Obama featured in deceptive Yes on 8 ad

Well, it has come out in the open, will it hit

 the MSM and Fox News is the question.  Will Obama between now and Nov. 4th have his feet put to the fire?  And if he does, what kind of dance will he do?

 Box Turtle Bulletinhas a post up with a new poll, 49% N0 to 43% yes.  Obama's yes or no on this vocally could tip the scale.  Now if he says he is for No on 8, it will spread fast across the wires and hit the scene.  Now Barack Obama has said he is personally against Same-Sex-Marriage.  But he has also said he is not going to let his faith go into making policy.  I know a few posts back during the VP Debate I saw how they would thread the needle on this issue and could come out smelling like a Rose.

 So Like I said, It all depends on how fast this spreads and if it will rewuire Sen. Obama to say how he feels.  I am sure they feel this could be a tough one for the Obama team to answer.  If you watch the Rachel Maddow interview you might see and hear things.  Unfortunately he has to dance around this issue because if he could come straight out as say,'I am against adding amendments that will eleminate a citizens rights now in exsistance.

If I make sense? it was quite by accident.

---

by: HappyCat @ Sat Nov 01, 2008 at 06:04:30 AM CDT

he has said the ticket opposes Prop 8

And he did that prior to, and after this mailer. You might have missed the statement:

"Senator Obama has already announced that the Obama-Biden ticket opposes Proposition 8 and similar discriminatory constitutional amendments that could roll back the civil rights he and Senator Biden strongly believe should be afforded to all Americans."

This election hasn't focused much on these issues in comparison to the economy. I doubt as a story it will get that much traction -- the ballot measures have had precious little play.

The squirm is the fact that they agree with extending all the rights of marriage to gay couples -- via DOMA repeal, and opposition to all marriage amendments. The problem is they cannot do anything about existing amendments on the books. Those states either have to repeal them at the ballot box, or deal with a fed constitutional lawsuit in SCOTUS to decide the matter of full faith and credit clause. The control Obama would have over that is nominating pro-equality justices to SCOTUS.

---

by: Pam Spaulding @ Sat Nov 01, 2008 at 06:12:14 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Would just repealing DOMA force the federal government

to recognize same-sex marriages? Or would Congress have to pass a law recognizing same-sex marriages/civil unions on the federal level, especially for tax purposes?

Seems to me that passing a law of federal recognition would be a great first step in undermining state-level bigotry, although I understand getting it through the Senate would be nothing short of a miracle...I'm in OK, so my senators are of no help and would greatly hinder the process. I'm not sure if Andrew Rice would vote for equality or capitulate to the bigoted masses here, but keeping my fingers crossed that Inhofe the Hater gets booted...it's a tight race (IMHO, tighter than what the polls say).

OT-saw WAY TOO MANY Sarah Palins out last night...but then I'm in a college town with sororities full of beauty queen wannabes (and a few frat boys as well).

---

by: AggieCowboy @ Sat Nov 01, 2008 at 09:14:53 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

federal CU legislation for gays?

That's really ridiculous, Aggie, but it is the bait we are supposed to take (and apparently not question) from the candidate.

If 30 states have amended against LGBT citizens then how - or WHY - would any politician support or do the work to create a federal scheme to recognize same sex relationships?

It is foolishness.  It is corrupt.  It is Obama's big fat worm on a hook that is dangled in front of the LGBT community to get us to give him money, support and votes.

And who is taking that bait?

LOTS and lots of people.  

This mailer (that I wrote a dairy on which apparently came after Pam wrote this post) is exactly what we get for giving Obama a pass on his incomprehensible position.

Again we get a statement from his campaign in response.

Yes on 8 uses quotes from statements Obama and Biden made to the general public both from debates.  

No on 8 holds up words he used in a letter written months ago to an LGBT political club based in San Francisco.

Which is a more compelling source to an undecided or changeable audience?

Oh, sure we can blame the scheming Yes on 8 campaign for being devious...but why can't we hold responsible the men that made these statements?

Why are we so willing to sacrifice ourselves for a politician?

---

by: Patrick @ Sat Nov 01, 2008 at 11:33:03 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Exactly, Patrick.

And we need to brace ourselves for a lot more of this kind of waffling from an Obama administration.  Can't you just hear them already?  "Now is not the right time," we'll be told, for all kinds of reasons.  "There are more urgent priorities, but we'll get to you gay folks real soon, now," as if they weren't able to consider two things at once.  "The base won't support it."  "Not if you try and include transgendered people.  They're not really gay."   And on and on--all the same stuff we've been hearing since the Clinton years.  

Even if the Dems really do get 60 in the Senate--which would make passing pro-gay legislation a breeze--this is what's in store for us.

