PDA

View Full Version : Liberals hate gays


Pages : [1] 2

Scylla
10-20-2010, 09:46 PM
So, don't ask don't tell was overturned by a judge and Obama is fighting for an emergency stay to keep it in place.

I'm thinking if Bush were the prez, or if some Republican was doing this, there'd be about 40 outraged threads about the bigotry and prejudice of Republican hate mongers and intolerant conservatives.

But.... Let Obama do it, and..... Nothing.

So let's give a great big cheer for our stalwart liberals fighting for civil rights.

If Obama had half the courage Barry Goldwater did 20 years ago (when the world was a lot less progressive,) this reprehensible discrimination would now be over.

Liberal or conservative, this is a bad day for progressives who believe in equality for all.

But, I'd like to give a special shout-out to that subset of liberals, the self-righteous holier than thou assholes who think the shit on their side of the aisle doesn't stick. Fuck you, you hypocrites. No, not because I'm conservative, but because you care more about painting your opposition as evil, and protecting your own party than you do about an injustice, and therefore keep your condemnations silent. Worse, I'm sure a lot of you will excuse this, or seek to explain why it's really ok. Take your double standard, bend it in half and stick it where the sun don't shine.

To all the gay posters out there, friend or enemy:

I'm sorry for this, sorry nobody's had the guts to stand up to this and give you the equal rights to the protections of marriage or to serve your country.

ladyfoxfyre
10-20-2010, 09:56 PM
I'm pretty sure the motivation behind going about it this way is that the administration would rather DADT be legislated out by Congress, rather than allowing the precedent to stand the way it's going now. Considering that's what they've actually said, if you'd care to google the issue.

Scylla
10-20-2010, 09:57 PM
There's a YouTube video of Hillary Clinton telling gays in school being bullied to "hang in there.". Yeah, I'm sure this don't ask don't tell policy instituted by her husband and being protected by Obama is really helping them hang in there. It' not like there own government isn't bullying them or anything.

Obama of couse is against don't ask don't tell, but not for repealing it now, before elections. He's for it being repealled only after "careful review" and an "act of congress."

God forbid he be presidential and actually stand up support his constiuents against discrimination. So much for the audacity of hope. The platitudes are somewhat less than audacious.

Oh, and correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it log cabin republicans behind the suit in va, that almost got this thing overturned?

friedo
10-20-2010, 09:57 PM
So, don't ask don't tell was overturned by a judge and Obama is fighting for an emergency stay to keep it in place.

I'm thinking if Bush were the prez, or if some Republican was doing this, there'd be about 40 outraged threads about the bigotry and prejudice of Republican hate mongers and intolerant conservatives.

But.... Let Obama do it, and..... Nothing.


You've missed the point entirely. The executive branch is required to defend congressional statute in court, whether the current administration agrees with it or not. This is a tragic and unfortunate circumstance from which Obama has no recourse.

But when Bush did it, he was totally being a dick.

friedo
10-20-2010, 09:58 PM
Oh, and correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it log cabin republicans behind the suit in va, that almost got this thing overturned?

It was.

Hamlet
10-20-2010, 10:00 PM
But.... Let Obama do it, and..... Nothing.Obama may see it as his sworn duty to uphold the laws of the United States. Since DADT was passed by Congress and signed by the President at the time, Obama may feel that it is his duty to defend that law, even if he personally disagrees with it. Now, maybe you are fine with the President deciding for himself not to defend the laws of the United States, me I'm not sure its so cut and dried.

That's the great thing about you guys. If Obama doesn't appeal, you get to attack him for not defending the laws of the US. If he does, you get to attack him for hating gays. What a wonderful world you must live in.

Ludovic
10-20-2010, 10:01 PM
So let's give a great big cheer for our stalwart liberals fighting for civil rights.What liberal are you talking about?

Scylla
10-20-2010, 10:03 PM
You've missed the point entirely. The executive branch is required to defend congressional statute in court, whether the current administration agrees with it or not.

I was not aware of any such automatic legal obligation. Can you point me in the right direction for understanding it with a cite?

This is a tragic and unfortunate circumstance from which Obama has no recourse.

Again, I was not aware that he is so compelled

But when Bush did it, he was totally being a dick.

That's kinda funny.

Scylla
10-20-2010, 10:07 PM
Obama may see it as his sworn duty to uphold the laws of the United States. Since DADT was passed by Congress and signed by the President at the time, Obama may feel that it is his duty to defend that law, even if he personally disagrees with it. Now, maybe you are fine with the President deciding for himself not to defend the laws of the United States, me I'm not sure its so cut and dried.

That's the great thing about you guys. If Obama doesn't appeal, you get to attack him for not defending the laws of the US. If he does, you get to attack him for hating gays. What a wonderful world you must live in.

Not me. Again, though isn't obama's obligation to the constitution first, and the to the laws of the land provided they do not conflict?

Isn't now, when a judge defines it as unconstitutional the time when our president can legally support his constituents?

I thought he swore to uphold the Constitution?

Ludovic
10-20-2010, 10:08 PM
What would you call someone who was liberal some of the time and not-so-liberal the rest of the time? A liberal?

Scylla
10-20-2010, 10:09 PM
“ I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. ”

Scylla
10-20-2010, 10:11 PM
What would you call someone who was liberal some of the time and not-so-liberal the rest of the time? A liberal?

What he calls himself is what I'd call him.

If he thought this was a betrayal of his core values by his leaders, then I'd call him "correct."

Musicat
10-20-2010, 10:11 PM
Yeah, I'm sure this don't ask don't tell policy instituted by [Hillary's] husband and being protected by Obama is really helping them hang in there. Don't ask, don't tell sounds conservative now, but when it was instituted, it represented a step forward towards personal freedom. Before that, anyone seriously thought to be gay was tossed out of the military, and the new policy was much more tolerant.

Mind you, I'm not defending it in 2010, just asking you to put it in historical context.

mhendo
10-20-2010, 10:12 PM
I'm thinking if Bush were the prez, or if some Republican was doing this, there'd be about 40 outraged threads about the bigotry and prejudice of Republican hate mongers and intolerant conservatives.Actually, if Bush had openly and explicitly asked Congress to repeal DADT, and if a Republican-led House had passed the repeal measure, only to be blocked by a Democrat-led filibuster in the Senate, then i'd probably be willing to cut Bush a little slack, no matter how much of a douchebag i thought he was on other issues. I've said on this board, for example, that i thought some of his positions on the illegal immigrant issue were pretty good.

My willingness to cut him some slack would increase even further if his plan for repealing DADT was specifically waiting for a Defense department study about how the repeal of DADT would affect the armed forces. And if that report were due in, say, less than about 6 weeks, it would further reduce my concern about the fact that the Justice Department was seeking to overturn the judge's ruling in this case. Given a choice, i actually prefer that measures i support be given the force of congressional approval rather than just judicial authority. For example, i would prefer that the right to abortion be legislated by congress rather than resting on the somewhat shaky legal ground of Roe v. Wade.

Personally, while i understand the Justice Department's general obligation to defend the law, i would personally have preferred that they didn't fight this ruling. That's not a legal opinion; it's simply a reflection of my general personal opinion about DADT. I've always been of the opinion that, studies be damned, DADT should be simply repealed immediately, and the military should be just told to fucking deal with it. I don't really care what this December 1 Defense Department report says; i literally can't imagine anything it might say that would change my position on DADT. Just about every other civilized country in the world has managed it.

Hamlet
10-20-2010, 10:12 PM
Not me. Again, though isn't obama's obligation to the constitution first, and the to the laws of the land provided they do not conflict?

Isn't now, when a judge defines it as unconstitutional the time when our president can legally support his constituents?

I thought he swore to uphold the Constitution?I think he's making a mistake too. Again. I am disappointed with many of his decisions in handling the DOJ.

But what bugs me, though, is that no matter what Obama does, you and yours are going to attack him. Don't appeal, and he's making himself the nigh but sole arbiterer of the constitutionality of laws. Do appeal, and he's a hypocrite who dislikes gays. And, with you, of course it will be with a stupid trolling title and in the Pit rather than actually debating it. But, again, that's par for the course.

friedo
10-20-2010, 10:13 PM
I was not aware of any such automatic legal obligation. Can you point me in the right direction for understanding it with a cite?


I don't have a cite handy, but this is at least a customary interpretation of the "take care" clause at Article II § 3 of the Constitution, which states that the president "shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." Presidents have traditionally asserted that the only time they are not obligated to defend the statutes are when the administration believes them to be unconstitutional. (And in many cases the DOJ has argued against a statute on constitutional grounds.)

As far as I know, Obama has never made a constitutional argument against DADT. Unless he wants to do so, it would be highly unusual for him to order the DOJ to argue against it.

That is, of course, the weaselese justification. There's a lot he could accomplish through executive order, if he had the balls to do so. But he's lost vast amounts of political capital and it's almost midterm time.

Ludovic
10-20-2010, 10:14 PM
What he calls himself is what I'd call him.

If he thought this was a betrayal of his core values by his leaders, then I'd call him "correct."I'm not seeing a liberal hating gays, much less any evidence for the statement "liberals hate gays". I would however be interested in any in-context quotes where Obama calls himself a liberal. Keeping in mind that people can lie or be mistaken.

After all, if you called a tail a leg, a three-legged dog would still be Scylla.

Scylla
10-20-2010, 10:16 PM
Don't ask, don't tell sounds conservative now, but when it was instituted, it represented a step forward towards personal freedom. Before that, anyone seriously thought to be gay was tossed out of the military, and the new policy was much more tolerant.

Mind you, I'm not defending it in 2010, just asking you to put it in historical context.

Goldwater supported gays in the military openly long before then.

I think don't ask don't tell was a mealy mouth compromise that actually reinforced an injustice, just as separate but equal did for black.

The difference here is that DADT has no "but equal."

So no, I really don't excuse it as a product of it's times.

boytyperanma
10-20-2010, 10:23 PM
I've been beating on Obama on gay rights issues for some time on this board. While not every liberal has come out to support me, very few have come out to say I'm wrong. Even then it wasn't voices of Obama support on gay issues it was more a meek leave the poor guy alone he's working on other things.

I think your accusation of liberal hypocrisy fails here. When Bush was actively bashing gays conservatives rallied in support of his actions. With Obama not even bashing just trying for neutrality(and failing IMO) no liberals are showing up in favor of him doing so, it's more people saying I wish he would try.

Obama has failed the gay rights movement in many ways, he has failed to fulfill his campaign promises and their is little evidence that he even tried to fulfill them.

Comparing Obama and Bush or conservatives and liberals on gays rights issues is laughable.

Scylla
10-20-2010, 10:24 PM
I think he's making a mistake too. Again. I am disappointed with many of his decisions in handling the DOJ.

But what bugs me, though, is that no matter what Obama does, you and yours are going to attack him. Don't appeal, and he's making himself the nigh but sole arbiterer of the constitutionality of laws. Do appeal, and he's a hypocrite who dislikes gays. And, with you, of course it will be with a stupid trolling title and in the Pit rather than actually debating it. But, again, that's par for the course.

