and was taught you simply don't discuss those things outside of close friends and family), Obama seems to point to his faith as a foundation of his fundamental belief in decency and equality, not his fundamental belief in his own correctness and infallibility on matters of morality. I especially appreciated his recent statements that his faith cannot be the only path to God, particularly because it ticked the fundies way off.

Is it essential to you that Obama support full marriage equality in order to trust him on LGBT issues?

No, because I just don't think that's a tenable position for a candidate for President right now. Even with $4 gas and an endless war in Iraq, I don't think Obama would be smart to hand the marriage bullsh*t back to the GOP as a campaign wedge issue. Unfortunately the Dems have allowed the GOP to define political "morality" (anti-abortion and anti-gay are the only issues) and Obama seems to be trying to change that political rhetoric, but that is going to take time.

What statement or act would make you comfortable that Barack Obama will follow through with public support of our issues once elected?

There are two, one of which he's already made. I agree with Patrick that Obama has to come out against the CA amendment (as well as the FL and AZ amendments), even while he reiterates his support for civil unions. That's the statement I want him to make.

The statements that made me far more comfortable with his position on the matter were made in the recent Advocate interview. He was very pragmatic on the marriage issue and basically said to m arriage advocates "Keep pressing the issue." What I read into those statements was an FDR-like approach to the issue - FDR was legendary for analyzing public opinion on an issue, assessing how far it was from his own desired position, and how to gently move that opinion in his desired direction. Part of the movement on the marriage issue must be from outside advocates making the case for marriage, both to policy-makers and to the citizenry. Certainly the images of gay and lesbian couples being married in CA help tremendously.

Is it important to you that he show good faith by moving on one of our issues within his first 100 days?

Yes, both because it would demonstrate a commitment to the LGBT community, but also because I have a feeling Obama is going to have a brief honeymoon period, and I'd like to see something on our agenda completed before it ends. I think the hate crimes bill, ENDA and modification of DOMA to allow for federal recognition of civil unions (which would be totally consistent with his current position), if not an outright appeal, would be the best places to start.  

---

by: CPT_Doom @ Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 09:41:37 AM CDT

Agreed

Your answers to Q2&3 really mirror my own, so I don't feel obliged to repeat those answers in their entirety--though, I would highlight the interview with The Advocate that you referenced. This line resonated with me, in particular.

Barack Obama: I don't think that the gay and lesbian community, the LGBT community, should take its cues from me or some political leader in terms of what they think is right for them.

Not sure I could imagine John Kerry saying anything like that back in 2004. To expound on the other two questions, though:

Is Obama's courting of the religious vote problematic to you?

No...and I say that, admittedly, while embracing my identity as a progressive person of faith. For far too long we've seen religion co-opted (and bastardized) by the right with, at times, the left's tacit approval, and I'm glad to have a leader who will acknowledge that there are reasons--both spiritual and secular--for us to engage in a fight for social justice.

There's a reason James Dobson, in criticizing Obama's speech from two years ago [a speech that EJ Dionne called  "the most important pronouncement by a Democrat on faith and politics since John F. Kennedy's Houston speech in 1960"], used the word "fruitcake." Dobson knows, as I do, that Obama's willingness to court the religious vote is a greater threat to his livelihood than it is to mine.

Is it important to you that he show good faith by moving on one of our issues within his first 100 days?

To promote our long-term interests, I think the most important action Obama could take during the early days of his administration would be to appoint members of the LGBT community (preferably some outside the Beltway types) to prominent positions.

In terms of a legislative agenda, I'm not sure that any special interest group, even one that I'm involved in, should expect to have their agenda to be fully addressed in the first 100 days. That said, I think ending Don't Ask, Don't Tell has such broad implications beyond the LGBT community that action on it is a reasonable expectation.  

---

by: pecola @ Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 16:38:57 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Is Obama's courting of the religious vote problematic to you?

(fundies would like you to believe one cannot be religious and progressive)

So would some progressives.

And I don't have a problem with it, because 1) like you say, not all religious people are homophobic - a lot of us are even gay ourselves; and 2) the more votes he can get, the better, as far as I'm concerned.  If McCain gets elected, I think ENDA and marriage equality will be the least of our worries.

Is it essential to you that Obama support full marriage equality in order to trust him on LGBT issues? Do you believe any Dem can be elected to the presidency in 2008 if they hold a marriage equality position?

It's far from essential, and no, I don't think any candidate of any party could be elected to the presidency in '08 (and probably not in '12 or '16 either) if they came out in support of marriage equality.  It would be nice if he were supportive, but this battle is going to be fought in the courts and in the state legislatures.  All I basically care about when it comes to a president's stand on this issue is that he doesn't appoint more Scalias to the SC.  Anything else is frosting.

What statement or act would make you comfortable that Barack Obama will follow through with public support of our issues once elected? What would that look like, given the burden of action for most of this falls on the shoulders of Congress?

I don't think there's anything he could say.  We'll just have to wait and see.  Like I say, my main issue is SC nominations - poor John Paul Stevens isn't likely to live another four years. :o(

Is it important to you that he show good faith by moving on one of our issues within his first 100 days? Which issue should be first on his bully pulpit agenda?

An inclusive ENDA would be nice, but I'm not interested in holding a gun to the man's head and demanding he pressure Congress into pushing it through in the first 100 days.  Come on.

---

by: austex1 @ Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 09:48:13 AM CDT

Pragmatic

* Is Obama's courting of the religious vote problematic to you?

No.  While I personally get a little queasy around any hard-core religious folks, I understand that any candidate who wants to win must have broad enough appeal to get independents to vote for him/her, and that requires reaching out to the religious vote.  For any Democrat who wants to get the African-American vote, that means being comfortable in black churches.  Any democratic candidate who is serious about winning must court the religious vote.

* Is it essential to you that Obama support full marriage equality in order to trust him on LGBT issues?

