Letters to the Editor
-
Dodge? Not the way I read it
"Obama could do little but dodge."
I'm no Obama cheerleader, but I don't read the quote Alex provided as a dodge at all. It seems to me that Obama is stating (correctly in my opinion) that there's no way gay marriage is going to happen in many places anytime soon, so let's focus instead on the specific benefits of marriage. It seems pragmatic, not dodgy.
-
No, he's not
You wrote Obama had McClurkin "tour" with him as one of a group of gospel singers. On that "tour," McClurkin spoke for an hour to a South Carolina audience just before the SC primary--and his speech was full of anti-gay rhetoric.
Obama also refused to pose with Mayor Gavin Newsom of SF for pictures (Sen. Clinton did so) in advance of the CA primary because Mayor Newsom is, of course, for gay marriage.
Last week, he said, in a rally, that we ought to be talking about "more important" issues, like Iraq, and "not gay marriage."
-
depressing
It's a depressing truth that Obama has to tip-toe around this issue probably more than any other...especially when one considers the virulent homophobia within the black community.
It depresses the hell out of me, but I understand it.
(I also think he's alot more progressive on this issue than he lets on, but that's just a hunch)
-
Standing Up
So Alex, is standing up for the gay community only centered around one issue - the only one you mentioned - gay marriage? In a country that still sees discrimination in employment and housing, why is the only struggle we supposedly face as a community, the subject of marriage?
Obama did no metion marriage in speech because I believe he knows there are more important issues that we need to return as our priority.
-
WRONG AGAIN....
I watched the Gay Debate on Logo. Barack Obama was the only candidate who said gays were equal to straights in every way, and thus had to be treated equally under the law. He supports gay civil union/marriage, adoption, employment and housing protection. He notably said, Gays are entitled to all the rights, protections and privileges received by any other American - no exceptions.
Apparently it concerns you that Barack Obama has friends and/or supporters who disagree with him. Imagine, he can actually allow people who do not agree with him to be in his campaign. I agree that while Clinton and Bush want everyone who disagrees with then executed, or at the very least imprisoned. But that's a bad thing, isn't it? Isn't the fact that Obama can stand among people who disagree with him and still strongly express his positions admirable? Isn't it what we would expect from someone who has evolved beyond the reptilian brain?
-
As you say...
"Neither Obama nor Clinton represent a great leap forward on gay rights..."
Certainly, I'm not pleased by the McClurkin fiasco and Obama's less-than-assertive positions on gay rights and inclusion. It's true also that here in Philly, Obama dodged the gay press while Clinton gave an interview and Chelsea held a rally at a local gay bar. OTH, it was Bill Clinton who gave us DODT and DOMA. Despite his rhetoric, when push came to shove he backed down, and I see that same tendency in Hillary.
Obama's not perfect on gay rights, but if I only voted for presidential candidates who take an aggressive, hard-left stance on gay issues, I'd still be waiting to cast my first ballot.
-
Nice try, but...
http://www.americablog.com/2008/04/hillarys-gay-problem.html
I've said it before, I'll say it again, and again and agian.
In the waning days of the 2004 campaign Bill Clinton advised John Kerry to make a series of high profile speeches across the nation condemning same-sex marriage. Kerry thanked him for the advice and then told aids that he would never do that.
Hillary clinton would cut the throats of gay in a heartbeat if she thought for a second it would garner her a few more votes in an almighty swing state.
As the link above points out, Barack Obama mentions gays in settings that are not exactly supportive. Hillary clinton never mentions the word "gay" unless she is speaking to a gay audience.
-
Straight or Gay
Maybe the reference to "after a loss" disqualifies it -- although I don't know why the loss is an important context -- but I remember quite clearly Bill Clinton talking about bringing together straight and gay in his 1996 speech to the Democratic National Convention.
-
Obama is standing up for us first by acknowledging that we exist
as opposed to other politicians who either hope the "gay issue" will go away quietly, lest it upset their campaign, or bash the hell out of us in order to rile up their base.
I can't tell you how heartening it was to see a presidential candidate embrace both gay and straight members of our society in his speech on Tuesday. For the past eight years the open support of gay and lesbian Americans by our politicians has been a deafening silence. We've allowed the issue to be dominated by hatemongers and heterosexists. Obama might not be going as full throttle on the issue as some of us the community might like, but his acknowledgment of us seems to be a step in the right direction.
-
p.s.
when I said that "I understand it" I meant the need to tiptoe around gay issues, not that I understand homophobia. 'Cause I don't. In the core of my being, I don't understand it, it's so bizarre a mindframe that I simply cannot fathom how someone can even entertain those ideas.
-
the question is whether he's better than McCain
Okay, I'm not gay, so maybe it's easy for me to say it, but basically...
It's very unlikely that Hillary Clinton will win the Democratic nomination.
Therefore, unless you're trying to mobilize gay support for an unlikely Clinton comeback, the exact level of Obama's pro-gayness is largely irrelevant.
Obama will be running against a Republican. There will be no others who have a chance of winning the presidential election.
The Republican party opposes any expansion in gay rights, and its membership largely supports things like national gay marriage bans or tougher exclusion of gays from the military.
The Democratic candidate certainly won't try to make things worse, and is almost certain to push for progress on popular issues, like allowing gays to serve in the military if they choose to.
Constantly comparing Obama (or Clinton) to an imaginary perfect candidate is illogical. Obama won't be running against Barney Frank. In fact, Barney Frank will be supporting Obama. Obama will be running against John McCain.
Unless there is very strong evidence that Obama would promote policies that are even worse for gays than those that McCain would promote, the choice is obvious.