First, you really can't yell at me or Other conservatives for what you think we would have said if he supported the decision. He fucking didn't.

Second, I think that this is the first major attack or criticism i've leveled against Obama so you can hardly bitch that I'm attacking him "no matter what he does." that just hasn't been the case.

Third, I am debating it

Fourth, yeah you got a point about the the title, it is unreasonably salacious. I call on all the reederesque bush bashing threads as an excuse by precedent.

Scylla
10-20-2010, 10:27 PM
Mhendo:

Sorry to answer you out of turn, but i needed to ponder your post there for a moment.

I don't think I agree with you, but your argument seems perfectly reasonable, and I see nothing to strongly object to.

Hamlet
10-20-2010, 10:31 PM
Fourth, yeah you got a point about the the title, it is unreasonably salacious. I call on all the reederesque bush bashing threads as an excuse by precedent.You. Reeder.

Yeah, I can see that.

Scylla
10-20-2010, 10:34 PM
Comparing Obama and Bush or conservatives and liberals on gays rights issues is laughable.

Seeing as Clinton created DADT and Obama is prolonging it, while Goldwater argued for open gays in the military and the log cabin republicans are fighting for it, I agree.

Comparing liberals to conservatives on this issue is laughable.

mhendo
10-20-2010, 10:34 PM
First, you really can't yell at me or Other conservatives for what you think we would have said if he supported the decision. He fucking didn't.That's true, but it also makes this paragraph...I'm thinking if Bush were the prez, or if some Republican was doing this, there'd be about 40 outraged threads about the bigotry and prejudice of Republican hate mongers and intolerant conservatives.
...completely disingenuous.

Because, while Bush never used his Justice Department to try and overturn a judicial ban on DADT, Bush also never took all the steps i described in my previous post to get DADT repealed in the first place. So, equally, you can't know what liberals would have said about Bush if he had appealed the court decision, but had also shown himself to be clearly opposed to DADT, and had taken concrete steps to have it overturned by Congress.

Scylla
10-20-2010, 10:35 PM
You. Reeder.

Yeah, I can see that.

Oh don't be such a bitch

Scylla
10-20-2010, 10:40 PM
That's true, but it also makes this paragraph......completely disingenuous.

Oh... Fuck me. I walked into that one, didn't I?

I may have thought you argued poorly at times in the past, but you clearly ate your wheaties tonight, didn't you? Touche.

Because, while Bush never used his Justice Department to try and overturn a judicial ban on DADT, Bush also never took all the steps i described in my previous post to get DADT repealed in the first place. So, equally, you can't know what liberals would have said about Bush if he had appealed the court decision, but had also shown himself to be clearly opposed to DADT, and had taken concrete steps to have it overturned by Congress.

Ummm, yeah except that... LOOK! A PRETTY RAINBOW!!!!

mhendo
10-20-2010, 10:44 PM
Seeing as Clinton created DADT and Obama is prolonging it, while Goldwater argued for open gays in the military and the log cabin republicans are fighting for it, I agree.

Comparing liberals to conservatives on this issue is laughable.Can i just ask why it is that Barry Goldwater gets to be THE representative of American conservatism on this issue?

He made his argument for gays in the military after he had retired from politics, when he was not in a position to actually do anything about the issue. I'm not arguing that this makes his stance less admirable. I'm simply interested as to why he, in particular, gets to be your standard-bearer on the issue, and all the thousands of conservatives who have actively ridiculed and opposed gays in the military are somehow irrelevant to this debate?

Lakai
10-20-2010, 10:45 PM
When has a federal court declared a law unconstitutional without a subsequent appeal by the Justice Department?

While I do wish that DADT would just die and go away, I don't think it's sound legal policy not to appeal it. For one thing, I don't like the idea of the President choosing which laws of Congress he should enforce. Can you imagine the kind of power that gives the President?

I'm not even sure it would be constitutional for the President to chose which laws he wants to appeal. Wouldn't it violate separation of powers somehow if Congress could not make appeals whenever its laws were overturned?

Scylla
10-20-2010, 10:48 PM
Can i just ask why it is that Barry Goldwater gets to be THE representative of American conservatism on this issue?

He made his argument for gays in the military after he had retired from politics, when he was not in a position to actually do anything about the issue. I'm not arguing that this makes his stance less admirable. I'm simply interested as to why he, in particular, gets to be your standard-bearer on the issue, and all the thousands of conservatives who have actively ridiculed and opposed gays in the military are somehow irrelevant to this debate?

Well, he fought for blacks while he was in politics, and he is the father of modern conservatism, and he is why I'm a conservative, and, I believe, the inspiration behind the existence of Log Cabin Republicans (next to Lincoln, of course,) so, why wouldn't i be able to use him as an example for what is right with conservatism?

Do you think I should have gone with Dick Cheney, instead?

Airman Doors, USAF
10-20-2010, 10:57 PM
Can i just ask why it is that Barry Goldwater gets to be THE representative of American conservatism on this issue?

He made his argument for gays in the military after he had retired from politics, when he was not in a position to actually do anything about the issue. I'm not arguing that this makes his stance less admirable. I'm simply interested as to why he, in particular, gets to be your standard-bearer on the issue, and all the thousands of conservatives who have actively ridiculed and opposed gays in the military are somehow irrelevant to this debate?

Don't forget that he was, in fact, a Major General in the Air Force as well. I'd say that that, more than anything else, would have made him qualified to speak intelligently on the matter.

Still, you have a point as well.

mhendo
10-20-2010, 11:00 PM
Well, he fought for blacks while he was in politics, and he is the father of modern conservatism, and he is why I'm a conservative, and, I believe, the inspiration behind the existence of Log Cabin Republicans (next to Lincoln, of course,) so, why wouldn't i be able to use him as an example for what is right with conservatism?Dishonest argument.

I never said you couldn't use him as an example. He's a great example of a conservative who held an admirable position on this issue. But you're arguing here as if his position was representative of American conservatism. Do you think I should have gone with Dick Cheney, instead?I don't know. I'll leave it to you to see if you can honestly say that Goldwater's position on gays in the military is representative of American conservatives in the period since DADT was instituted.

Diogenes the Cynic
10-20-2010, 11:00 PM
If you want an exemplar of modern conservativism, then yes, you should go with Dick Cheney -- or better yet, Carl Paladino. Barry Goldwater has had absolutely no relationship or kinship to conservatism as it has been represented by the Republican Party for the last 30 years.

Scylla
10-20-2010, 11:28 PM
Dishonest argument.


You were doing so well, and then you had to accuse me of dishonest? Where was I dishonest?

I never said you couldn't use him as an example. He's a great example of a conservative who held an admirable position on this issue. But you're arguing here as if his position was representative of American conservatism.

No. I don't think it is. I don't think you can generalize effectively about such broad labels as liberalism or conservatism in such a specific manner. There are elements of conservatism such as Goldwater and the Log Cabin Republicans whom I've pointed out who are admirable on this issue, and their are elements of liberalism which seem to be all show and no go on this issue.

My issues are:

1. Against the DADT policy itself
2. Against the administration's response
3. Against hypocritical knee-jerk wing nut scumbag hypocrites on the left who like to paint broadly and incorrectly and say the Republicans/conservatives are generally bigoted but who pull a fade when their side doesn't follow through.
4. Social conservatives deserve a belated "fuck you" as does anybody else who thinks it's ok to withhold civil rights from homosexuals or any other group of people who just want to live their lives and exercise their constitutional freedoms.


I don't know. I'll leave it to you to see if you can honestly say that Goldwater's position on gays in the military is representative of American conservatives in the period since DADT was instituted.

I honestly think it's stupid to draw that broadly. Certainly, with the exception of the Log Cabin Republicans we haven't lived it to Goldwater's standard.

It hasn't exactly been a great day, week, month, year, or decade for liberals on the issue either.

Scylla
10-20-2010, 11:34 PM
If you want an exemplar of modern conservativism, then yes, you should go with Dick Cheney -- or better yet, Carl Paladino. Barry Goldwater has had absolutely no relationship or kinship to conservatism as it has been represented by the Republican Party for the last 30 years.

You got a point there. Dick Cheney didn't try to fight the repeal of DADT, and, he has an openly gay daughter who he seems to sincerely love deeply and support. Yes, he's against gay marriage, but so is Obama, and so was Clinton. So, his support for his daughter, coupled with the fact that he didn't create nor seek to perpetuate DADT through the court system certainly makes his track record for gay rights, based on his actions, a lot better then either the last two liberal Presidents.

He would be a good example, wouldn't he?

Bryan Ekers
10-20-2010, 11:37 PM
For one thing, I don't like the idea of the President choosing which laws of Congress he should enforce. Can you imagine the kind of power that gives the President?

Seems to me the President and any Federal judge could nullify any law they wanted.

Judge: This law's unconstitutional.
President: Okay.

Done. Two-thirds of the goverment cancelling out the remaining third. I'm pretty sure the system wasn't set up for that.

mhendo
10-20-2010, 11:38 PM
I may have thought you argued poorly at times in the past, but you clearly ate your wheaties tonight, didn't you? Touche.
If it makes you feel better, i've handed you your ass before. The fact that you didn't seem to get it is your problem, not mine.

Squink
10-20-2010, 11:40 PM
4. Social conservatives deserve a belated "fuck you" as does anybody else who thinks it's ok to withhold civil rights from homosexuals or any other group of people who just want to live their lives and exercise their constitutional freedoms.Turns out main stream Republicans, such as former president George Bush, deserve a "fuck you" on this too:
Log Cabin Republicans (LCR) initially filed the suit, a facial challenge to the statute, in 2004. A bench trial began on July 13, 2010, before Judge Virginia A. Phillips of the United States District Court for the Central District of California. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Log_Cabin_Republicans_v._United_States_of_America)
Six years to trial.
That's some pretty good stonewalling he did right there.

Scylla
10-20-2010, 11:41 PM
If it makes you feel better, i've handed you your ass before. The fact that you didn't seem to get it is your problem, not mine.

Alas, your brief foray into cogent and reasonable territory seems to be coming to an end.

Scylla
10-20-2010, 11:47 PM
Turns out main stream Republicans, such as former president George Bush, deserve a "fuck you" on this too:
Log Cabin Republicans (LCR) initially filed the suit, a facial challenge to the statute, in 2004. A bench trial began on July 13, 2010, before Judge Virginia A. Phillips of the United States District Court for the Central District of California. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Log_Cabin_Republicans_v._United_States_of_America)
Six years to trial.
That's some pretty good stonewalling he did right there.

I didn't really see how George was involved one way or another on that issue from the link you provided. Assuming some evidence of direct impairment of the issue on his part I'll join you in the Fuck you, but not until then.

gonzomax
10-20-2010, 11:51 PM
Obama has come out against DADT, but he wants congress to get rid of it. It will float through the court system for a long time. If it gets to this Supreme Court, it will likely stay in place.

Der Trihs
10-20-2010, 11:53 PM
I've been beating on Obama on gay rights issues for some time on this board. While not every liberal has come out to support me, very few have come out to say I'm wrong. Even then it wasn't voices of Obama support on gay issues it was more a meek leave the poor guy alone he's working on other things.