F*** NO!  Unless there is some unprecedented national groundswell in the next six months, it is essential to me that he NOT make such a declarative statement. I want him to win.  Period.  After we accomplish that, we can lobby and educate him as to how to help us move forward on issues like marriage equality.   (I really like and agree with what CPT_Doom said about Obama and FDR, too.)

Do you believe any Dem can be elected to the presidency in 2008 if they hold a marriage equality position?

No.  I strongly believe such a position would kill their candidacy.  There are many folks I know who are good on our issues, but just haven't gotten to marriage equality yet.  That is a major roadblock with a very sizeable majority of the country.  

* What statement or act would make you comfortable that Barack Obama will follow through with public support of our issues once elected?

I already feel comfortable that he believes that all Americans deserve equal rights.  I believe it is up to each of us to ensure that he knows that we are involved in his campaign and that we will continue to be involved and expect him to follow through once he is elected.  Our visible presence and valuable work to help get him elected are what will matter.  Plus, the National Stonewall Democrats and Victory Fund (I think it's the two orgs together, but I could be mistaken) are collecting resumes of openly LGBT folks to present to the campaign for consideration for appointments.  These folks being involved in the day-to-day work of his administration will help, as well.

*  Is it important to you that he show good faith by moving on one of our issues within his first 100 days?

It is not important to me that he act in the first 100 days.  I want him to be sure he has the lay of the land and doesn't underestimate the opposition like Bill Clinton did.  What matters more to me are two things:
1. That he have openly LGBT folks in "important" posts in his admnistration
2. That there are concrete advances by the end of his second year (for Congressional elections), not symbolic actions in the first 100 days.

---

by: OH les @ Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:00:22 AM CDT

I think I LOVE YOU!

D*** I was going to start a comment but you STARTED, CONTINUED, and FINISHED it for me! Right on!

PS. I lived in Springfield IL for 7 years while attending medical school. Had my daughter there. Have been in that plaza in front of the old Statehouse where Lincoln was a member many times. In the crowd scene. Just off screen right in back is the building still housing Lincoln's law offices just as he left them when he left for Washington. I hope Obama gets to leave from the same train station on the same trip come January. 

It's the Hammer of JUSTICE,
It's the Bell of FREEDOM,
It's the Song about LOVE between,
my Brothers and my Sisters
...All over this Land.

---

by: Orion45 @ Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:04:41 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

...imagine what LINCOLN

will be thinking about that!

It's the Hammer of JUSTICE,
It's the Bell of FREEDOM,
It's the Song about LOVE between,
my Brothers and my Sisters
...All over this Land.

---

by: Orion45 @ Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:05:27 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I love

being able to point to an incredibly well written answer like this and say, "Yeah, me too! Everything they said!" ;)

"It goes on one at a time, it starts when you care to act, it starts when you do it again after they said no, it starts when you say We and know who you mean, and each day you mean one more."

---

by: Louise @ Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 13:00:36 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Glad to be of service :)

Thank you both for your generous words, and I appreciate having compatriots!

Orion45 - indeed - Lincoln would be thrilled and so proud!

---

by: OH les @ Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 15:53:58 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Sam Nunn for VP ?

I will feel a lot more comfortable once I am sure that the execrable Sam Nunn is no longer in consideration -
the idea that he is even being considered has made me re-evaluate Obama.

He makes pro-LGBT statement, much more so than McCain, but he seems to totally ignore real LGBT people and what they say are their concerns. I think "patronizing" is the best way to describe his attitude, and the McClurkin decision.

---

by: tiponeill @ Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:08:48 AM CDT

The religious vote, etc.

I assume this means the evangelical vote, because that's who Obama is courting.  So far, I like his approach--though he occasionally comes close to crossing the line.  I have trouble hearing anyone blabber on about how Jesus Christ is their personal lord and savior, especially someone who wants to be trusted with national leadership.  But overall his christianity seems to be humanistic and oriented toward the social gospel.  So power to him if he can sell it.

The issue is (and always has been) not to let some people sacrifice the full citizenship of others under the guise of "practicing their religion".  Obama's statements on marriage give aid and comfort to those who are doing exactly this to us.

What could he do?  I'd like to see Obama address the California initiative directly, and say that he would regret seeing the country move backward--away from America's promise of equality to all, rather than toward it.

"Our Liberties We Prize and Our Rights We Will Maintain" -- Iowa state motto

---

by: Sportin' Life @ Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:26:54 AM CDT

My thoughts ...

Is Obama's courting of the religious vote problematic to you?

On the whole, I see it as a good thing -- part of his unifying appeal (and increasing the chance that there will be a landslide "realignment election" that will significantly help progressives).

Is it essential to you that Obama support full marriage equality in order to trust him on LGBT issues?

No.  I really, really, really wished he supported marriage equality.  However, he's been consistent in his positions on this, even the ones I don't like; and has spoken out in difficult situations -- not just the easy pandering ones.  So I do believe that he'll follow through on his commitments, including working for the hate crimes legislation, a trans-inclusive ENDA, and a full repeal of DOMA -- all of which would be a huge step forward.

That said, I certainly understand why others would choose not to trust him based on his opposition to full marriage equality.

Do you believe any Dem can be elected to the presidency in 2008 if they hold a marriage equality position?

Based on the Republicans and Bush's unpopularity, I think the Democratic candidate is very likely to win the presidency, whether or not they hold a marriage equality position.  (Actually, I think that if Hillary Clinton had taken a marriage equality position, she might well have been the nominee.)

What statement or act would make you comfortable that Barack Obama will follow through with public support of our issues once elected?

It would certainly help if there are LGBTIQ people in his list of intended cabinet nominees.  It would also make me feel more confident if he specifically discussed this in the debates.  And wouldn't it be great if he gave a speech on gender as a followup to the "More Perfect Union" speech that took an inclusive view, including transgender and intersexual concerns?  (I'm not holding my breath :-( )

What would that look like, given the burden of action for most of this falls on the shoulders of Congress?