And we're not the only ones who will get the shaft.  Obama has been masterful at playing both sides of every issue.  He keeps reminding us of his early opposition to the war, which leads the unthinking in his base to consider him an anti-war candidate.  Then he talks about expanding the war into Afghanistan and Pakistan, just so his corporate masters don't think he might do anything to cut into their profits.  He talks about serious health care reform, then proposes a plan designed to further enrich the insurance companies.  (They will make even more money off people with terminal illnesses under his plan than they do now.)  And on and on.

Under the guise of "change you can believe in," he hasn't come up with anything substantial beyond the same old Democratic Party line.  And that isn't good for us.

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 @ Sat Nov 01, 2008 at 15:09:43 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I really felt that his God/Marriage

statements would come back and haunt us and they have. Yes, the ticket is against Prop 8 but Obama does not think that there should be same sex marriage because of his understanding of a God that I personally do not worship.

Yup, still supporting him, but as I said before, only after a couple of stiff Jemmies......

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 @ Sat Nov 01, 2008 at 10:39:16 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I agree....

What part of IBMIBAMAAW don't you understand.  
The Antis have every right to use this, it isn't deceiving at all.   Sure Obama is against Prop 8 (or I think he is, when was that letter written and how widely distributed?) but he has also said over and over that the God mix make marriage hetero.

---

by: Karen in Kalifornia @ Sat Nov 01, 2008 at 10:54:22 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

In his book

Obama talks about how strong his faith is, and how he consults with God, er, I mean, prays over every decision he makes.  Sound familiar?  We've had a president with that mindset (if that's the word) for eight years now, with disastrous results.  Do we really need another one who consults an imaginary sky god on matters of policy?

Since we know the ministers he hangs out with are anti-gay, is it really hard to guess what "god" will tell him?

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 @ Sat Nov 01, 2008 at 15:15:18 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I know that Obama/Biden are against it,

  My comment was related to if this gets traction in the MSM, which I doubt.  I have been one waiting to see Same-Sex Marriage brought to the national spot lite and honestly debated.  And when I say honest, I mean not haveing some skunk from HRC to tap dance.

 I completely agree with others that the LGBT community is just a Democratic Candidate Token Vote, and that sucks Big time.  This is the reason I was so glad to see Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel be so open about Same-Sex Marriage. You should be able to Marry the Person you Love.

 I believe it is a winning issue.  The opposition have no facts to their doom and gloom and the sky is going to fall.  Problem is we have a bunch in the Democratic Party that have expressed their personal feelings related to faith.

 My hope is that if Obama wins, and has a senate with 57 to 60 majority, that soon, and I mean early, we have an inclusive ENDA passed, Hate Crimes passed, DADT tossed and DOMA overturned.  As well as a few SCOTUS justices replaced.

 It will be up to us to get the ear of our congress critters to act on our issues.  And I know I will be writing, visiting and calling them.

If I make sense? it was quite by accident.

---

by: HappyCat @ Sat Nov 01, 2008 at 16:02:26 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Finally

Its about time somebody picked up on that "God's in the mix" statement. He also said it on 60 Minutes, and nobody picked up on it. Let's be real, Obama put himself in this position. His ambiguity on the issue is all too convenient, even if he says his faith prohibits an all-out endorsement of gay marriage. Is this like one of his "present" votes? I guess it's objective of him neither condemn or advocate for it as a civil right since he's biased. The New York Times has a new article about the matter, and an Obama staffer weighs in:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11...
"Barack is an intellectual guy, and I know he has been thinking through his position on gay marriage, and what is fair for all people," said Michael Bauer, an openly gay fund-raiser for Mr. Obama and an adviser to his campaign on gay issues. "But he is just not there with us on this issue."

Some gay allies of Mr. Obama thought, during a televised Democratic forum in Los Angeles in August 2007, that he might come out in favor of same-sex marriage, after he was asked if his position supporting civil unions but not same-sex marriage was tantamount to "separate but equal."

"Look, when my parents got married in 1961, it would have been illegal for them to be married in a number of states in the South," Mr. Obama said. "So, obviously, this is something that I understand intimately. It's something that I care about."

I don't know what to believe! I'm still trying to get my head around the part of his 30-minute infomercial about no taxes for incomes under $200K. $200K was literally on the screen when the figure came out of his mouth, and then in his next stump speech, it was back to $250K. I guess he's the best choice overall, but these contradictory positions and changing numbers concern me.

---

by: Decaf @ Sat Nov 01, 2008 at 10:41:11 AM CDT

Well, he asked for it

I was never happy with his statement about our marriage rights.  I emailed him twice, wrote 2 snail mail letters challenging his views, and never heard back.  Yes, it is reprehensible that the Yes campaign is using his image after he (sort of lamely) spoke out against it, but if he hadn't pandered in the first place, they could never have gotten away with it.