I think your accusation of liberal hypocrisy fails here. When Bush was actively bashing gays conservatives rallied in support of his actions. With Obama not even bashing just trying for neutrality(and failing IMO) no liberals are showing up in favor of him doing so, it's more people saying I wish he would try.

Obama has failed the gay rights movement in many ways, he has failed to fulfill his campaign promises and their is little evidence that he even tried to fulfill them.This. He was getting criticism from the left on this issue literally from Day One, over inviting a homophobic preacher to speak at his inauguration. Something that was accurately called a slap in the face to the homosexuals who voted for him. So no, the liberals haven't been giving him a pass on this. On the contrary, a great many are extremely angry with him.

friedo
10-21-2010, 12:02 AM
Seems to me the President and any Federal judge could nullify any law they wanted.

Judge: This law's unconstitutional.
President: Okay.

Done. Two-thirds of the goverment cancelling out the remaining third. I'm pretty sure the system wasn't set up for that.

If we're talking about a single judge, then that's a finding of a district court, which isn't binding precedent anywhere else. And there are usually many other parties beside the DOJ who have standing to appeal a decision regarding the constitutionality of a statute.

AdmiralCrunch
10-21-2010, 12:04 AM
Scylla in his own words:
First, you really can't yell at me or Other conservatives for what you think we would have said if he supported the decision.
I'm thinking if Bush were the prez, or if some Republican was doing this, there'd be about 40 outraged threads about the bigotry and prejudice of Republican hate mongers and intolerant conservatives.
Take your double standard, bend it in half and stick it where the sun don't shine.

Diogenes the Cynic
10-21-2010, 12:12 AM
You got a point there. Dick Cheney didn't try to fight the repeal of DADT, and, he has an openly gay daughter who he seems to sincerely love deeply and support. Yes, he's against gay marriage, but so is Obama, and so was Clinton. So, his support for his daughter, coupled with the fact that he didn't create nor seek to perpetuate DADT through the court system certainly makes his track record for gay rights, based on his actions, a lot better then either the last two liberal Presidents.

He would be a good example, wouldn't he?
Yes, because he didn't do shit to stop his party from exploiting homophobia when it mattered.

Obama has said he would oppose any legislation banning gay marriage, by the way. He officially says he personally opposes gay marriage, but he would not support or vote for any legislation against it. His stance as being "personally opposed" is basically the same as how every pro-choice politician says they are "personally opposed" to abortion. It's posturing bullshit. When it comes to the actual law, Obama is not opposed to gay marriage. His "personal" position (which is probably a lie anyway) has no relevance to his stance on actual legislation or policy. he also supports civil unions, by the way.

When it mattered, your face shooter, Cheney was perfectly willing to benefit from the political vilification and scapegoating of his own daughter by his party as evil trash, which yes, makes him representative of your party in his hypocrisy on sexual "values."

Now that we';ve got that out of the way, would say that the pro gay marriage position is typical or atypical of the Republican party or of conservatives in general? What is Sarah Palin's position? John McCain's? Mitt Romney's? Any random teabagger off the street? Any screaming fuckhead on Fox News or right wing radio? who do you think you're kidding with this bullshit.

Oh, and for the record, Obama is a moderate conservative. Fiscally, he's to the right of Ronald Reagan.

Dissonance
10-21-2010, 12:47 AM
Alas, your brief foray into cogent and reasonable territory seems to be coming to an end.Alas, your foray into cogent and reasonable territory seems to have yet to begin.

mhendo
10-21-2010, 12:49 AM
I honestly think it's stupid to draw that broadly. Certainly, with the exception of the Log Cabin Republicans we haven't lived it to Goldwater's standard.Wow, that's the most you're willing to concede? That conservatives "haven't lived it to Goldwater's standard" when it comes to gays in the military.

No mention of the many conservative politicians who have not only come out against gays in the military, but who have, in many cases, made clear that they think homosexuality is a perversion and against the laws of God and nature. No mention of the actual filibustering by Republicans that stopped the repeal of DADT in the Senate. No mention of the constant and ongoing efforts of conservatives at all levels of government to eliminate gay marriage where it exists, and to prevent it where it appears to be gaining some ground.

Yes there are some Democrats and liberals who have done the same thing., and there are others who have not moved as fast as they should have in correcting injustices. Like boytyperanma, i've been disappointed with what i see as some foot-dragging by Democrats, and by the Obama administration, on the issue of gay rights.

Still, i think that Obama really believes in gay rights, and that he's making progress in important areas, and i think that the Democratic party and liberals as a whole are much better on this issue than conservatives. But i'm not disingenuous enough to claim that Barney Frank or Gavin Newsome are typical or representative of all liberal or Democratic thinking on the matter.

mhendo
10-21-2010, 12:59 AM
I didn't really see how George was involved one way or another on that issue from the link you provided. Assuming some evidence of direct impairment of the issue on his part I'll join you in the Fuck you, but not until then.George was involved to the exact same extent that Obama was involved in this issue.

Both under Bush and under Obama, the Justice Department has fought against the attempts of the Log Cabin Republicans to overturn DADT in the courts. If the Justice Department's current attempt to stay the federal court ruling can be blamed on Obama, as you suggest in your OP...But.... Let Obama do it, and..... Nothing.

<snip>

If Obama had half the courage Barry Goldwater did 20 years ago (when the world was a lot less progressive,) this reprehensible discrimination would now be over.
...then why is Bush not similarly to blame for the attempts of the Justice Department to have the suit dismissed back in 2005 and 2006? Why is it that Obama is politically responsible for the actions of the Justice Department during his Administration, but Bush apparently is not?

waterj2
10-21-2010, 12:59 AM
Turns out main stream Republicans, such as former president George Bush, deserve a "fuck you" on this too:
Log Cabin Republicans (LCR) initially filed the suit, a facial challenge to the statute, in 2004. A bench trial began on July 13, 2010, before Judge Virginia A. Phillips of the United States District Court for the Central District of California. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Log_Cabin_Republicans_v._United_States_of_America)
Six years to trial.
That's some pretty good stonewalling he did right there.It's my understanding that the primary reason the case took so long was that the original judge had a serious accident involving a shopping mall escalator and pretty much everything on his docket got delayed by a couple years. I think the Witt case (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witt_v._Department_of_the_Air_Force) also caused more delays when the Ninth Circuit used intermediate scrutiny to decide the case, setting a new precedent for the district court.

Bosstone
10-21-2010, 01:09 AM
Scylla in his own words:This post would have had more impact if the same point hadn't already been made and acknowledged. There's plenty more meat on those bones, don't try to swallow a bite already taken.

elucidator
10-21-2010, 01:11 AM
I see strong parallel between Obama and the other Barry. Both made principled mistakes.

Goldwater voted against the Civil Rights act, and when he tells me he acted on principles of state's rights and correct Constitutional procedures and jurisdiction, I believe him, I believed him to be respectably un-racist, given his era of history.

But he was wrong. If the matter of civil rights had been allowed to be remanded to the states, black people in Mississippi (for instance) would have had to endure years more oppression. The situation called for a drastic remedy if needed, By any means necessary. If some violence was done to the principle of state sovereignty, well, so be it. There are facts of our political life wherein the urgency transcends a commitment to stability and principle.

Similarly, Obama clearly wants to do away with such discrimination as is embodied in DADT. But as a constitutional specialist, he has a clear understanding of the executive function. A thing done by executive order can be overturned by executive order, and the President for Life Amendment appears to be stalled for now. A court order is better, perhaps, but it isn't the thing itself, it isn't the consent of the governed to recognize the equality of gays, that is the real thing.

I can certainly understand the position of impatience, this thing has gone on far too long. But I also recognize the validity of his position: you do something by the book, dot the t's and cross the eyes, its much less likely to get undone. It seals the deal, puts the stamp on it.

But I think he's wrong, I think he should pull whatever technical shenanigans are available to him....executive order, stop loss, whatever, he's a lawyer, he can handle that. Because the situation calls for it, and its justified.

Both Barry Obama and Barry Goldwater made principled mistakes. But if I had to pick one, Goldwater's mistake was greater by far.

waterj2
10-21-2010, 01:20 AM
I'm thinking if Bush were the prez, or if some Republican was doing this, there'd be about 40 outraged threads about the bigotry and prejudice of Republican hate mongers and intolerant conservatives.

But.... Let Obama do it, and..... Nothing.

So let's give a great big cheer for our stalwart liberals fighting for civil rights.We just had a thread (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=579415) about Obama's handling of DADT in Great Debates less than a month ago. Wherein I notice that you had nothing to say about the entire Republican caucus voting to filibuster DADT repeal.
To all the gay posters out there, friend or enemy:

I'm sorry for this, sorry nobody's had the guts to stand up to this and give you the equal rights to the protections of marriage or to serve your country.But do you vote for candidates that stand for those rights, or those who oppose them?

pikey pete
10-21-2010, 03:02 AM
brief aside...the phrase is 'shit doesn't stink", not "shit doesn't stick"

Bricker
10-21-2010, 09:53 AM
Obama may see it as his sworn duty to uphold the laws of the United States. Since DADT was passed by Congress and signed by the President at the time, Obama may feel that it is his duty to defend that law, even if he personally disagrees with it. Now, maybe you are fine with the President deciding for himself not to defend the laws of the United States, me I'm not sure its so cut and dried.


Correct. Obama has a duty to defend this, and he's acting correctly.

But I think Scylla is hinting that if this same activity had occurred during Bush's term, Bush would be attacked for the action, instead of hearing a calm recitation that yes, the President has a duty to defend the law.

Diogenes the Cynic
10-21-2010, 10:04 AM
If Bush was simultaneously trying to get DADT repealed legislatively, and publicly expressing his opposition to it, he would be getting exactly the same reaction. If anything he'd probably be getting even more slack because he'd be doing more than what was expected of him and going against his own party.

Really Not All That Bright
10-21-2010, 10:12 AM
Correct. Obama has a duty to defend this, and he's acting correctly.

But I think Scylla is hinting that if this same activity had occurred during Bush's term, Bush would be attacked for the action, instead of hearing a calm recitation that yes, the President has a duty to defend the law.
Obama may not be getting criticized much for his stance on LGBT issues here, but I can guarantee you he is losing much of his support in the gay community for it.

The administration has really picked the worst possible course, politically, much as it has done with the economy and much else: moderation.

The right doesn't care whether he's governing from the middle, and the left doesn't want him to.

The last two years have really reinforced my view that politically unpopular decisions are usually the correct ones.

Bricker
10-21-2010, 10:32 AM
Obama may not be getting criticized much for his stance on LGBT issues here, but I can guarantee you he is losing much of his support in the gay community for it.

The administration has really picked the worst possible course, politically, much as it has done with the economy and much else: moderation.

The right doesn't care whether he's governing from the middle, and the left doesn't want him to.

The last two years have really reinforced my view that politically unpopular decisions are usually the correct ones.

So how much of the gay vote will go Republican in two weeks, you think?

Squink
10-21-2010, 10:33 AM
The administration has really picked the worst possible course, politically, much as it has done with the economy and much else: moderation.It is time and past time to bring in Howard Dean as WH chief of staff.