The classic "bully pulpit" stuff: including this in his list of priorities, speaking on it regularly, asking Congress to move on these issues, making phone calls and otherwise arm-twisting Congresspeople, etc.

Is it important to you that he show good faith by moving on one of our issues within his first 100 days? Which issue should be first on his bully pulpit agenda?

No strong feelings here.  As long as there's significant effort devoted to multiple issues in the first year, I'll feel its good faith.


jon

---

by: jonpincus @ Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:37:58 AM CDT

I think you make some great points and pose some good questions

but I have to be honest - I'm having a hard time getting over the South Carolina/McClurkin thing.  If it had only been McClurkin (or Hezekiah Walker or Mary Mary) on Obama's stage, it would have been easier to accept that there was a screw-up.  McClurkin in and of himself is a pretty egregious choice, given his support of reparative/conversion therapy, so it would have been hard to overlook, but possibly do-able.

But putting up an entire slate of performers who have been open about their homophobic views...  There are plenty of popular black gospel performers who would have been less controversial choices, so, to me at least, the conclusion that it was intentional is unavoidable.

1) I accept that he needs to court the religious vote - I know plenty of people of faith who are "on our side" on this issue, even if their church doctrine isn't, so I'm ok with that.

2) No.  Coming clean (whatever that means) on South Carolina would lead me to think that I could trust him.

3) Repealing DADT would be a start.  But the next president, whomever that is, will be in a safe place to do that, given the changed attitudes in the military and the populace at large.  Perhaps an executive order giving DPBs to Federal Empoloyees?  He can issue the order, even if Congress cuts the financing out of his budget.

4) I'm not a big fan of the first 100 days philosophy.

---

by: aggieric @ Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:46:43 AM CDT

Not great, just the best choice

We have a two-party system in this party, as much as some would like to see the Greens or the Libertarians be more politically viable...they just aren't. It comes down to this for me: Do I want someone who is going to give tacit approval for LGBT rights, or someone who is going to confront me with a right-wing agenda full of hate. It's a pretty easy choice, really. Does Obama bother me? Yes he does, about a great many things. Would I consider voting for McCain? Not for a nano-second.

Zoey

No matter how thin you slice it, it's still boloney.

---

by: atrivialgirl @ Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 11:08:17 AM CDT

The Preparation to Divide Us

And he's absolutely spot-on when it comes to that and we are often the absolute first ones to ride that bus. To our own harm.

Ya know, I could give a hoot if he supports "Nichole" 100% in whatever she chooses to do with her life and how to lead it. For me, that's not the point. Nor is whether or not he can personally support 'gay marriage.'

That he recognizes us as "brothers and sisters" is about 10 light-years past what McBush is willing to admit. That in enough is reason to support him and to reject McBush and the spin-meisters who are hoping profoundly to set-up the typical, congenital Democratic in-fighting as we each try to get the candidate to support every individual hope and dream, idea or belief we subscribe to. Karl Rove, go to Hell! And take your machinations & the ghost of Lee Atwood with you!

It would be nice if my partner and I had our marriage recognized by the Federal government, but that's a congressional issue not an executive one till it comes to signing the bill. I believe Obama will sign it.

I KNOW what will happen if we get 4 more years of the 8 we're just finishing. That is the ONLY damned issue I see as relevant for us all.

So, we can pick at how he feels specifically about most anything and everything, or we can actually realize that there is no candidate ever who will support all the things each of us want to see occur. And allow the spin-meisters to achieve their goal: the election of McBush.

Or we can just realize that someone with a heart, mind and the strength to stand for something that doesn't totally dismiss us out-of-hand is much to be preferred over his super-annuated prisoner-of-war and not at all enthusiastically inclusion-inclined opponent.

Can we get this right for the first time since FDR? Please?

---

by: Nichole @ Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 11:23:25 AM CDT

Answers...

"Is Obama's courting of the religious vote problematic to you?"

No. It's good that he disproves the BS right-wing talking point that Democrats are against religion.

" Is it essential to you that Obama support full marriage equality in order to trust him on LGBT issues? "

No. If there is to be federally-mandated same-sex marriage in all 50 states, Congress would have to vote for it, and that's not going to happen soon. Therefore, the President's opinion on the issue is irrelevant.
At the LOGO forum, they should have asked Kucinich how he's going to make same-sex marriage happen instead of letting him babble his sappy nonsense about wanting to draw a heart around the '=' sign.
As far as Supreme Court judges are concerned, I have no worries about Obama, given the very acceptable judges DLC-Clinton appointed.

"What statement or act would make you comfortable that Barack Obama will follow through with public support of our issues once elected"

If he can't support same-sex marriage, at least shut up about it.

"Is it important to you that he show good faith by moving on one of our issues within his first 100 days?"

No. If every group insisted that the President moves on their pet issue within the first 100 days, he wouldn't get anything done.

---

by: Bumba from Wakumba @ Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 11:41:39 AM CDT

Questions and answers

* Is Obama's courting of the religious vote problematic to you?

Not a fair question, IMO. Is simply the fact that he's doing it problematic? No. Is the way he's choosing to do it problematic? Absolutely. There's no question he's pandering, the only question is, who is he pandering to? The bigots? Or the homos? Why is he pandering at all? And why should I trust that I'm not in the group being pandered to?

* Is it essential to you that Obama support full marriage equality in order to trust him on LGBT issues?

Again, not a fair question. No, he doesn't have to support it. But he doesn't have to sabotage it, either, and that's what he's doing. As others have pointed out, he's too smart and has too much going on to let me think it's an unfortunate accident. If someone could even manage to provide convincing evidence that it's unintentional, I'd be willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, but I don't see it.