Yeah, I'm still voting for him because the alternative is a nightmare, but he's going to be hearing a lot from me after election day.

---

by: Morry @ Sat Nov 01, 2008 at 10:46:15 AM CDT

Instead of defending Obama's bigotry

or trying to explain that he doesn't really mean it because he has a minor tactical difference with McCain on how to force us by law to become second class citizens.

No On 8 should issue an ultimatum to both bigots running for president. Support federal legislation to guarantee the right to same sex marriage, denounce state DOMAs or NO on 8 will become NO on 8/Obama/McCain.

But what's the chance of a bunch of Democrats having the courage to do that?

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 @ Sat Nov 01, 2008 at 12:43:30 PM CDT

Civil Rights/Obama

Obama and everyone else needs to see the seperation of religion and civil rights.....This is a civil rights proposition, if passed, takes away guaranteed rights of American citizens....I saw a video last night from Rev.Deborah Johnson(youtube) on Prop 8 which clearly explains this point..So called "religionists" have merged religious views with civil rights views to make 2nd class American citizens...The Constitution clearly says, and Supreme Court agreed. that the right to marry has always been....Remember the case of the interracial couple in 1948???Religionists are attempting to undermine civil rights for all....Even the politicians have it all muddied.....Your religious belief is your personal belief;The Constitution stands for all American Citizens...regardless of race,religion, sexual orientation, religious or non-religious,etc.....Civil rights is just that....the hate-promoters need to go back to their churches,clean uup their own lives,and leave us alone.....Obama needs to do a study of the Bible and see no where does it condemn anyone because of sexual orientation!!!Regardless of all that....I will repeat....The Constitution already and has always given people the right,whether it is male couples, female couples, or hetro couples to marry......

---

by: vfrsmile @ Sat Nov 01, 2008 at 12:46:04 PM CDT

I don't believe Obama needs to do a study of the bible

to figure out that NO on 8/repeal the DOMA is the way to go.
Nor does he need to do a study of the Koran or any other so-called "holy book."
NONE of those screeds are US law, despite what their believers might think. Or hope. Or try to make the law of this land.

O needs to get back to the Constitution and re-read the 1st and 14th Amendments and maybe review the majority opinion in Loving v. Virginia (only decided in 1967, folks) and remind himself that his own parents, married pre-Loving, could not have had THEIR marriage recognied in many US states...

Then get off his a55, tell Donnie McClurkin to go blow himself, apologize to his LGBT supporters and stand up for what is right.
Hell YES I'm mad.  

---

by: Miranda Writes @ Sat Nov 01, 2008 at 13:09:01 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Obama is such a coward!

How can he allow the Yes campaign to use him like this?

Is he that afraid that he doesn't have the support of voters?

Has he no faith in his own ability to speak about Constitutional rights - even though he is a former constitutional law professor?  even though African American's are the beneficiaries of the principles of equal protections?  even though he knows that it took America 100 years to actually enforce the promise of the 14th amendment?

His own wife admitted that she is only recently finding herself proud to be an American.

She knows that it is important for America to live up to it's ideals.

Doesn't Barack know this too, or is he too scared to defend a minority group that is under attack - even when the attackers are using his image and his words to win?  

And we are supposed to believe that he opposes Prop 8??

HE can't even say it himself.

Disgusting.

---

by: Patrick @ Sat Nov 01, 2008 at 13:38:49 PM CDT

But Patrick,

we got a non-linked "obama opposes prop 8" whispering web page - we should be grateful.  we don't need civil rights.  wipe taht silly notion from your mind and cast that obedient vote for your new butfukker in chief.

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners.

Lurleen on Twitter.

---

by: Lurleen @ Sat Nov 01, 2008 at 13:49:00 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Come On Everyone

Obama and Biden have addressed gay issues more than any presidential candidates ever, and they are apparently winning the election.  The Repugs know that if they can get Obama and Biden to declare they are gay marriage supporters, they could see the election turn to McCain.  This is classic Rovian use the gays to hurt in the election tactics.  

Obama and Biden have stated the need for equality but have been ambigous in the gay marriage issue, but so what?  It has left them ahead.  Obama has clearly stated Prop. 8 is wrong.  Also, I don't care his personal opinion.  I am fine with people thinking gay marriage is not right and opposed to their beliefs in God, but I have a problem when they want that in policy.  Obama has not been taking any belief to policy levels, and he has opposed Prop 8 rightly.

Now, please get off your single issue voting records.  I would rather Prop. 8 passes than Obama lose.  Why?  He is going to appoint judges to the Supreme Court, and they are the ones determining California and other state issues in the future.  But again, why do we have to agree 100% with a candidate?  Why not support the best candidate for our country?