Duke
10-21-2010, 10:38 AM
Fourth, yeah you got a point about the the title, it is unreasonably salacious. I call on all the reederesque bush bashing threads as an excuse by precedent.

Am I the only person here who feels a little uncomfortable at this dig at someone who's not only no longer on the board to defend themselves, but not even on this earth anymore? Seriously, Scylla, couldn't you have found something a bit more recent to bitch about?

Really Not All That Bright
10-21-2010, 10:47 AM
So how much of the gay vote will go Republican in two weeks, you think?
It's not about the gay vote going Republican. It's about the gay vote (and money) not going anywhere- including to the polls.

villa
10-21-2010, 11:36 AM
What would you call someone who was liberal some of the time and not-so-liberal the rest of the time? A liberal?

It depends.

I'd probably call him a disappointment. Were I to be younger and more hot headed again, I'd call him a sell-out. Were I to be conservative, judging from current evidence, I'd call him a Muslim Fascist Commie Socialist.

Lobohan
10-21-2010, 11:40 AM
So how much of the gay vote will go Republican in two weeks, you think?It's not about how many gays will vote Republican. It's about how many gays feel like going to vote. Feeling betrayed may encourage them to sit this one out.

yojimbo
10-21-2010, 12:19 PM
It's from the Huff Post but this seems pretty even handed in explaning why The Obama Admin is doing what it is doing.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/21/dadt-conflict-explained-w_n_771035.html

Enderw24
10-21-2010, 12:46 PM
So how much of the gay vote will go Republican in two weeks, you think?

If we're to believe Scylla, the entirety of the Log Cabin Republicans who should be held up and enamored as that which is right and good and shinny and representative of the modern conservative movement.

I'm sure their vote will sway the elections in the same way as their viewpoint sways the Republican party.

Algher
10-21-2010, 02:06 PM
It is interesting that at the State level, Arnold and Jerry both refused to defend Proposition 8, and the Appeals court sided with them.

bup
10-21-2010, 02:43 PM
So how much of the gay vote will go Republican in two weeks, you think?Openly gay, or self-denying closeted gays? My answer varies wildly.

elucidator
10-21-2010, 03:23 PM
How long ago was it that there was no opinions expressed about the "gay vote", because such a thing did not really exist, so far as anyone knew?

If you're going to be progressive, you are going to lose, and lose hard, and lose often. You are seeking to change the nature of power in our country, and if theres one thing in the world that is hardest of all to get someone to relinquish, it is power. It is a given that the Forces of Darkness have inordinate, undeserved power, that's what we are trying to change. Did you think they were just going to hand it to us?

So, you lose. You get the living snot kicked out of you, you pick yourself up, dust yourself off, and hit them again! And again! And yet again! You fight like the devil to get the smallest concession, and it all seems hopeless until you reflect: if you had not already changed the nature of power in our country, you wouldn't have won even that.

Hell, I've given up in despair a hundred times! But I've given up giving up a hundred and one. And so it goes.

villa
10-21-2010, 03:39 PM
Openly gay, or self-denying closeted gays? My answer varies wildly.

Self denying closeted gays don't vote Republican, silly. They run as Republicans.

jayjay
10-21-2010, 04:07 PM
Obama may not be getting criticized much for his stance on LGBT issues here, but I can guarantee you he is losing much of his support in the gay community for it.

The administration has really picked the worst possible course, politically, much as it has done with the economy and much else: moderation.

The right doesn't care whether he's governing from the middle, and the left doesn't want him to.

The last two years have really reinforced my view that politically unpopular decisions are usually the correct ones.

This.

I don't know what Scylla is reading, but in more lefty circles of the internet, the fact that the DoJ not only is appealing the ruling, but also appealing the judge's decision not to grant a stay, is engendering a LOT of grumbling from both GLBT and their non-GLBT supporters. Take a look at the Daily Kos diaries (not necessarily the front page, but the sidebar diaries from site-members) for the last few days.

Trepa Mayfield
10-21-2010, 04:31 PM
I think that Scylla is seeing the best in the Republicans and the worst in the Democrats. Which is totally understandable, but, man, if you really took a critical eye to the Republicans about this issue, you'd be horrified.

Really Not All That Bright
10-21-2010, 04:36 PM
It is interesting that at the State level, Arnold and Jerry both refused to defend Proposition 8, and the Appeals court sided with them.
What's interesting about it?

Algher
10-21-2010, 05:25 PM
What's interesting about it?

At the State level the Chief Exec and his Attorney General both declined to defend a voter approved law. This is the first bit, and I consider it a great action by both men. The fact that the Appeals court said that they had that RIGHT is interesting to me, given how people state the Obama and Holder HAVE to defend DADT.

Now, it may be that the State laws and the Federal laws regarding the Executive branch are different on this subject. I simply find it interesting that Arnold and Jerry could find both the backbone and the legal coverage to be able to state, "nah, I ain't gonna bother defending this piece of crap."

marshmallow
10-21-2010, 06:42 PM
So, don't ask don't tell was overturned by a judge and Obama is fighting for an emergency stay to keep it in place.

I'm thinking if Bush were the prez, or if some Republican was doing this, there'd be about 40 outraged threads about the bigotry and prejudice of Republican hate mongers and intolerant conservatives.

But.... Let Obama do it, and..... Nothing.


Correct. You can do this for any issue where Obama acts just like Bush, or indeed goes even further. Obama being elected destroyed anti-war movements within the United States, for example.

So let's give a great big cheer for our stalwart liberals fighting for civil rights.

Well, if you were under the assumption that Obama is a liberal that is a bit of a problem. He's right of center even taking the current environment's assumptions to heart. But if you wanted to say something like Dems use gays as an ornament without really caring then yeah, I think that's accurate. It's not to say gay rights matter or not as an ideological concern. It doesn't really matter either way. Maybe you can find a planner somewhere arguing we need gays because, apparently, a lot of them know how to speak the languages of the places we're trying to subjugate nowadays. But fighting for it on general terms is a serious risk for no real gain. So it's easier to throw it out as red meat when it doesn't matter.

This sort of social evolution rarely comes from actually voting people in, though. Attitudes towards gays in the general population have dramatically shifted from what they were even 10, 20 years ago and it's had zero to do with voting. Similar things happened with blacks and women.

mhendo
10-21-2010, 06:51 PM
But I think Scylla is hinting that if this same activity had occurred during Bush's term, Bush would be attacked for the action, instead of hearing a calm recitation that yes, the President has a duty to defend the law.And yet, as i and others have pointed out, it's disingenuous to make that assertion without taking into account the totality of the two men's positions on the issue of DADT.

Bush's overall position was clearly and unequivocally to oppose the repeal of DADT. Obama has made it equally clear that he wants DADT to be repealed, and that it's something that Congress should do. At Obama's urging, one house of Congress has, in fact, done it, while in the other chamber the bill was filibustered by Republicans.

Given those two very different, indeed diametrically opposed, stances, can you not see why the reaction would be different to Bush? Even if the President does have an obligation to defend the law, can you grasp the fact that there is a difference between defending the law while supporting the principles behind that law, on the one hand, and defending the law while opposing the principles behind it, on the other?

I'd also be interested to know if Scylla's ever going to explain why Obama is apparently responsible what what the Justice Department does under his Administration, but Bush is apparently not responsible for what the Justice Department did under his.

boytyperanma
10-21-2010, 07:24 PM
Correct. Obama has a duty to defend this, and he's acting correctly.

Sure he has a duty to defend the law. He did that already. The attempt was a good one but in the end they lost.

If the argument is he must defend all laws by appealing unfavorable decision to them, sure I can understand that principled defense too.

The problem with the argument is the DOJ is appealing to provide the most rigorous defense of the existing law falls short when anyone point out decisions the Obama justice department has chosen not to appeal.

Just this week his administration chose not to appeal a court decision finding Federal parks had to admit small religious gatherings without forcing them to obtain permits.

It is very clear the DOJ can choose to appeal a case or not. I think it's very fair to question why they have chosen to appeal the DADT case.

Voyager
10-21-2010, 07:46 PM
Well, he fought for blacks while he was in politics, and he is the father of modern conservatism, and he is why I'm a conservative, and, I believe, the inspiration behind the existence of Log Cabin Republicans (next to Lincoln, of course,) so, why wouldn't i be able to use him as an example for what is right with conservatism?

Do you think I should have gone with Dick Cheney, instead?

Barry Goldwater had strong libertarian tendencies. I'd suspect most real libertarians (and just about all around here) would be in favor of repealing DADT. However, these same libertarian tendencies made him oppose civil rights legislation, which is not exactly fighting for blacks. Now, given that you think conservatives are on the side of the angels on this one, what do you think would happen if Republicans in Congress introduced a bill to repeal DADT? (No doubt pressured by the very powerful LCRs). How long do you think it would take to pass? Do you think Obama would veto it?

mhendo
10-21-2010, 08:04 PM
Barry Goldwater had strong libertarian tendencies. I'd suspect most real libertarians (and just about all around here) would be in favor of repealing DADT. Exactly. Problem is, it seems that some people like the OP are apparently under the impression that American conservatism is dominated by its libertarian wing, rather than its traditionalist, fundamentalist wing. That hasn't been true for quite a long time. If ever, actually.

Guinastasia
10-21-2010, 09:50 PM
Barry Goldwater had strong libertarian tendencies. I'd suspect most real libertarians (and just about all around here) would be in favor of repealing DADT. However, these same libertarian tendencies made him oppose civil rights legislation, which is not exactly fighting for blacks. Now, given that you think conservatives are on the side of the angels on this one, what do you think would happen if Republicans in Congress introduced a bill to repeal DADT? (No doubt pressured by the very powerful LCRs). How long do you think it would take to pass? Do you think Obama would veto it?


Not QUITE. Goldwater supported many earlier civil rights legislation, and he helped in integrating the army. However, his opposition was when it came to legislating what private businesses and such could do. He was not a racist.

As far as gays in the military, isn't he the one who said, "You don't have to be straight, you just have to shoot straight?"

Another interesting fact about Goldwater: he was adamently pro-choice, and his wife, Peggy, was one of the founders of the Arizona chapter of Planned Parenthood. When their older daughter became pregnant in the 1950s, they helped her obtain an abortion. He also LOATHED the religious right.
It's funny that many conservatives nowadays lionize him, but if he were still around, they'd crucify the guy.


Okay, hijack over.

Yookeroo
10-22-2010, 12:09 AM
It is very clear the DOJ can choose to appeal a case or not. I think it's very fair to question why they have chosen to appeal the DADT case.

This (http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2010/10/why-obama-fighting-keep-dadt) lays it out pretty clearly.

Has Scylla dropped all the way down to a Starving Artist level of intelligence?

boytyperanma
10-22-2010, 12:46 AM
This (http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2010/10/why-obama-fighting-keep-dadt) lays it out pretty clearly.

Sure does. He made a political decision to break his promise to his constituents in order to make a promise to the pentagon. Yep sucks to be a politician some time. The gay vote is something Democrats will readily sacrifice for political advantage. Yet they always so upset when in turn gays cut their funding and vow not to vote for them.