* What statement or act would make you comfortable that Barack Obama will follow through with public support of our issues once elected? What would that look like, given the burden of action for most of this falls on the shoulders of Congress?

Way to box in the question, there. How about if he just stops laying dynamite on the tracks of my civil rights train? I wouldn't be happy with him, but I'd be less angry. He could say he's made a serious mistake and apologize - before the election, before the damage he's caused comes home to roost, before he provides aid and comfort to bigots - but I think that's just about as likely as Santa popping a new Mercedes down the chimney this year, so....

*  Is it important to you that he show good faith by moving on one of our issues within his first 100 days?

He's already shown enough bad faith for me to cancel his contract with me. At this point we're talking a whole new contract, not just a good faith effort to restore the old one.

Cause any fool knows, a dog needs a home; a shelter from pigs on the wing

---

by: QueerInSoCal @ Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 11:48:25 AM CDT

it was very hard to frame these questions

I knew it would be difficult -- I was trying very hard to allow for any point of view to be considered without taking issues with the questions themselves. The purpose is not to say any view is right or wrong, but for those commenting to be specific when citing how they feel Obama, and by extension, the Democratic candidates this year, have handled LGBT issues in the public sphere.

Your responses about the questions boxing you in are prime examples of seeing what you want to see because you disagree strongly with Obama's views as they have presented. That's ok, but it's not the questions that are the problem. The questions are supposed to elicit the whys.

Q1 on courting the religious vote:
Not a fair question, IMO. Is simply the fact that he's doing it problematic? No. Is the way he's choosing to do it problematic? Absolutely

You can read the question as open to courting religious voters  and the methods used. There's no attempt to circumvent addressing the political tactics or the motivations involved. The fact is that he is courting and has brought into the process groups that may not agree on a host of issues; that inevitably results in clashes in approach to LGBT issues isn't surprising. It's been made abundantly clear in his exposing of the divide in the religious black community -- loyal Dem voters by any stretch of the imagination -- and its problems with homophobia.

Q2 on support for marriage equality as a litmus test:
Again, not a fair question. No, he doesn't have to support it. But he doesn't have to sabotage it, either, and that's what he's doing.

It is a fair question. The point is to discuss why and how one might come to this conclusion by the way Obama has handled the issue. We've seen him state marriage is between a man and a woman, but so did all the rest of the competitive Dem candidates, so that's not exactly news. They all stated support for civil unions in one form or another (with Obama on the most comprehensive end, since he supports full DOMA repeal). Obviously his more recent interview has fanned the flames again about his commitment to civil marriage equality.

Q3 on what statement or act could regain someone's confidence in Obama's ability to follow through on moving LGBT rights forward once elected:
Way to box in the question, there. How about if he just stops laying dynamite on the tracks of my civil rights train?

And how does the question box you in? All it does is ask for a concrete way in which the candidate could satisfy you on LGBT issues. Or conversely it forces one to declare that there isn't anything he could do that would make up for any missteps and/or strategy employed during the campaign. It's a valid question.

Q4 the "100 days" question:
He's already shown enough bad faith for me to cancel his contract with me. At this point we're talking a whole new contract, not just a good faith effort to restore the old one.

And that's not a right or wrong answer, just your opinion. The logical follow up is what would that new contract look like for you if your view is that all the bad faith outweighs any of the presented positives?

---

by: Pam Spaulding @ Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 12:20:02 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

it's not easy

I totally appreciate you keeping this topic alive and current on your blog, Pam.  

We have to be able to discuss this stuff...even if we don't get it out right the first time...or suffer periodic incoherence and frustration.  

Too much was lost in 2004.  Obama is 100x a better candidate (and I think human) than Kerry was.  I know he can do even better.  He already has and that is only because of people like YOU that help us organize ourselves into smarter, saner and better citizens.  

He must do something that no other Democrat running for President has ever done - he MUST tell the voters of California that the amedment is flawed, mean spirited, and unnecessary, if not altogether anti-American.  

He is not my candidate until I hear him say that amending against LGBT families is wrong.  

---

by: Patrick @ Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 12:44:34 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Again, I have to disagree

There's a whole field of study on the effects of question phrasing in a poll. It's one of the more reliable ways to tilt the outcome of a poll.

Q: Do you feel the City Council is doing enough to increase business opportunity in the community?

How do I answer that if:

A: I don't feel there's a lack of business opportunity in the community. I think there's too much emphasis on business at the expense of residents.

On your question:

* Is Obama's courting of the religious vote problematic to you?

This question expects a binary response - yes or no. My response isn't binary, because yes I have a problem with it, but no the problem isn't that it's happening at all. The balance of the questions are similar.

Cause any fool knows, a dog needs a home; a shelter from pigs on the wing

---

by: QueerInSoCal @ Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 13:16:41 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

this is the great thing about blogs.

just like in political debates, regardless of the question asked, you get to answer whatever question you choose to.  i don't know if i would have phrased all the questions the way that Pam did, but it doesn't matter since they're only there to spark debate, not to put us in rhetorical straight jackets.  and you rose to that challenge, so mission accomplished!  

Lurleen on Twitter

---

by: Lurleen @ Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 13:30:52 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

1978 CA Briggs Initiative

"Anti-Gay Briggs Initiative "Prop. 6" which would have forbidden gays to teach in schools, defeated in California. President Jimmy Carter announced his opposition to this measure at a rally in California, the first such mention by a US President."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1...

The measure was also opposed by California Governor Ronald Reagan.

Come on, Obama...yes you can.  

DO IT.

---

by: Patrick @ Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 13:25:33 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I would give you 10 4's if I could!

That is a great find that sets a wonderful precedent.  I didn't know about it.

Lurleen on Twitter

---

by: Lurleen @ Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 13:32:30 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Hadn't heard of that either.

But it really does set a great precedent for Obama to follow, should he choose to.