---

by: Johnnywhynot @ Sat Nov 01, 2008 at 13:52:39 PM CDT

you're right of course.

we don't need any civil rights.  what we need is a president who says that's what he's all about, but shits on them for personal gain.  you're right.  thanks for clearing that up.

i just got an obama fund raising email.  don't know whether to laugh or cry.

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners.

Lurleen on Twitter.

---

by: Lurleen @ Sat Nov 01, 2008 at 14:11:24 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Single issue voting records?!?

Where the devil have you been?  What condescending rubbish.  Even a casual reader of this blog must know that virtually all of us have a wide range of concerns, and that we are quite passionate about them.  Obama's position on gay marriage happens to be the specific issue under discussion here.  Buy a clue.

Pointing out that McCain is even more horrible on this issue than Obama doesn't change the fact that Obama is horrible too, and that he's been talking out of both sides of his mouth in a transparent attempt to persuade people on both sides of the issue that he's with them.  And a lot of people, like you, have fallen for it.  It's very generous that you don't mind being thrown under the proverbial bus to further Obama's ambitions, but the rest of us do mind.  Get it?

As for your final comment, I agree wholeheartedly. That's why I will be voting for either McCain nor Obama.

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 @ Sat Nov 01, 2008 at 15:34:54 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Oops!

Sorry, Lurleen.  That post was meant as a reply to johnnywhynot, not you.

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 @ Sat Nov 01, 2008 at 15:35:58 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

colored drinking fountains

Why should we continue to allow everyone to use the same drinking fountain, Johnnywhynot?  Oh, sure, marriage blah blah blah...let's just pretend that it isn't important for us to have full citizenship that isn't taken away by a bigoted majority.

Who wants Obama to be sullied by our filthy predicament?  Why throw the baby out with the bathwater, right?

I'm sure everything will turn out just fine if we commit hari kari for Obama.  He will get elected and then really make all the magic happen for us.

He will only nominate SC justices that understand equal protections - just like Dianne Feinstein did with her approval of Leslie Southwick for federal court.

He will allow gays to serve in the military - just like Bill Clinton did when he helped create DADT.

Obama won't do anything like sign legislation that will allow the federal government to obstruct the full faith and credit rights and due process of LGBT Americans - like Bill Clinton did when he signed DOMA.

I'm sure Obama won't allow important legislation to be watered down, made ineffective and robbed of it's integrity in order to create the appearance of support - like Barney Frank and Nancy Pelosi did with ENDA.

Where have you been Johnnywhynot?

Why are you such a sucker?

Does evidence of pattern of unreliable behavior mean anything to LGBT people like you?  Are you too afraid to risk fighting for yourself?

We will never make any progress by giving cowards like Obama a pass.  This is disgusting.

---

by: Patrick @ Sat Nov 01, 2008 at 14:12:40 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Keep things in perspective...

I know a good number of you are frustrated. We have been forcefully advocating for marriage equality, and we've known all along the way that no Dem making the finish line was going to support it.

Both Biden and Obama have made public declarations opposing Prop 8, more than once.

I still can't figure out what would satisfy people, given that 1) he can't personally do anything to address current state amendments; 2) he alone cannot pass legislation to extend any rights to us, and 3) even if we have a supermajority in Congress that he could pass all of the pro-gay legislation.

What do people want - a commercial with Obama facing the camera saying No on 8? If so, then he better make ones for the AZ and FL amendments as well. What about an ad opposing the anti-gay adoption law in Arkansas? That's important to LGBTs as well. You get the drift. These last days need to be boots on the ground efforts to defeat these amendments, and to get Obama and good Dems elected, rather than devoting energy to the imperfections that have been with us all along the way in 2008.

We know that we would have zero advocates if McCain/Palin get into the White House. We will have the ability to lobby and hold an Obama administration (and quite frankly, more importantly Congress, which is still infested with anti-gay Blue Dog Dems).

LGBT rights is not going to be at the top of his agenda -- I'm realistic. Bush has f*cked up so much in this country that it will take a superhuman effort to get things back on track. We have to make our voices know that we need to be on that agenda ASAP. Remember, all of the progressive advocacy organizations are going to be fighting each other to get at the head of the line for consideration.

It seems the better part of wisdom to have our acts together (see: ENDA) rather than taking shots at something we never had - a pro-marriage equality candidate. But we do have a candidate who will not make things worse for us -- and he will appoint justices likely to grant us the rights that he and Congress cannot address.

---

by: Pam Spaulding @ Sat Nov 01, 2008 at 15:42:21 PM CDT

Yes, I want a direct statement from him

repudiating the use of his words and image to pass a discriminatory constitutional amendment.  Is that so much to ask from a man who trumpets his civil rights and constitutional law bona fides?  His campaign manages to respond to all other distortions, seemingly within minutes.  If he lets this one go unaddressed, he's proven that he's just another Bill Clinton. And I don't need to remind you that Bill Clinton actually did more damage to our rights than Bush has.  What it all comes down to is, is Obama expecting us to be suckers, or is he made of better stuff than that?  I'm waiting for his response.