I think they've been running on the Republicans are even more abusive concept for a bit too long. Sure the Republicans will throw gays under the bus for political advantage as well but at least they are honest about it.

Bookkeeper
10-22-2010, 11:55 AM
Another reason for the DoJ to appeal court decisions such as this one is to make sure that the issue goes all the way to the Supreme Court. If I understand correctly, decisions of lower level courts are not binding on courts in other districts or as legally effective as a SCOTUS decision.

Really Not All That Bright
10-22-2010, 12:07 PM
A SCOTUS decision would be binding on all federal courts (and probably state courts, but it would depend on the cause of action), but you don't appeal a decision you already have in your pocket to get a higher court to render the same decision.

gonzomax
10-22-2010, 12:12 PM
If Obama ran with it and opened up the military to gays, there would have been another court case making another decision that might have halted it. It has to be done definitively, once and for all. We can not tolerate bigotry in the armed services.

YogSosoth
10-22-2010, 01:55 PM
My issues are:

1. Against the DADT policy itself
2. Against the administration's response
3. Against hypocritical knee-jerk wing nut scumbag hypocrites on the left who like to paint broadly and incorrectly and say the Republicans/conservatives are generally bigoted but who pull a fade when their side doesn't follow through.
4. Social conservatives deserve a belated "fuck you" as does anybody else who thinks it's ok to withhold civil rights from homosexuals or any other group of people who just want to live their lives and exercise their constitutional freedoms.


#1 and #2 I share with you.

#3 is laughable. "Generally" it is a conservative viewpoint to hate gays, not liberal. The fact that you are drawing from one legal action by Obama's DOJ that all or even most liberals are against gays is laughable. Conservatives have been beating that horse, and gay people, for years over their supposed immorality.

#4 I agree, with caveats. Few politicians would come out can just say they are for gay marriage when the issue is still so divisive, when small groups of bigots can shout louder than the majority. Obama wants to repeal DADT, the fact that he's not doing it in the fastest and seemingly easiest way is infuriating, but understandable given his position. I don't like it, but then again, I wouldn't have the smarts to run a political campaign that nets me 50+ million votes. You're essentially chastising a man for wanting a drink of water but not wanting to jump in a pool with a shark

YogSosoth
10-22-2010, 01:58 PM
Correct. Obama has a duty to defend this, and he's acting correctly.

But I think Scylla is hinting that if this same activity had occurred during Bush's term, Bush would be attacked for the action, instead of hearing a calm recitation that yes, the President has a duty to defend the law.

Because we know Bush hates gays

Algher
10-22-2010, 02:33 PM
SOME liberals don't like teh gay:

Percent saying that "Homosexual sexual relations always wrong" in 2002:
Liberal 38%
Moderate 54%
Conservative 68%

PDF Source: http://www.aei.org/docLib/20080603-Homosexuality.pdf

Yookeroo
10-23-2010, 09:21 PM
Sure does. He made a political decision to break his promise to his constituents in order to make a promise to the pentagon.

Which promise did he break?

elucidator
10-23-2010, 09:38 PM
Well, sorta kinda. He promised to end DADT, what they heard was him promise to end DADT right now!!. And I've seen a couple of quotes very suggestive of that, though a skilled practitioner could find some wiggle room. ("Calling Dr. Bricker, Dr. Bricker to Semantic Surgery.....")

But he appears to have most (all?) of the major military hats on board here, and that's huge, that makes it all but inevitable. And the coin he offered in return was respectful attention to their concerns. If they say they are concerned about disruption if this moves too fast, he gets them on board by buying the "too fast" part and selling the "gonna happen, anyway" part.

We can have this thing. If all it takes to move from "maybe" to "probably" to "dead cert" is a bit of deference to the brass hats, I say "yeah, do it".

Mosier
10-23-2010, 09:57 PM
(snip) the entire Republican caucus voting to filibuster DADT repeal.

Wait, so who hates gays then? The OP lied to me!

gonzomax
10-23-2010, 10:01 PM
He should have ended it. The fact that he did not does not mean he does not want to. It is that political juggling makes it difficult to do now.
Screw the service brass. They will do studies for decades to avoid it. But I am sure Obama is getting some concessions for letting the brass keep bigotry in place .

boytyperanma
10-23-2010, 10:27 PM
Which promise did he break?

He had told gay rights leaders he would work to end DADT in his first year of office. Yes he has plenty of wiggle room with that. But if someone says they are working on this I expect them to be seen working on it. Obama didn't mention he was even going to work on the issue until his first state of the union. At that point gay rights advocates were already marching on Washington and he had nothing to say. He say's He'll end DADT in his first year, then he goes and makes a promise to the military he's wait a year for their study.

He said he would use the bully pulpit to urge states to treat gay couples to full equality. Hell ya the president making public statements urging states to vote in favor of gay rights that would have done wonders when issues like gay adoption and gay marriage come up in a few states. Except when those issues came up he had nothing to say. Didn't even send a press secretary to voice his opinion, he remained silent as rights were stripped away.

He claimed he was going to advocate for gay rights, then has had nothing to publicly say about them, it doesn't do much for his credibility.

He's been a big disappointment for gay rights advocates. He has shown unwillingness to speak out when in many cases all we need is public figures stating on the record that gays deserve to be equal.

Much of the disappointment ends up coming from his character in general. He isn't what most people would describe as a 'fierce advocate' for anything, he's cool and calculating. He may eventually get to his goal. If that was his plan all along promising to be a 'fierce advocate' is misleading and in my opinion lying.

If people want to add the the activities of his justice dept, they have also been appealing the Defense of Marriage Act. Yeah I know defending the laws of the nation whether they support them or not, seems laws against gay people are more worthy of defense then others.

On the bright side Obama took the time this week to be caught publicly advocating against gay teen suicides joining 'it gets better' campaign. The kind of activity I actually expected based on he campaigning to gay voters, you know being willing to publicly advocate for gay, something he's actively avoided.

So for this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=geyAFbSDPVk&feature=player_embedded), this week he gets some slack

gonzomax
10-23-2010, 11:41 PM
Gay USA is on dish right now. The hosts Ann and Andy are going over the races to see where the Dems can pull it out. They know their freedoms are far safer with the Dems . They know who hates them , and it is not the Dems.

Lakai
10-24-2010, 12:02 AM
So for this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=geyAFbSDPVk&feature=player_embedded), this week he gets some slack

Kind of disingenuous to make that video without supporting gay marriage rights.

Yea it'll get better, but you'll never have the same rights as everyone else.

Voyager
10-24-2010, 02:59 AM
Not QUITE. Goldwater supported many earlier civil rights legislation, and he helped in integrating the army. However, his opposition was when it came to legislating what private businesses and such could do. He was not a racist.

Okay, hijack over.

I never said he was a racist. However, the effect of his ideas, non-racist though they were, supported the position of those who actually were racists. The problem was not in his ethics, it was that he felt the "rightness" of his cause outweighed its inevitable impact on people.

And indeed, he was a flaming Commie compared to conservatives today.

Daffyd
10-24-2010, 04:35 AM
Kind of disingenuous to make that video without supporting gay marriage rights.

Yea it'll get better, but you'll never have the same rights as everyone else.

Exactly. Obama talked a good game on LGBT support, but has either done little on our issues, or worked against us.

So what if we can't sponsor our partners/husbands/wives for immigration.

So what if we have to count our health care benefits for our partners as taxable income, and end up paying even higher taxes than straight people to a Government that refuses to acknowledge our relationships.

So what if we have to fill out our state taxes as married in the states that let us marry, and then have to recalculate them again before filing as single federally.

So what if those of us that are legally married are forced to enter the country as single when we fly together - after all, only "families" can be interviewed by Customs and Immigration at one time.

So what if Obama's DOJ compared our relationships to incest and pedophilia.

We need to stop being so uppity, and keep giving money to the DNC and just shut up and vote for Obama and the Democrats - they've done so much for us, after all.

elucidator
10-24-2010, 12:03 PM
I expect, hope and trust that you will vote for the candidate and the party that is best for the country, as in all of us.

I expect, hope and trust that in the unlikely event a reactionary, fascistic, Beck-Palin candidate ran on an agenda that was destructive for the progressive movement as a whole, but pandered exclusively to your community, you would reject that candidate, because you recognize yourself as a member of a larger community of like minded people.

Suppose a candidate comes forward who will, in fact, move heaven and earth to bring about total equality for all gay persons, but intends with equal sincerity to make life a lot tougher for Latinos, or Muslims, or some other minority group? I trust, hope, and expect that you would reject such a candidate without a moment's hesitation.

If your commitment to progress is confined to and defined by its effect upon your own, you're not part of the solution, you are part of the problem. We progressives want progress for the American people. And we could use your help, if you've nothing better to do.

I'm not gay, but our mututal enemy doesn't like me one little bit more than he likes you. To oversimplify, its you and me for us, not you and me for you.

Daffyd
10-24-2010, 12:49 PM
Funny, it's always "all of us" when it comes to Gay people voting to support progressive causes. But when it comes to civil rights for Gay people a large number of progressives have no problem throwing us under the bus.

Why should the DNC and Obama do anything for us if they know they just have to say a few kind words, have a cocktail party with the Human Rights Committee and we'll thank them for deigning to talk to us.

As disgusting as the Republicans are, what are they going to do, support Don't Ask Don't Tell? Do nothing on the Employment Non Discrimination Act? Fight to support the Defense of Marriage Act? Ted Olson, the right wing lawyer who fought against Prop 8 in California is more supportive of Gay people than Obama. Hell, at this point, Cheney is more supportive of Gay people than Obama.

Lobsang
10-24-2010, 01:21 PM
I'm a liberal so I'm an evil hypocrite. And I hate gays.

elucidator
10-24-2010, 04:05 PM
Funny, it's always "all of us" when it comes to Gay people voting to support progressive causes. But when it comes to civil rights for Gay people a large number of progressives have no problem throwing us under the bus..... Hell, at this point, Cheney is more supportive of Gay people than Obama.

Then, here's what you do: form a 100% pure GLBT party, refuse to have anything to do with "coalitions" and "progressives", only those candidates who put GLBT priorities at the very top of the list, and everybody else can go pound sand.

You will, of course, lose those gay people who have the good sense that God gave a goose, but you will finally achieve ideological purity. You will then be able to throw the massive weight of your numbers behind your candidate.

Then, at the convention, a lesbian separatist will rise to speak and point out that gay men are still, nonetheless, men and as such do not have sufficient sympathy and commitment to the lesbian experience. Whereupon you will have to explain the rudiments and principles of coalition politics to someone who will glare at you and suggest you are some sort of backsliding traitor to The Cause.

And that distant, ghostly chuckle you hear? That will be me.

Lakai
10-24-2010, 04:19 PM
Then, here's what you do: form a 100% pure GLBT party, refuse to have anything to do with "coalitions" and "progressives", only those candidates who put GLBT priorities at the very top of the list, and everybody else can go pound sand.

What should someone holding a gun in his mouth because of discrimination be more concerned about?

To a gay person who can't be around his partner in public, what should concern him more than that?