Here's another one. The very conservative Orange County Register can back marriage equality. Now, we just need to see if the constitutional lawyer can figure out how to defend what the constitution actually says, and stop with his separate-but-equal schtick.

---

by: Rick @ Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 13:49:17 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Thanks!

I am not a fan of using wikipedia as a source, but I'm at work and don't have time to be thorough.

I know I saw a video clip of Carter's excrutiatingly brief remark to vote against Briggs but I just can't recall what film it was from.

It could have been from the documentary on Harvey Milk.

If Carter denounced ballot box bigotry 30 years ago without the words of a Supreme Court decision to back him up, then surely Obama can do the same.  

---

by: Patrick @ Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 14:41:06 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Equality is Essential

When Obama's biography gets trotted out, one of the things that is emphasized is that he was a lecturer--hence expert--on constitutional law at the University of Chicago. Under the United States constitution, the Supreme Court has held that marriage is a basic human right, and a fundamental right protected by the Fourteenth Amendment from state interference. The oft-quoted Loving v. Virginia is a case that Obama should know not just academically but personally, as his own parents' marriage would have violated the law in 17 states until he was 6 years old. He is too intelligent not to have an idea of how awful that would be the married couples at issue and their families. Another case that people forget is Turner v. Safley,where the Supreme Court--20 years after Loving (1987) and with all the conservatives in tow-- said that marriage was so important a right that it cannot be taken away from incarcerated felons (serial killers, child molesters, and the like), who, of course, can lose their right to vote and other, "lesser" civil rights. Obama knows this case too. Therefore, by saying that "marriage is between one man and one woman"-- which he has repeatedly done, Obama promotes a lie and helps solidify a current constitutional deprivation. He gives support to the wrong side. He leaves committed, law-abiding gay couples with fewer rights than felons.I don't see him as a direct agent of hope or change for gay and lesbian Americans, although I hope he appoints judges who have a better appreciation for the struggles faced by lgbt people. Obviously, I'll vote for him over McCain.
    Most posters who let Obama off the hook state that no politician could be elected who supports marriage equality. Bullshit. Obama is overwhelmingly popular. His speaking to black churches about lgbt issues has not cost him one vote; nor would speaking to the rest of homophobic America the same way. Those who vote based on homophobia are Republicans anyway. And remember he doesn't just not support marriage, he hires McClurkin, flirts with Nunn and gives interviews in which he publicizes his opposition. The idea that he will somehow be better once we elect him has no basis in fact or history. Remember what a pro-gay candidate Bill "Doma, DADT" Clinton was? Today's apologists will remain Obama's apologists once he is President.
     

---

by: David Goroff @ Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 11:59:12 AM CDT

support for equality or against amendments

Why does it not bother anyone that in Obama's speeches he reaches out to include LGBTs while acknowleding divisive tactics used against us - yet he also feels it is acceptable for the states to determine the issue of our citizenship at the ballot box - comepletely ignoring the constitutional principles that are destroyed in the process?

He can't believe in federal civil union legislation AND think it is ok for states to prohibit marriage at the same time.  Which states will have access to federal protections?  If I live in Ohio and want to marry my British same sex partner, do I have to move to MA or CA in order to make my partner eligible for American citizenship?  

Why is he incapable of campaigning against the CA amendment yet he can say he considers us his brothers and sisters and wants us to be treated fairly?

Even the Schwarzenegger has stated that he opposes the amendment and he campaigns for McCain all over the state.  It doesn't seem to hurt him.  

---

by: Patrick @ Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 12:37:43 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

your British partner

In case that was not a hypothetical, it doesn't matter where in the US you live, even if you two are married your spouse will NOT be eligible for citizenship based on your marriage to him.  This is because the federal government via DOMA does not recognize your marriage as valid.

Lurleen on Twitter

---

by: Lurleen @ Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 13:36:20 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

my partner is American

... but my friend Phyllis had to leave her career and her life in San Francisco behind to be able to live with her partner in England.  They are now married and Phyllis has EU citizenship and they are free of the harrassment and expense that US immigration inflicted upon them for years.

My question is directed at the logical holes in Obama's proposal of a federal solution in the form of a civil union.  Until he explains it further, the difficulty of what he proposes is lost in the details of its application.  Obama wants us to have Federal acknowledgment for a matter that is licensed by state.  

Taken at surface level it sounds fair and reasonable.  Look deeper and it is problematic.  Does he know it is problematic?  Is he pretending it is not?  

Forget about the likelihood of passage by Congress for now - is he just laying bait for us by talking about civil unions while saying nothing directly about the harm of amending state by state?

---

by: Patrick @ Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 14:34:22 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

well, obama's approach

of making federal-level marriage rights, responsibilities and benefits available to CU'd/DP'd/married couples would require couples in most states to travel to another state or country to get their relationship solumnized.  just because you might live in a state that won't recognize the relationship doesn't mean that the federal government can't.  the scheme would be inconvenient and maybe impossible for some couples (people too sick or poor to travel), but it would be possible for many.  

i doubt that he is going to suggest any kind of federal CU, since he helped kill the Uniting American Families Act by complaining that it was open to fraud.  Yet he proposed no remedy.  If he can't propose a remedy to a bill that affects relatively few couples, I have no faith that he'll come up with federal CUs for all of us.

Is he laying bait for us?  Well, that is the question!  I've been burned by Bill Clinton and too many others to have blind faith in any unproven politician.  I'm even less inclined to believe in one who uses such intellectually dishonest dodges as states rights and uses gop frames for the issues.  he's got a whole lot of proving to do.

Lurleen on Twitter

---

by: Lurleen @ Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 14:54:07 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

but i don't think it's possible

How would someone have a marriage/DP/CU in Ohio (obtained in another state) that is eligible for federal recognition but not state recogniton?

If person A in Ohio wanted to cover spouse/partner B with healh insurance provided by A's employer, but the state doesn't recognize A's spouse/partner then would the federal govt intervene and force the state to recognize it because according to the federal CU the cost of spouse Bs insurance deduction should be made pre-tax from person A's pay?