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners.

Lurleen on Twitter.

---

by: Lurleen @ Sat Nov 01, 2008 at 16:01:13 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Thank you, Pam

Do I wish Obama would come out unequivocally in favor of full marriage equality? Sure. But it's more important to me that he get elected instead of Old Man Yells At Cloud/Caribou Barbie than whether or not he maintains perfect progressive ideological purity.

None of the Democrats who were serious contenders came out in support of full marriage equality. Al Gore did--after 2000, when it was clear he wasn't going to run again.

I'm encouraged by the fact that Obama has shown a willingness to listen to people even when he doesn't agree with them. I'm more encouraged by the fact that from day one, he's been in favor of repealing DOMA.

Any money or time I have in these last couple of days is going to No on 8--Obama doesn't need it. But I also think that this tactic shows how desperate the Yes side is, because the people who were going to vote on that constitutional obscenity aren't going to care whether Obama supports it or not. Their real goal is to deepen the wedge between the white LGBT community and the black community, and to hang on to the frame of civil rights as a zero-sum game. Unfortunately, it seems to be working.

---

by: Darkrose @ Sat Nov 01, 2008 at 17:02:58 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

it works because he is too afraid to fight

I have said this 40 times and I will say it one more time....

Obama doesn't have to believe in (or like or engage in or support or attend any) same sex marriage.  

He doesn't have to come out in full support of marriage equality.

He also doesn't have to have an abortion.  Neither does his wife or either of his daughters.  Yet I do want him to be an advocate for choice.

He should be an advocate for choice because of what it means to women to make decisions for themselves - even though it is controversial and it might actually cost him some votes.

He does have to come out in full support of the equal protections of LGBT Americans.

I don't give a shit what he thinks about marriage.  But if he is going to support traditional marriage - and consequently traditional divorce - then he also has to support my claim to be considered a full citizen under the Constitution.

Just like CA Supreme Court does...maybe that decision needs to be re-read.  They don't talk about unequivocal support for marriage equality - they talk about the extension of equal protections to all citizens as is guaranteed in the constitution, and that marriage is an example of that principle that must be upheld.

Stop regurgitating misleading soundbites and start standing up for yourself.

---

by: Patrick @ Sat Nov 01, 2008 at 17:24:46 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

A commercial? At least.

I want change.  

I want the change that he has been promising for 18 months.  

I want a politician - particularly one named Obama - to actually follow through on his supposed position of opposition to Prop 8 (where are those numerous public declarations and why are they not as easy to find as the statements the Yes campaign found?).

I want Obama to restate his position again. Using his own mouth.  Standing at a microphone.  In front of an audience at least as large as he had at the debate where he said "God is in the mix" and where he declared his belief in one man/one woman marriage, I want him to announce his moral indignation to a constitutional amendment that would restrict the citizenship of a minority group.

I also want - and maybe this is something that Obama can't deliver - a community that isn't afraid to demand justice from the party and the candidate that is making the promise of change.  You can defend and spin and deflect all you want Pam (and Aravosis and Savage and all the others), but what you are doing is enabling Obama to be ineffective and to disregard our dilemma.

YOU are letting him off the hook.  

I want a community that believes in its own rights and isn't going to allow a politician - no matter how promising he might be - to get away with sacrificing our rights.

Not demanding he take action now in light of the ad campaign is shameful.  This is disgusting.  I am disgusted at our willingness to allow Obama to skate right over our wounds like he has no part to play in the attacks against us in CA, FL, AZ and Arkansas.  

You want perspective?  Stop giving away your power.  You might gain some perspective when you take a step back from Obama.

---

by: Patrick @ Sat Nov 01, 2008 at 17:12:01 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

giving away our power

There's no need to step back from Obama, because he is the only way we're going to get out of this nightmare of Republican rule in the White House and no supermajority in Congress.

I have not swallowed the Obama Kool-Aid. I need him to be elected so we can move our agenda for civil rights forward. It will not happen if McCain is elected.

Almost everyone of our issues on the table have significant support in the polls among average Americans -- save marriage. I have yet to see evidence of many instances when contemporary Dems have stuck their necks out on any issues without the polling wind behind their backs. You may not like it (I certainly don't), but that's the reality.

We cannot effect any change through McCain.

You can defend and spin and deflect all you want Pam (and Aravosis and Savage and all the others), but what you are doing is enabling Obama to be ineffective and to disregard our dilemma.

I can't take this criticism seriously, Patrick. I am not enabling Obama -- yes a statement on TV would be ideal to counter the mailer. What risk does that run? Who knows. This is not akin to throwing No on 8 under the bus; he knows as well as the LGBT community knows that marriage equality will be decided by SCOTUS. Our most powerful conduit to equality is through sane appointments to the Supreme Court.