Miller
10-25-2010, 01:50 PM
I expect, hope and trust that you will vote for the candidate and the party that is best for the country, as in all of us.

I expect, hope and trust that in the unlikely event a reactionary, fascistic, Beck-Palin candidate ran on an agenda that was destructive for the progressive movement as a whole, but pandered exclusively to your community, you would reject that candidate, because you recognize yourself as a member of a larger community of like minded people.

Suppose a candidate comes forward who will, in fact, move heaven and earth to bring about total equality for all gay persons, but intends with equal sincerity to make life a lot tougher for Latinos, or Muslims, or some other minority group? I trust, hope, and expect that you would reject such a candidate without a moment's hesitation.

If your commitment to progress is confined to and defined by its effect upon your own, you're not part of the solution, you are part of the problem. We progressives want progress for the American people. And we could use your help, if you've nothing better to do.

So, let me get this straight: A candidate who is not supportive of racial or religious minorities is not to be tolerated. Even if he's the rock-solid in support of sexual minorities, we have a moral obligation to reject his candidacy, for the good of "us." But, if a candidate supports racial and religious minorities, but will actively work against sexual minorities, well, that's just the sort of sacrifice we have to make for the good of the cause.

Thank you for this pitch-perfect description of the Democratic hypocrisy on this subject. I would prefer, however, if you did not embody it quite so precisely.

I'm not gay, but our mutual enemy doesn't like me one little bit more than he likes you.

Don't flatter yourself.

villa
10-25-2010, 01:57 PM
Sometimes politics isn't about winning, it's about not losing. And while I don't see the positives for the gay community in voting Democrat right now, I certainly can see the negatives of significant gains for the new, improved, more Teabag friendly GOP.

The opposite strikes me as the sort of revolutionary defeatism shown by the Far Left in the 80's in England - the idea that Thatcher should win again because then conditions will worsen leading to the proletariat rising. Didn't work too well then, either.

Ludovic
10-25-2010, 02:02 PM
The opposite strikes me as the sort of revolutionary defeatism shown by the Far Left in the 80's in England - the idea that Thatcher should win again because then conditions will worsen leading to the proletariat rising. Didn't work too well then, either.Do you know who ELSE came into power partly because the Far Left thought it would precipitate a proletariat rising? :eek:

Vinyl Turnip
10-25-2010, 02:17 PM
Don Knotts?

YogSosoth
10-25-2010, 02:29 PM
So, let me get this straight: A candidate who is not supportive of racial or religious minorities is not to be tolerated. Even if he's the rock-solid in support of sexual minorities, we have a moral obligation to reject his candidacy, for the good of "us." But, if a candidate supports racial and religious minorities, but will actively work against sexual minorities, well, that's just the sort of sacrifice we have to make for the good of the cause.


You make it seem like Obama and the Democrats are actively working against sexual minorities just because they are not as pro-gay as gays would like them to be. :rolleyes:

Miller
10-25-2010, 02:31 PM
Sometimes politics isn't about winning, it's about not losing. And while I don't see the positives for the gay community in voting Democrat right now, I certainly can see the negatives of significant gains for the new, improved, more Teabag friendly GOP.


Oh, don't get me wrong. I'm not suggesting that gays don't vote Democrat. I'm going to the polls in November, and I'm going to vote a straight Democratic ticket, like I do most every year. But I'm not doing it out of any great love or loyalty to the Democratic party. Gays are in the position of a man with a gun to his head. The thing to remember is that the Republicans aren't holding the gun. They are the gun. It's the Democrats who have it pressed against our forehead.

villa
10-25-2010, 02:43 PM
That's kind of inevitable for progressives/lefties/socialists too. The only times I have ever voted for a candidate I have felt significant support for are the times I have lived in extreme right wing constitutencies, so my candidate stands zero chance of winning.

Miller
10-25-2010, 02:43 PM
You make it seem like Obama and the Democrats are actively working against sexual minorities just because they are not as pro-gay as gays would like them to be. :rolleyes:

I like how you make a desire to be treated equal sound so unreasonable.

sqweels
10-25-2010, 02:46 PM
Perhaps the Dems are being way too cowardly, but time is on your side. Support for LGBT rights is rising among young people, but in the short term, it may be pragmatic to avoid provoking too much of a right-wing backlash until the demographics improve.

(The thread title is certainly full of crap, tho)

villa
10-25-2010, 02:48 PM
Perhaps the Dems are being way too cowardly, but time is on your side. Support for LGBT rights is rising among young people, but in the short term, it may be pragmatic to avoid provoking too much of a right-wing backlash until the demographics improve.

Time was on Rosa Parks' side too, and I am sure the pragmatic course would have been to take her black ass to the back of the bus.

Miller
10-25-2010, 03:03 PM
Perhaps the Dems are being way too cowardly, but time is on your side. Support for LGBT rights is rising among young people, but in the short term, it may be pragmatic to avoid provoking too much of a right-wing backlash until the demographics improve.

This is the other popular argument for excusing a lack of Democratic support for a strong gay-rights agenda. The central problem with it, aside from its almost bottomless cowardice, is that it ignores the central driving force behind improving the demographics. Support for gay rights is rising precisely because we are pushing for it. If we stop pushing, the demographics will stop improving.

elucidator
10-25-2010, 03:49 PM
Is it about us, or is it about you? Are you part of a general movement for human equality, or are you only in it for yourselves? I favor the advance of gay rights first and foremost because I believe it to be what is right for our country, secondarily, because it is good for you. Same with Latinos, same with any other struggling minority.

As a practical fact, your demand that the Dems put your agenda at the very forefront of their efforts is probably counter-productive, it plays into the hands of our mutual enemies. Who would like nothing better than to Balkanize the progressive movement into mutually competitive, squabbling groups. It is their wettest dream.

Latinos, for instance, tend to be rather conservative as regards their religion, as do blacks. But they are on board with us, moving towards the light. If they Dems were to place your concerns above theirs, what happens then? Not that they vote Pubbie, but that they just don't vote.

And you lose. We lose. We.


And a gun to your forehead, put there by the Dems? Not just a little dramatic, wildly dramatic, near hysterical. What, are you on the Committee to Preserve Gay Stereotypes?

Daffyd
10-25-2010, 04:16 PM
As a practical fact, your demand that the Dems put your agenda at the very forefront of their efforts is probably counter-productive, it plays into the hands of our mutual enemies.

At the forefront? That's pretty laughable when it comes to Obama. Really, he brought it on himself - he went on and on before the election telling the LGBT community how much he supported us, and how voting for him instead of the other Democratic candidates would be good for us. Instead we got lies about how he "needs to enforce laws he doesn't agree with" - Clinton refused to enforce discharging soldiers with HIV.

And as Miller said, I'll still be voting Democratic - Jerry Brown and so on in California, along with Congress and the Senate, but I can guarantee when it's time to vote for President in 2012, unless Obama suddenly does an about face on LGBT rights, he can kiss my vote goodbye.

Miller
10-25-2010, 04:32 PM
Is it about us, or is it about you? Are you part of a general movement for human equality, or are you only in it for yourselves? I favor the advance of gay rights first and foremost because I believe it to be what is right for our country, secondarily, because it is good for you. Same with Latinos, same with any other struggling minority.

There is no "us," elucidator. We are not a part of your "us." We have not been invited to your party. We have been told to stand by the door, on a vague promise that someday, maybe, we might be allowed a seat at the table, so long as we're quiet and do what we're told.

The irony, here, is that I'm not even saying that we should do anything different, because we simply do not have a choice in the matter. We have no other option than to content ourselves with your table scraps. But this isn't enough for you, is it, luci? You want a little grovelling to go along with it.

As a practical fact, your demand that the Dems put your agenda at the very forefront of their efforts is probably counter-productive, it plays into the hands of our mutual enemies. Who would like nothing better than to Balkanize the progressive movement into mutually competitive, squabbling groups. It is their wettest dream.

Latinos, for instance, tend to be rather conservative as regards their religion, as do blacks. But they are on board with us, moving towards the light. If they Dems were to place your concerns above theirs, what happens then? Not that they vote Pubbie, but that they just don't vote.

And that's my entire argument in a nutshell. Gays don't matter to Democrats at all. If catering to gay voters causes a conflict with Latino voters, gays get thrown under the bus. If catering to gay voters causes a conflict with black voters, gays get thrown under the bus. If catering to gay voters causes a conflict with Christian voters, gays get thrown under the bus. Where is the "us" here, elucidator? Why does all the teamwork, and pulling together, and uniting in a common cause, always work against our interests? When do the blacks or the Latinos get one of your self righteous "Is it about you, or us?" lectures?

And you lose. We lose. We.

"We" always lose - even when you win.

And a gun to your forehead, put there by the Dems? Not just a little dramatic, wildly dramatic, near hysterical. What, are you on the Committee to Preserve Gay Stereotypes?

Thank you for another demonstration of the deep care and respect for gays held by the Democratic majority. Next time, why don't you just cut to the chase and call me a fag?

Trepa Mayfield
10-25-2010, 04:38 PM
Is it about us, or is it about you? Are you part of a general movement for human equality, or are you only in it for yourselves? I favor the advance of gay rights first and foremost because I believe it to be what is right for our country, secondarily, because it is good for you. Same with Latinos, same with any other struggling minority.

As a practical fact, your demand that the Dems put your agenda at the very forefront of their efforts is probably counter-productive, it plays into the hands of our mutual enemies. Who would like nothing better than to Balkanize the progressive movement into mutually competitive, squabbling groups. It is their wettest dream.

Latinos, for instance, tend to be rather conservative as regards their religion, as do blacks. But they are on board with us, moving towards the light. If they Dems were to place your concerns above theirs, what happens then? Not that they vote Pubbie, but that they just don't vote.

And you lose. We lose. We.


And a gun to your forehead, put there by the Dems? Not just a little dramatic, wildly dramatic, near hysterical. What, are you on the Committee to Preserve Gay Stereotypes?

Quit. It. You're making us look like heartless pricks.

Barack Obama is absolutely in the wrong for his refusal to fight for gay rights, and with him are most of the democratic leadership. The way they simultaneously court and screw over gay people is disgusting, and is a depressing consequence of our two-party system. I completely sympathize with the non-hetero people who sit out national elections in protest. Keep fighting.

elucidator
10-25-2010, 05:46 PM
Christ on a crutch, I'm sure glad Karl Rove doesn't read the Dope, I hate the idea of him chuckling over this, as you guys make his fondest dreams come true.

Seriously? You don't get it? This plays right into their hands, they want nothing better...they can't get nothing better...than for the progressive side to start in squabbling and fighting each other.

I'm not gay, latino, black, or anything in particular, unless superannuated peckerwoods are a minority group. I'm not in it for me, I'm in it for us. I'm a flag-waving, red blooded, all-American radical lefty, and I'm in it for the Dream. The long delayed dream of the best, most just, most humane nation in human history, America, fuck yeah!

What happens when you get yours? You will, almost certainly, the tide is with you. What happens then, do you stop pulling on this end of the rope, wander over to the side lines and watch the show?

Or is it about justice, is it about us?