The state DOMAs (mostly) express that marriages/unions performed in other states will not be recognized internally.  

I don't really expect an answer to this situation, but I hope the dilemma is accurately presented.  

---

by: Patrick @ Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 15:33:14 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

the federal government operates independent of state laws.

it's that simple.  ohio can disregard my marriage all it wants, but that can't prohibit the feds from recognizing it if they want to.

when you bring up health insurance, you actually bring up a very complex problem.  if a company is self-insured, they have to follower federal regulations.  if a company isn't self-insured, they follow state regulations.  so for example some married people in MA still can't get their spouses on their policy if they work for a self-insured company that decides it wants to discriminate (it doesn't have to).  to discriminate, the company just points to DOMA and says that since we're federally regulated and the feds don't recognize your marriage, we don't have to either.  however, if that gay person works for a non-self-insured company, the spouse must be allowed to be covered by the worker's insurance since in that case it is state law that regulates the situation, and in MA it is illegal to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.  confused yet? :)

Lurleen on Twitter

---

by: Lurleen @ Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 15:42:28 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Uniting American Families Act

Lurleen, do you have sources for exactly what Obama has said about UAFA?  I'm trying to track down reliable and exact information on that issue.

"Our Liberties We Prize and Our Rights We Will Maintain" -- Iowa state motto

---

by: Sportin' Life @ Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 16:28:35 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

a few

here's the sort of nebulous story you can find many re-writings of out there.

here is a link to the HRC questionaire where obama says he's for it but it is subject to fraud.

and here are the immigration equality blog entries on the subject UAFA.  you can search them for "obama".  if you follow the links to "cosponsors" from the main UAFA page, you will see that obama is NOT a sponsor of the bill.  

Lurleen on Twitter

---

by: Lurleen @ Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 17:24:52 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Thanks

"Our Liberties We Prize and Our Rights We Will Maintain" -- Iowa state motto

---

by: Sportin' Life @ Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 17:52:08 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

those are excellent questions

And I would expect the LGBT media (forget the MSM) to ask questions that get at the heart of those discrepancies. The Obama campaign has not given the LGBT press nearly enough access to bore into these issues; I would hope that if anyone in the camp is reading this that the matters can be publicly reconciled. Otherwise it's left to the GOP to frame the issue yet again.

My POV is that the Dems are already seen as "the gay party" -- pols might as well be consistent in their rhetoric and actions. It's perfectly legitimate to counter the calls for civil equality to say what we don't want to hear -- that the public support isn't there yet, and that it will ultimately be up to SCOTUS to decide the matter. That's at least an honest answer, not a dodge or pandering.  

---

by: Pam Spaulding @ Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 14:00:35 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

CA gay press

How do we help them get access to Obama?

What can we do?  

Who are the CA gay press anyway?

I can take an honest answer...but I just can't let go of the importance of pushing this issue.  After what happened in 13 states in 2004 and what the court has said in CA this year, we cannot let Obama off the hook.  We didn't fight hard enough four years ago.  

---

by: Patrick @ Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 14:45:09 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Strongly disagree

His speaking to black churches about lgbt issues has not cost him one vote; nor would speaking to the rest of homophobic America the same way. Those who vote based on homophobia are Republicans anyway.

Marriage is VERY different than other LGBT issues.  Black folks can understand that discrimination is wrong - saying we must end discrimination against LGBT folks is not treatening to them.  Marriage equality is often very threatening to them.  A large segment of society who do not consider themselves homophobic still aren't there on marriage.  Why did California have domestic partnerships before marriage?  Why do Vermont and New Jersey and Connecticut have civil unions?  The vast majority of the country simply isn't where they need to be yet.

Criminy, the 13 (or however many) state constitutional amendments and even more state DOMAs plus the federal DOMA should illustrate that without me having to point it out!

---

by: OH les @ Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 15:09:56 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The courting of the religious right is the thing that bothers me

Because, they are more organized and powerful than any progressive group is, and if he is including them in his coalition, when the rubber hits the road, he will be on their side, because they are a more valuable ally than we are.

---

by: Valatan @ Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 12:14:26 PM CDT

If you live in

New York, California or New Jersey your questions have already been answered; you've been thrown under the bus already...

Marriage is between a man and a woman said it all.

This coupled with the fact that the ENDA that he will sign is so very stripped down as to cover very few of the LGBT community save for Congressman Frank and some neo-mattachine friends.

I tell you Chica that no greater abomination exists than women denying their spirit of sisterhood and instead becoming the oppressor. -Rebeca, Universidad Complutense de Madrid

---

by: MauraHennessey @ Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 13:26:29 PM CDT

Or NY, RI, NM...

The bottom line is that this man is just another sweet-talking politician, who will say whatever he has to in order to get in a position to harm my family further in order to get re-elected.

Either he's taught constitutional law and understands that convicted murderers on Death Row have a civil right to marry...and therefore my legal marriage should be honored in all 50 states under Loving....or he's not as smart as he sounds.

Either he became a Christian in adulthood in the UCC, which is the church I was same-sex-wedded in just about the same time he and Michelle were married in it as well...and therefore understands that 'marriage is one man-one woman' is a pander to certain types of Christians...or he wasn't listening to any of those sermons.

I'll hold my nose and vote for him, but that's a reflection of the pathetic results of the GOP Clown Car Contest.

My money and efforts will go into building better Democrats at the local level.

But wait, there's more!

---

by: PhoenixRising @ Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 20:24:37 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Yes and No here too

I'm not gay but my brother is.  I don't want to see him and his partner get tossed  under the bus.

Personally, I find the emphasis on Christianity disheartening.  I am a pagan and have been since 1992.  I am very uncomfortable with the increased "devoted Christian" message coming from his campaign.