As I said above, I have more faith in Obama's desire to move the ball forward than I have a Democratic Congress, which is full of pols gun shy over just about everything -- and just wait, there will be all sorts of excuses why they can't or won't be able to anything any time soon. However, that places us in the position to lobby for change.

I hope I'm wrong about the timidity of the next Congress, but let's get the White House and the Congress to give it a try.

A lot of our own community (see Rosie, the fashion industry, other gay celebs) seems to be MIA on Prop 8 for whatever reason. Obama's response is inadequate, but it is not surprising, thus my criticism of the response not showing up on the Obama web site. It reminded me of all the LGBT-related events Hillary Clinton had that never seemed to make their way onto her web site. Obama has visibility of the community on his site and has all season long.

The focus should sharply trained on John McCain and Sarah Palin -- they must not be elected.

---

by: Pam Spaulding @ Sat Nov 01, 2008 at 23:23:59 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Pam Wins

We cannot effect any change through McCain.

Very true.  I can't argue with that.

The focus should [be] sharply trained on John McCain and Sarah Palin -- they must not be elected.

Again, no truer words have ever been spoken.

So I will vote for Obama, but like I said, he's going to get an earful from me after election day.

But Pam, you are level-headed and pragmatic, and a very wise woman.  Thanks for keeping us all sane.

M

---

by: Morry @ Sun Nov 02, 2008 at 00:06:49 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

It is not a matter of Pam winning,

  It just totally sucks being a political football.  And this season no one picked up the LGBT football.  When it comes to LGBT issues, I am very emotional when anyone in the LGBT community gets dumped, thrown under the bus or how ever you want to phrase it.

 The truth is that we all knew that neither Sen. Clinton or Sen. Obama supported Same-Sex Marriage from the get go. They both filled out the question sheet provided by HRC.

 When I heard Sen. Obama say the words, it hurt me, as well as many other people I know.  I doubt Sen. Obama will address this, but I did write to his campaign.  I wish he would.  

 Bill Clinton has stated his support for voting NO on Hate 8 and I hope this helps defeat the damn thing.

 But lets get Sen. Obama elected and send a few more Democratic Senators and Representatives to DC. With a 57-60 majority in the Seante there should be no reason why an inclusive ENDA, Hate Crimes, Removing DOMA, the Families Act and repeal of DADT in the first 100 days.

 Arguement for ENDA, Every American Needs to be able to have a job, and now with the economy in the crapper LGBT folks don't need the extra hurdle of discrimination to jump over to get a job.

 Arguement for Hate Crimes,  As we all witnessed this election season, racism isn't dead but very much alive.  Obama in his own words said with the passage of laws to protect people of color from the terrorism that affected them.  We in the LGBT community need those same protections as we feel and face the same threats that where observed during McSame/Bible Spice rallies.

 DOMA, It was one of Sen. Obama's campaign promises.  Sen. Clinton also stated she was for removing part of DOMA. Time to put the screws to her and get her to start writing some repeal DOMA legislation.

 DADT, Run it through, the US Military needs service members who are educated and aren't criminals.  Allow those that have been discharged because of DADT to return to service, change their DD214s from RE-4 to RE-1, and than have their discharges changed to Honorable Discharge if the individual so desires. LGBT people are not criminals, and these changes would help those who served our country.

 Family fairness Act (I think this is what it is called, please correct me if I am wrong) This would allow those who have a spouse in another country to enter the US.  Why do this, because it is the right thing to do.

 What we need to do as a community is find the right lobby group to represent us.  We also personally need to write our Senators and Representatives starting November 5, 2008.  We can Push them to do this, as they have said they will act. We need to make them act.  We all got together when the ENDA split hit the fan. We made a lot of noise and most stayed united, we need to stay united to be heard.

If I make sense? it was quite by accident.

---

by: HappyCat @ Sun Nov 02, 2008 at 01:03:39 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Correct me if I'm wrong (about Patrick being in CA)

Why do people jump to the illogical conclusion that when one of us complains about the spinelessness of national Demomocrats, that the complainer will be voting for the Republican instead.  That is insane.  
Now, I believe Patrick votes in California. He said below he is voting Peace and Freedom Party.  I will be voting Green.  I can do that because I live in a Obama safe zone.  Now if I were voting in North Carolina, I wouldn't allow myself to vote Green.  I have this other option living here in CA.
My state Democratic representatives support equality.  My US representative is for equality...of course I'll be voting for them, they've earned it.

---

by: Karen in Kalifornia @ Sun Nov 02, 2008 at 00:17:37 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

That's it exactly, Karen

I'm in California - San Francisco specifically.