And as a practical matter, coalition politics is all you got. What are you gonna do, take off into the mountains and start a revolution? No? Well, then, it looks like your stuck with making alliances, making compromises, two steps forward one step back.

And you need the liberals. God Help Us, the mealy-mouth, wishy-washy, luke-warm liberals. Freak them out, and they will slide away from you, and your agenda will be retarded, held back. You want to win? Or do you want to congratulate yourself for the purity of your agenda while you cut off your dick to spite your face?

I suppose if you could elect a carefully vetted gay administration, that would work. But if you could do that, you already would have won, wouldn't you? If you could throw the entire massive weight of your electoral power, why, you wouldn't need to compromise and make alliances, you could just do it!

And if you get what you want, and find this whole tug of war tiresome and tedious...which it is, Goddess knows!...well, I suppose you will just wander off somewhere else. I'll still be here. Because I do it for us. Its taking a lot longer than we hoped, and we could use your help, if you've nothing better to do.

Der Trihs
10-25-2010, 06:03 PM
Christ on a crutch, I'm sure glad Karl Rove doesn't read the Dope, I hate the idea of him chuckling over this, as you guys make his fondest dreams come true.

Seriously? You don't get it? This plays right into their hands, they want nothing better...they can't get nothing better...than for the progressive side to start in squabbling and fighting each other. The point being made, is that's what is already happening; you just want the people playing punching bag to not complain, not fight back, and to pay the people doing the punching.

I'm not gay, latino, black, or anything in particular, unless superannuated peckerwoods are a minority group. I'm not in it for me, I'm in it for us. I'm a flag-waving, red blooded, all-American radical lefty, and I'm in it for the Dream. The long delayed dream of the best, most just, most humane nation in human history, America, fuck yeah!That is hardly an accurate description of America. It's been a long time since America was some kind of leader in social justice.

Or is it about justice, is it about us?Apparently not justice, or they'd be getting some.

And you need the liberals. God Help Us, the mealy-mouth, wishy-washy, luke-warm liberals. Freak them out, and they will slide away from you, and your agenda will be retarded, held back. That's something that has been repeatedly acknowledged by the people you are criticizing. They just don't expect anything from the so-called liberals.

elucidator
10-25-2010, 06:14 PM
Well, they ain't much, I'll grant you that. But there's a fuck of a lot of them. Now, have you got something to replace representational democracy, and the power to make it stick? No? Then you are going to cut deals with the liberals. Or lose. Your call.

...That is hardly an accurate description of America...
Yeah, Der, I know. Hence the words "long delayed dream". You miss that part?

Lakai
10-25-2010, 06:17 PM
Elucidator, there is a middle ground between the Democratic collation falling apart and Palin becoming our next President, and LGBT citizens voting for Democrats while getting nothing in return.

The Democrats can embrace gay marriage rights and push them toward mainstream acceptance.

Or Democrats can lose and moderate Republicans won't actively try to limit gay rights.

LGBT citizens don't have everything to lose by not voting for Democrats.

boytyperanma
10-25-2010, 07:02 PM
I think what continues to be argued is the other side is so bad if you let them win it means certain doom for gay rights. I don't buy into that theory. That other side still polls with half the country, they are still Americans and not everyone of them believes gays should be second class citizens.

In the height of Republican power after a presidential campaign promising an anti-marriage constitutional amendment to their base they didn't even try to deliver on it when they could. They couldn't have passed it if they tried and it was not just the Democrats holding them back. Enough moderate Republicans still exist that attempting to put gays into concentration camps isn't going to fly even under their rule. The Republicans that support gay rights certainly don't represent enough of the party to push gay rights forward but they are enough to stop rights from being rolled back.

Gay voters have choices and voting Democrat isn't the only option. I have plenty of other issues beyond gay rights that effect my vote. If the Democrats were willing to be honest and tell me they aren't going to push for gay rights, it's a hard blow to accept but I can move on to the other issues important to me. But they aren't honest, they promise fierce advocacy and offer whining complacency and cowardice. If they aren't honest on an issue very important to me it destroys my ability to believe they'll be honest on any of the other issues dear to me.

Without strong support from the Democrats gay rights have still been moving steadily forward. Equality is inevitable with or without their support. Gays do not need the Democrats.

The Democrats however are only winning elections by narrow margins. Margins where gay voters as small as our percentage may be do effect the outcome. The Democrats can't really afford for us to stay home or even worse vote Republican. The Democrats need us. Right now they are losing their support from the gay community, If they want to fight us in the courts or withhold their support they are welcome to do so. Lets not forget in the filibuster of DADT there were three Democrats. Within the party support is not universal and a Democrat voting against gay rights doesn't seem to suffer any consequence of party politics

I think it would be best for the country if one of the parties was willing to pick up the ball and run with gay rights, the Democrats being the best for that job, but absent that I'll stick to victory after victory in the courts and voting for a third party candidate that doesn't lie to me.

elucidator
10-25-2010, 07:10 PM
...LGBT citizens don't have everything to lose by not voting for Democrats....
Everything? No way, its already gone too far, the rock is rolling down hill, and maybe it could be slowed, but I very much doubt it can be stopped.

At at least part of that is the stupidity of our enemies, bless their shriveled little hearts! Like the example you point to, gay marriage. They screamed themselves hoarse, setting their hair on fire, "everybody come see the horror of gay marriage". And they plastered pictures all over everywhere, come look! Come see!

And America did. And America saw a couple of nice middle aged ladies cutting a wedding cake and said "Hey, the looks kinda like Aunt Edith! Sorta, well, you know, normal. And that guy marrying that other guy, he looks a lot like Fred from Accounting. Hey! That is Fred from Accounting!"

Laugh? I thought I'd surely die, I love it when the Forces of Darkness step on their own dicks, I love it when they overestimate the stupidity of the American people, hallelujah, hosanna, and yeeee-haw!

Truth be told, I'm not a Democrat either, I can't bring myself to do that. But I've (probably) never voted for anyone else and I've never EVER not voted. Its not doing my duty like maybe getting shot at, but its still a duty.

Choosing is a duty, it comes with the privilege of voting, it is as close to sacred as a secular order can offer. It is your duty to choose, even between two ugly bettys. And so long as the Dems are even one iota more favorable to justice and equality, I'm going to vote that one iota. Every fucking time! And if its a pain in the butt and its too slow and I don't like cutting deals, tough shit. Man up and choose.

I think Obama's judgement on DADT was flawed, but I have no doubt it was well meaning. And I sure as hell trust his judgment better than the other guy, and thats all I get. But I do think he underestimated the degree of acceptance within the ranks, he could have pulled a Truman and it would have worked.

What I see is that he made a placating deal with the brass hats, to respect their wishes for a more gradual transition. Which he bought into, on acceptance on their part that it was going to happen, he's willing to be prudent and cautious about change, but the change will happen. Period. Full stop.

Not what I might have chosen, but my chances of being President are just below my chances of marrying Rachel Maddow. But as a second pick, its damned shrewd, and it ends where I wanted it to.

It can be done, it is not impossible, jut goddam difficult! And if enough of us pull on this end of the rope, all together, all pulling the same way, we will win. I'd like it to happen before its time for my dirt nap, but I don't matter, I'm just one set of hands pulling in this tug of war. And hey! there's a spot opened up, right next to me! Be proud to have you on board, if you've a mind to.

Miller
10-25-2010, 08:04 PM
Everything? No way, its already gone too far, the rock is rolling down hill, and maybe it could be slowed, but I very much doubt it can be stopped.

At at least part of that is the stupidity of our enemies, bless their shriveled little hearts! Like the example you point to, gay marriage. They screamed themselves hoarse, setting their hair on fire, "everybody come see the horror of gay marriage". And they plastered pictures all over everywhere, come look! Come see!

And America did. And America saw a couple of nice middle aged ladies cutting a wedding cake and said "Hey, the looks kinda like Aunt Edith! Sorta, well, you know, normal. And that guy marrying that other guy, he looks a lot like Fred from Accounting. Hey! That is Fred from Accounting!"

Yeah, I remember that. That was pretty good. You know what else I remember? I remember the Democratic party standing around with their dicks in their hands, not doing a single goddamned thing to help us out. I'm going to remember that for a long, long time.

I think Obama's judgement on DADT was flawed, but I have no doubt it was well meaning. And I sure as hell trust his judgment better than the other guy, and thats all I get. But I do think he underestimated the degree of acceptance within the ranks, he could have pulled a Truman and it would have worked.

What I see is that he made a placating deal with the brass hats, to respect their wishes for a more gradual transition. Which he bought into, on acceptance on their part that it was going to happen, he's willing to be prudent and cautious about change, but the change will happen. Period. Full stop.

Sure it will. Real soon. Right after this election, maybe even. Or the next one. Or the one after that. But it will happen. The Democrats promised, after all.

I was seventeen the first time I heard that line, when Clinton was running for his first term. I'm going to be thirty five next week. It's been the same song and dance for nearly twenty years now, and I'm getting pretty tired of this particular tune.

It can be done, it is not impossible, jut goddam difficult! And if enough of us pull on this end of the rope, all together, all pulling the same way, we will win. I'd like it to happen before its time for my dirt nap, but I don't matter, I'm just one set of hands pulling in this tug of war. And hey! there's a spot opened up, right next to me! Be proud to have you on board, if you've a mind to.

You keep trying to use these teamwork metaphors. And they keep failing, because the relationship between the Democratic mainstream and gay voters isn't a team relationship. We aren't on the same team, luci. Gays don't vote Democrat because we think the Democrats are going to help us. Most of us know better than to expect that. You're simply the chumps we vote for as placeholders to keep the other guys out.

So go peddle your hippie-dippie, kumbayaa, let's-all-be-friends bullshit somewhere else.

Der Trihs
10-25-2010, 08:07 PM
Choosing is a duty, it comes with the privilege of voting, it is as close to sacred as a secular order can offer. It is your duty to choose, even between two ugly bettys. And so long as the Dems are even one iota more favorable to justice and equality, I'm going to vote that one iota. Every fucking time! And if its a pain in the butt and its too slow and I don't like cutting deals, tough shit. Man up and choose.Don't expect people to be enthusiastic between choosing between eating a bowl of sewage and a bowl of broken glass. Especially when they are expected to pay for it.

I think Obama's judgement on DADT was flawed, but I have no doubt it was well meaning. And I sure as hell trust his judgment better than the other guy, and thats all I get. But I do think he underestimated the degree of acceptance within the ranks, he could have pulled a Truman and it would have worked.

What I see is that he made a placating deal with the brass hats, to respect their wishes for a more gradual transition. Which he bought into, on acceptance on their part that it was going to happen, he's willing to be prudent and cautious about change, but the change will happen. Period. Full stop.And I think he's just another homophobic bigot, just one who is willing to pander a little to the homosexuals he hates during election season.

Lakai
10-25-2010, 08:11 PM
It can be done, it is not impossible, jut goddam difficult! And if enough of us pull on this end of the rope, all together, all pulling the same way, we will win. I'd like it to happen before its time for my dirt nap, but I don't matter, I'm just one set of hands pulling in this tug of war. And hey! there's a spot opened up, right next to me! Be proud to have you on board, if you've a mind to.