I'll vote for him in November.  Heck, I am planning to volunteer in the Dayton, Ohio campaign office.  However, what do I and my fellow pagans have to look forward to if he wins the election?  I think I know what I'll get from McCain, depending on whether he needs the Christian Right to successfully govern.  I don't really know if Obama is merely courting the Evangelistic voters with rhetoric they can relate to or if this is the real Obama.

I would dearly love a change to get a straight answer.

---

by: Zorya @ Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 15:16:33 PM CDT

I don't trust him :-(

I want to vote for a Dem, but I don't think I can vote for Obama.

Is Obama's courting of the religious vote problematic to you?

It's not the religious vote -- it is the evangelical Christian vote.  He's not reaching out to Unitarians, or Jews.  He's trying to get Dobson's flock.  Or Sharpton's.  I am not an evangelical Christian, and I do not want to live in a Christian nation.  You want a theocracy, Barack?  Move to Iran.

Is it essential to you that Obama support full marriage equality in order to trust him on LGBT issues?

Essential?  Probably not.  Important? Yes.  I want him to say he would like to repeal DOMA.  I want him to say he does not support a Constitutional amendment barring equal marriage.  And I would like him to say that he does not think ANY state should hold a popular vote to determine civil rights.

Obama has benefited tremendously from the race-based civil rights movement.  He got preferential admission to Harvard.   Surely he knows that without Loving v Virginia his parents might not have been able to marry. I want him to look beyond race-based civil rights and consider that other groups might want a few equal rights too.

What statement or act would make you comfortable that Barack Obama will follow through with public support of our issues once elected?

Probably nothing.  Obama has thrown the GLBT community under the bus.  He is taking our votes for granted. "What will they do, vote for McCain?"  No, Barry, probably not.  But I damn sure won't be voting for you.

---

by: swei0009 @ Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 15:56:43 PM CDT

Obama has...

Said he believes in the full repeal of DOMA, which Clinton opposed. He has also said he doesn't believe in amending the Constitution to ban marriage (even McCain voted against FMA).

It's not the religious vote -- it is the evangelical Christian vote.

Actually, if you read his speech on religion that has Dobson foaming at the mouth, Obama specifically references all Christians, not just evangelicals as a desired group to attract. His position is that the Democratic party has lost its way in terms of many people of faith, even progressive religious people.

Democrats, for the most part, have taken the bait. At best, we may try to avoid the conversation about religious values altogether, fearful of offending anyone and claiming that - regardless of our personal beliefs - constitutional principles tie our hands. At worst, there are some liberals who dismiss religion in the public square as inherently irrational or intolerant, insisting on a caricature of religious Americans that paints them as fanatical, or thinking that the very word "Christian" describes one's political opponents, not people of faith.

Now, such strategies of avoidance may work for progressives when our opponent is Alan Keyes. But over the long haul, I think we make a mistake when we fail to acknowledge the power of faith in people's lives -- in the lives of the American people -- and I think it's time that we join a serious debate about how to reconcile faith with our modern, pluralistic democracy.

And if we're going to do that then we first need to understand that Americans are a religious people. 90 percent of us believe in God, 70 percent affiliate themselves with an organized religion, 38 percent call themselves committed Christians, and substantially more people in America believe in angels than they do in evolution.

So the question you are seeking the answer to is where on the spectrum Obama stands in regards to pandering, or respecting people's religious beliefs overall. Just looking at that last sentence, I have a problem with him catering to the non-evolution believers/flat earth crowd. But outside of that, his observation that Dems have swung so far to the secular that the party appears contemptuous of religious voters. It's an open question about how one walks that political line without alienating any group.

I don't know that it's possible given the volatility of religion in the public sphere, so it's valuable to raise the question of which group he stands with when it comes to the bottom line. I think the evangelicals remain suspicious of him regardless of what you or I may see as pandering because of this pro-equality statements. He definitely cannot please everyone.  

---

by: Pam Spaulding @ Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 16:21:07 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I would trust Obama's Supreme Court Justice picks.

We already know McSame would appoint Scalia/Scalito type Justices, putting LGBT equality back another 30 years.
Obama's picks would be infinitely better for LGBTs, and honestly, we all know we will gain equality through the courts, not the other two branches. All minority gains have been via the courts, and always will be.

What have you done today, to make ya feel PROUD?


~Heather Small

---

by: peteyPornpig @ Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 16:28:01 PM CDT

After Obama's FISA backward stance, I'm beginning to doubt him about GLBT issues

I'm not too sure if Obama is pandering to the GLBT community.  I am now getting suspicious after being let down last week with Obama's lack of LEADERSHIP as it relates to FISA.

My money is better spent supporting true progressives instead of those who keep letting us down.

---

by: Juan @ Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 16:40:43 PM CDT

I got a call from a Obama office in my area yesterday.

asking for my help, and what I said is, "No, Obama has my vote, but nothing else."  It's really a careful balancing act for me.  Do I want McCain?  No .. but betrayal (McClurkin, Caldwell, "marriage is between a man and a woman") needs to cost.  If it doesn't, then gay people are just asking for more of the same... halfhearted support when asking for our money and activism, then a knife in the back when that person is in office.

But without further ado (and what may explain the above), answers to questions:

Is Obama's courting of the religious vote problematic to you?

Put that way, no.  As a politician you have to court many different constituencies.  But as an atheist, I believe there shouldn't be a "religious vote" at all.  That is, the two things, "religious" and "vote" ought not be seen in the same sentence, because they are different things and that is part of how our country is getting off track.

When will people learn that religion is a trap vis-a-vis running for national office.  The sole criterion as to whether a person is fit for office is if, when confronted with situations, they will respond in a reasoned and reasonable way given any individual's criteria for what is "reasonable".  

People who won't vote for someone unless they share the same invisible sky god are both asking for meaningless scandal and are also courting disaster and dividing the electorate for no good reason.  To put it tritely, I want a president who, when getting that call at 3 a.m., looks at facts, generic human morality and simple appropriateness and not whether their invisible sky god approves of what they are about to do next.