We have over 20 local (city) initiatives on the ballot.
There are over 10 state proposals.
I also need to choose between Pelosi and Cindy Sheehan.
I have to vote for my city council rep.
There is a community college board election.

All together, the ballot is five pages long - some are double sided pages.

I am a registered Democrat, but haven't voted for one (except for Mark Leno...or did I vote for Carol Midgen? I don't remember) in a long time.

My city council rep is a Green Party member, Ross Mirkarimi.  Prior to him, my rep was Matt Gonzalez, Nader's VP candidate this year.  I used to run into Matt all time time in my neighborhood - and on the bus going to/from work.  I can't wait to vote for him and Nader on Tuesday.  I don't have a moment of hesitation about it.  I'm also voting for Cindy Sheehan instead of the well oiled, Democratic robot, Pelosi.  

As one of 17 million voters in CA (where Obama has a 20% lead), I guess I do have more liberty to vote my conscience - not play the game of strategy and compromise that most of the country has to participate in.  

It would be very difficult for me to have to vote for a candidate that would not respond to the way the Yes campaign used his words.  

He responded to the accusations regarding Rev Wright.
He responded to the William Ayers smear.
He responded to the dander raised over his FISA vote.
He responded to the story about his aunts immigration status.
He responded to the cover of the New Yorker.

I am not voting for him.

---

by: Patrick @ Sun Nov 02, 2008 at 10:56:00 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Respectfully disagree

Almost everyone of our issues on the table have significant support in the polls among average Americans

Then why did the Democrats in Congress not pass an inclusive ENDA?  Why do we still--ten years after the Shepard killing--not have a federal hate crimes law?  (Yes, Bush would have vetoed them, but that doesn't give the Democrats a pass for not even trying--and forcing him to go on the record.)  Why did Nancy Pelosi tell a Boston paper, one day after the 2006 election, that gay issues were off the table?  And most pointedly of all, what possible reason do you have to think they'll act any differently with Obama in the White House?

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 @ Sun Nov 02, 2008 at 09:42:43 AM CST

[ Parent ]

clear reasons for why ENDA got nowhere

ENDA shouldn't have moved forward without support, hate crimes did pass in the House. The Dems have not had a veto proof majority and the Senate is where hate crimes got stuck. Poll after poll does show support for passage of this legislation, but it is a big problem of Pelosi and Reid thinking a (D) behind a name is more important than electing real Democrats. Rep. Heath Shuler (NC) is one of these Blue Dogs, an anti-gay DINO.

---

by: Pam Spaulding @ Sun Nov 02, 2008 at 12:15:33 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Exactly

ENDA shouldn't have moved forward without support

I agree with this completely, as far as it goes.  The obvious question is, WHY was there no support for it in a Democratic-controlled, supposedly LGBT-friendly Congress?  It wasn't the Republicans that killed it, after all.  And excuse me if I'm repeating myself, here, but what possible reason could we have for thinking the Democrats will behave differently next time?  I see none at all.  

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 @ Sun Nov 02, 2008 at 15:41:41 PM CST

[ Parent ]

See--This Is the Problem

I state that we need to look at the large picture.  I state that the election is bigger than all of this. I am not stating we need to stop fighting for our civil rights, but I don't think anyone will ever be completely happy with Obama's stance.  He could come out and say gay marriage for all, and people here will say it is not enough.

This is the most important civil rights issue of our time, and we need a president we can work with.  McCain is not that guy.  I do not need Obama working on this issue because that could cost him the election.

One of the problems with liberal politics is that every group thinks their issue is the key issue, and politicians lose if they focus largely on a single issue.  It has happened over and over again, but democrats continue to let it happen.

I had a friend who was an environmentalist who was extreme and single minded in her approach.  She would constantly work for losing causes because she said it was right, and maybe it was, but she and the other people she associated with could not because of single mindedness ever get anything done.

To the person who said he or she will not vote for McCain or Obama, that is foolish and shows the problems of not looking at the whole picture.  Nothing gets done (like the guy who told me he hates what is happening here so he does not vote).

Now, I have given my heart to everyone on this issue--I have given money to the no campaign.  I have written articles exposing myself to everyone in the area.  I have put up posters with personal testimony about how my relationship will be hurt by 8.  On Monday, on the campus I teach at, I will tell everyone why they should vote no.  Do not paint me as someone who does not care or voting for someone to throw me under the bus.  Obama has never done that.  And, I even received a mailer with Obama personally saying don't vote on 8.  I appreciate that, but I want Obama to win desperately, and that is more important at this time.

---

by: Johnnywhynot @ Sat Nov 01, 2008 at 18:04:57 PM CDT

It ain't easy, Johnnywhynot

I can't imagine voting for someone that says "...for me as as a Christian, it's also a sacred union.  God's in the mix" like my marriage is godless or somehow less than his.

I feel sorry for you.