Obama has been "in trouble" four different times over religion or religious values debates in this campaign that I can count.

This is so unnecessary.  Wearing your religion on your shirtsleeve used to be disapproved of in Presidential politics, and with good reason.

Courting "the religious" is one thing, courting their religion entirely another.

Is it essential to you that Obama support full marriage equality in order to trust him on LGBT issues?

Not necessarily at the beginning, but with caveats.

What we should all be looking for a President who promises and executes progress.  And moreover I think we should insist on it.  We should also insist on language that doesn't explicitly dismiss full legal equality in a marriage sense.  How hard is it not to say "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman?".

You could say a hundred other things.  You could say, "it is time we treated our gay brothers and sisters equally" as Obama himself said.  You could say full marriage equality is a big step, and there are intermediate steps and moving the country to do first.  Just don't say no.  Because, saying no to fundamental civil rights is and ought to be frankly equivalent to daring every gay person in America not to vote for you or support you in any way.

Because the stakes are so high this time, I'm not going to take that dare.  But I'm also not going to donate or work for a person who explicitly denies me my basic civil rights, or wants to.  Not now.  Not ever.

There's so much to do with regard to GLBT equality.  And this time, Obama and the Democratic Congress cannot not act.  They must act, or what person can ask us with a straight face to support these people?

Some things ought to be non-negotiable.  Basic human rights, if anything else is, ought to be among these.

But, there's trans-inclusive ENDA, there's hate crimes, there's nationwide school bullying legislation, there's DADT.  There's basic systematic nationwide polling of the GLBT community on the important issues (that one's a media thing, but I'm tired of our opinions not being counted).

All need to be addressed.  Progress this time is not optional in any way.

What statement or act would make you comfortable that Barack Obama will follow through with public support of our issues once elected?

I believe I've already answered that question .. but listen, Obama says he is "for" civil unions.  I don't like that answer, but listen, if he's serious, then he better do something about it, like cajoling the Congress and signing legislation.

I hate (and as far as I'm concerned, all gay people should hate) nothing more than a mealy mouthed hypocrite who says he's not for gay marriage and for civil unions, but does nothing about the latter when he could do so.  

No, I'm not saying that's Obama -- though I suspect it will be.

But if you are a politician and you say you're "for civil unions", put your money where your mouth is.  Everyone who says this has gotten a pass for indolence for far too long.

Is it important to you that he show good faith by moving on one of our issues within his first 100 days?

I'd say he should and must begin within his first hundred days to move Congress to action on our issues.  The SOTU would be a perfect opportunity to ask for a Civil Equality Omnibus act, but whatever Obama does, to me, it's pressing he tell the Congress that ignoring the GLBT community is no longer an option.

---

by: Firefly @ Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 18:18:41 PM CDT

The wrong questions....

Pam the questions you ask are just too narrow - they don't get at the meat of the matter. Also, it's a little late for Democrats to be criticizing Obama. Obama's politics, however much based on pandering to bigots, supporting the war, or caving into the demands of rich IS the program you'll support if you vote for him.

First, is his pandering to bigots problematic? Is it real or just an act?  It's not an act, anymore that the pandering of the Clintons, Kerry, Reid, Pelosi, Feinstein, and Barney Quisling is an act. It's not a tactic, their bigotry and appeasement of bigotry is a strategy.

The important question is about the politics and leadership of the Democratic Party. Historically they've supported bigotry - DOMA, DADT, junking ENDA and junking the hate crimes bill. Some clueless wonders say that Clinton was doing us a favor with DOMA, and with his boastful ads supporting it and asking for bigot votes. Those people are just hacks for the Democrats: they've imbibed too far much from the cup of self-loathing.

In an election politicians will make any number of promises, which people can believe at their hazard.

O - They call themselves pro-union but they support NAFTA and tax breaks for the rich. They, not the Republicans, cut welfare and unemployment benefits to the bone.

O - They pretend to be for civil liberties but they support uncontrolled wire taps on phones and the internet. They all, including Obama and McCain, voted to extend the anti-constitutional Paytriot act in 2006.

O - They said they'd end the war but instead they voted to fund it every time Bush asked for dollars for Halliburton. Now they and the Republicans have sunk to backing 'phased withdrawal', the same lying excuse used by LBJ and Nixon to continue the genocide in Vietnam.

On all the major questions that face the GLBT communities, working people and our other allies the Democrats are on the wrong side. They're for NAFTA, for war, and for appeasing bigots. In most elections most people just give it a pass, and they'll probably be the biggest voting bloc this time around. They're sick to death of having to choose the lesser of right wing lesser backstabbers.

They refuse to buy into that absurd 'choice' becasue it always leads down the same road to war, bigotry and attacks on our standard of living. So should we. However you do it, vote against McCain and Obama.

A politician is an ass that everyone has sat upon except a man.

- e.e. cummings

Apparently, a democracy is a place where numerous elections are held at great cost without issues and with interchangeable candidates.

- Gore Vidal

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 @ Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 20:09:49 PM CDT

Name One Democrat

Name one Democrat who became more pro-GLB after election than he was before.

I can name one or two Republicans, but the difference was miniscule, and none of any consequence. GWB for example has been just slightly moderate compared with his gay-bashing electioneering rhetoric. It requires a microscope to see the difference though, and it's been mainly in his discussions overseas, off the US Fundie's Radar Screens.

I can think of many Democrats who became less GLBT friendly, but none more so.

Obama may be different: but my bet is that once he has the nomination, he'll need to shore up his Religious Black base. I mean, what are GLBs going to do, vote Republican? Or refuse to vote at all and let McCain win?

There is no situation so complex it can't get even worse

---

by: ZoeB @ Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 09:39:13 AM CDT