I can't do it and I won't.  

And I really don't think that Obama would vote for me if I was running for office and was afraid to be caught on camera saying that I think he should be allowed to sit anywhere on the bus that he chooses.  

---

by: Patrick @ Sat Nov 01, 2008 at 18:48:27 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Well then

You are line with the Republicans.  Republicans in recent years think that belief is a litmus test for office.  The candidates statement of faith is the most important aspect of a vote.

Democrats generally believe faith is private and not of issue in government.  Anyone can believe what he or she believes, and as long as he or she does not try to make it into policy, it is fine.  I do not care about a person's personal belief.  I do not care if that person does not want to talk to me because I am gay.  I do not care if that person thinks I am going to hell.  I care that belief does not equal policy.

You are free to vote as you like, but that position is a Republican position.  It is also discriminatory to say that a person cannot think or believe differently than you.  I imagine you can't vote then because most Americans would share a totally different belief system than you.  Well, I wish you the best then--I personally like diversity of thought and beliefs.

---

by: Johnnywhynot @ Sat Nov 01, 2008 at 19:08:27 PM CDT

close but no cigar

I see that it is easier for most Democrats to view the world - and politics - as a binary.  Either this or that.  You are either with us or you are agin (sic) us.  

I am voting Nader/Gonzalez on Tuesday and I can't wait.  

Democrats can't stand the thought of that kind of diversity.  

I'm sure you will pull through though.  The kind of fortitude that is required to put your own self interests aside and vote the way you are told to vote requires a great deal of denial and...what's that word - hope?.  It reminds me of the same kind of fortitude exhibited by Log Cabin Republicans.

I know that gay Democrats love to rag on the Log Cabinettes because of the illogic of their stand.  

Frankly, gay Democrats are no different.  Unable to stand up for their own citizenship...willing to allow a candidate to blow smoke of hope and change up their skirt while telling the rest of the world the opposite story.

I give up.  The denial is deep.  Good luck!

---

by: Patrick @ Sat Nov 01, 2008 at 19:18:51 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Um...

Democrats generally believe faith is private and not of issue in government.  Anyone can believe what he or she believes, and as long as he or she does not try to make it into policy, it is fine.

That is exactly what Obama is advocating, as he wears his "faith" on his sleeve.  His personal superstitions, er, religious beliefs say that gay marriage is wrong, therefore he opposes it.  Period.  End of discussion.  No support for full gay equality from our next president.  Jesus says no.

At any point in this discussion, has Obama said one word about the Constitution?  About equal treatment under law for all citizens?  Nope.  Nothing.  Every time he opens his mouth on this issue, what we get is more God-talk.  Call me naive (and I'm sure you will), but I'd like my rights to be based on the Constitution, not on the president's imaginary friend.  To be meaningful, they should be grounded in the Law of the Land, not in the gift of some dippy Bronze Age cult.

But then, as his support for domestic spying and cash giveaways to churches, er, I mean faith-based initiatives shows clearly, Obama's regard for the Constitution is fairly problematic.

One last comment:  I am so tired of this nonsense about how if I don't vote Democratic, I'm actually voting Republican, regardless of the ballot I cast.  The whole idea of voting, as I understand it, is to identify the candidate whose positions most clearly echo my own, then cast my vote for him/her.  It's as uncomplicated as that.  If more people would do that, instead of letting themselves be flimflammed by Democratic/Republican talking points of the kind we've seen here, then we really would see change we can believe in.

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 @ Sat Nov 01, 2008 at 20:17:35 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Oh Yeah

This also makes you a single issue voter.  If this one issue is going to make you vote for another candidate, you cannot deny the single issue fanaticism.

---

by: Johnnywhynot @ Sat Nov 01, 2008 at 19:13:59 PM CDT

so anyone disagreeing with you

is a fanatic?  i see.  have you checked yourself got gop cooties lately?

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners.

Lurleen on Twitter.

---

by: Lurleen @ Sat Nov 01, 2008 at 19:20:46 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The fanaticism is all mine

I own it.  

I really think my citizenship and my rights and my marriage are important enough to demand advocacy from the candidate that wants to be my leader.

I won't forsake my liberty for candidate from a party full of broken promises and a horrible track record that is too cowardly to take a principled stand in support of equal protections.

---

by: Patrick @ Sat Nov 01, 2008 at 19:21:02 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

shame on you!

Shame on you, Patrick, for thinking the Constitution is an important enough issue to base a presidential decision on!  You petty man!

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners.

Lurleen on Twitter.

---

by: Lurleen @ Sat Nov 01, 2008 at 19:32:46 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

To paraphrase Barry Goldwater,

fanaticism for the Constitution is no vice.  I'll proudly own up to it.

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 @ Sat Nov 01, 2008 at 20:25:59 PM CDT

[ Parent ]