You are free to vote which ever way you want. But what do LGBT's win if they vote for Democrats? Republicans can't really make anything worse for them. By not voting there is at least a chance the Democrats will get the message and change.

I agree Democrats are slightly better than Republicans. The GOP passes bad laws and the Democrats pass ineffectual ones. Sometimes working within the system is so pointless that you have to risk harm to do some real good.

Lakai
10-25-2010, 08:16 PM
And I think he's just another homophobic bigot, just one who is willing to pander a little to the homosexuals he hates during election season.

Hypocrite yes, but I don't think he's a bigot. A bigot wouldn't support the repeal of DADT.

elucidator
10-25-2010, 08:18 PM
...So go peddle your hippie-dippie, kumbayaa, let's-all-be-friends bullshit somewhere else.

Well, peace on you, brother.

Leaper
10-25-2010, 08:20 PM
Devil's advocate (because this is a specific point raised on this page of replies): Republicans can and will hurt chances at gay rights by (assuming a Republican president) voting in Supreme Court justices who will do things like overturn Lawrence v Texas and uphold gay marriage bans.

Der Trihs
10-25-2010, 08:21 PM
Hypocrite yes, but I don't think he's a bigot. A bigot wouldn't support the repeal of DADT.
No, but he might say he did for political profit, but avoid following though. Like Obama.

Trepa Mayfield
10-25-2010, 08:27 PM
Well, they ain't much, I'll grant you that. But there's a fuck of a lot of them. Now, have you got something to replace representational democracy, and the power to make it stick? No? Then you are going to cut deals with the liberals. Or lose. Your call.



While I do believe you are accurate, your complete lack of sympathy to gay people makes people want to disagree with you. If you weren't so incredibly, toxicly, obnoxiously smug, maybe people wouldn't be more tempted to stay home and not vote. You say that we are pushing the Democrats apart: no, people like you are, who tell people to just shut up and deal with it when they make perfectly valid points about problems inside the Democratic leadership.

Mosier
10-25-2010, 08:29 PM
It's very simple, and non-dramatic. If gays want Democrats to support their agenda, they need to stop voting for Democrats who don't support their agenda. There is no controversy in that position. Gays don't "lose" in that scenario, because they had nothing to lose. McCain/Palin America looks exactly like Obama/Biden America, from the perspective of gay rights advocates.

boytyperanma
10-25-2010, 08:46 PM
Devil's advocate (because this is a specific point raised on this page of replies): Republicans can and will hurt chances at gay rights by (assuming a Republican president) voting in Supreme Court justices who will do things like overturn Lawrence v Texas and uphold gay marriage bans.

Considering their record so far that isn't a very convincing argument. If their goal has been to pick judges who will find against gay rights, they really suck at it.

Republican appointee's on the supreme court slit evenly 3 for 3 against in Lawrence v Texas.
Prop 8 in California was overturned by a Republican appointee.

Revenant Threshold
10-25-2010, 08:48 PM
It's very simple, and non-dramatic. If gays want Democrats to support their agenda, they need to stop voting for Democrats who don't support their agenda. There is no controversy in that position. Gays don't "lose" in that scenario, because they had nothing to lose. McCain/Palin America looks exactly like Obama/Biden America, from the perspective of gay rights advocates. That seems a bit too simple. Gay and gay-friendly groups aren't that large an amount of the population; i'm not so sure that people put off by a notably non-gay-friendly Democract could not be replaced by people attracted to a non-gay-friendly Democrat, nor that the amount lost would necessarily be all that bothersome to a candidate in the first place.

I'm not sure I agree with your last point. That Obama/Biden haven't done enough doesn't mean that McCain/Palin couldn't have done more in the opposite direction. To perhaps refine elucidator's tug-of-war analogy, it's like being invited to join a team that's set on holding out for a draw because they don't want to rile the other team up for other, more important matches; not a particularly enticing prospect, except if you don't join in the other team win outright. But don't worry, some day, we'll all expend effort together on the match you want to win. Promise.

Leaper
10-25-2010, 08:49 PM
Considering their record so far that isn't a very convincing argument. If their goal has been to pick judges who will find against gay rights, they really suck at it.

Republican appointee's on the supreme court slit evenly 3 for 3 against in Lawrence v Texas.
Prop 8 in California was overturned by a Republican appointee.

One could argue that of the three on the "wrong side," as it were, two were among the latest Republican appointees (not counting Roberts, of course), so they're getting better at it. :)

elucidator
10-25-2010, 09:27 PM
Well, OK, then what's the plan that is so much better than the tedious, tiresome stuff I'm offering. You got a better plan, why not bring it?

You going to withold your support for the Dems so they lose? How does that help you any? Even if one accepts the fanciful notion that the Dems and the Tparty are equivalent, how are you in any way improved?

Revolution is right out, you could wait for your demographic numbers to overwhelm the general population. Might take awhile.

So, your plan is to withold your support until the Dem leadership comes begging? Well what good is that, you already said you wouldn't believe them anyway!

And here's a question I don't have the answer to, maybe you do: how big a bunch of people are we talking about, here? Are there yet any reliable numbers on how many gay voters there are? Is it a number likely to strike fear in the hearts of pols? And of that fearsome mass, how many vote in lockstep?

And what if the Dems win without you? Then what?

If you can do this thing without allies, go for it! I'd love it, I've seen so few miracles. I would cheer, stomp and get drunk as hell in celebration.

But if in the cold light of dawn you realize you will need allies and partners, then you got the progressive movement, and that's about it. So, if you're thinking that, might as well tell you right up front, we lose a lot of fights. The other guys are smart, rich, unscrupulous, and mean. Been at this more than forty years and, brother, I have had my ass kicked.

So if that's too much for you, you better fold. Just go sit somewhere and cry in your beer and we'll see if we can get this thing done.

And if you have a better plan, bring it. But if your plan is to bring the powers that be to their knees by the sheer mass of your numbers, I might need some convincing.

Mosier
10-25-2010, 09:47 PM
You going to withold your support for the Dems so they lose? How does that help you any?

Democrats would be more friendly to gays, if they knew the vote of the gay community depended on it. Right now it's taken for granted. If the democrats lose a few elections because they did nothing to support gay rights, and it leads to stronger gay support from Democrats, how is that anything other than a win?

Der Trihs
10-25-2010, 09:55 PM
If you can do this thing without allies, go for it! I'd love it, I've seen so few miracles. I would cheer, stomp and get drunk as hell in celebration.

But if in the cold light of dawn you realize you will need allies and partners, then you got the progressive movement, and that's about it. You are ignoring the basic complaint here, namely that the so-called progressive movement is not their ally and shows no interest in being one. And that what has been accomplished has been accomplished without them. They may indeed need the "progressives" as allies, but in that case they are just screwed because the "progressives" aren't allies and likely won't ever be.

A one way relationship where X gives and gives while Y just takes and does nothing in return isn't an alliance.

Revenant Threshold
10-25-2010, 10:01 PM
It doesn't strike me that recognising a bad plan as a bad plan requires that we have an alternative, good plan to take it's place. I can only speak for myself, but really I can't think of any superior ways of actually going about this, unfortunetly. That a shitty situation is, perhaps, an unavoidable shitty situation doesn't mean that we can't point out how shitty it is; especially when the the shitty situation is being spun as some sort of we're-all-in-this-together, teambuilding exercise. "Allies" presupposes some level of reciprocity; it's not just one helping the other, it's both helping both. One group calling for everyone to come together in brotherhood to support it's goals, and then leaving the phone off the hook when those helpful groups decide they'd quite like a bit of help too, isn't an alliance, it's parasitic.

If you go to a pub, chances are you'll be happy to buy a round the first few times. What goes around, comes around. But if every time your friends convince you to buy the first round, and then decide to leave afterwards - you're eventually going to stop turning up.

elucidator
10-25-2010, 10:12 PM
Are your numbers that big? Most of the Dems and lefites I know support gay rights without hesitation, but they do it because its the right thing to do. I don't know of any of them wringing their hands in woe at the prospect of losing the gay vote.

Hell, its even possible, I suppose, that a Dem in a close district with a lot of rubes and yahoos, he might even benefit from your public scorn and contempt, especially if his opponent is trying to make an issue of it.

If the Dems get totally killed, then your demographic won't matter. If they totally win, it doesn't matter. It only matters that much when the balance is right at the tipping point. If that's the sum of your strategy, its pretty darn risky. If you're going for kidnapping, here, you probably should be sure you got the kid tied up in the basement before you write the ransom note.

jayjay
10-25-2010, 10:15 PM
"Come back, baby! It'll be different this time! I'll take anger management classes! I swear I'll treat you right if you come back now!"

Scylla
10-25-2010, 10:47 PM
There's also GOProud, on top of the Log Cabin Republican (figuratively, of course.).

All these Republican groups fighting for civil rights, and conservative judges declaring discriminatory laws unconstitutional, and all these Democratic doing their best to create uphold, and delay the repeal of these discriminatory laws....

Well, damn! It's enough to make your average God-fearing intolerant social conservative become a Democrat.

Good riddance.

Miller
10-25-2010, 10:53 PM
But if in the cold light of dawn you realize you will need allies and partners, then you got the progressive movement, and that's about it.

Have you read a single word anyone else here has written?

We know we need friends and allies. The problem is, the people who keep claiming to be our friends and allies keep fucking us in the ass. And not in the way that we like! Our friends and allies talk about how much they care about us... until they get into office, and then it's, "Oh, it's not the right time in the election cycle for that." "We'd love to, but we'd alienate the Latinos, and we really need their support." "We can't risk a conservative backlash, sorry." That's not what friends do, luci. Friends help. Where's our help?

So if that's too much for you, you better fold. Just go sit somewhere and cry in your beer and we'll see if we can get this thing done.

You'll get it done? Christ, I guess that answers my earlier question: you really haven't read any single word anyone else here has written. The entire issue here is that you don't fucking do anything at all! If the Democrats would actually get off their asses and help us out, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Richard Parker
10-25-2010, 10:55 PM
As of March 3, 2010, H.R. 3017 had 198 cosponsors in the House, 192 Democrats and 6 Republicans. Bush promised to veto it, and Obama promises to sign it.

Can you guess what big-government, tax-and-spend liberal nonsense H.R. 3017 is, Scylla?

Bonus points: How about H.R. 1283? The 192 cosponsors consist of 190 Democrats and 2 Republicans. Obviously not a bill that gay people care about though, right?

Scylla
10-25-2010, 10:59 PM
Can you guess what big-government, tax-and-spend liberal nonsense H.R. 3017 is, Scylla?

The next promise Obama will break?

Miller
10-25-2010, 11:01 PM
There's also GOProud, on top of the Log Cabin Republican (figuratively, of course.).

All these Republican groups fighting for civil rights, and conservative judges declaring discriminatory laws unconstitutional, and all these Democratic doing their best to create uphold, and delay the repeal of these discriminatory laws....

Well, damn! It's enough to make your average God-fearing intolerant social conservative become a Democrat.

Good riddance.

Let's not get out of hand here. The Democrats are pretty reprehensible when it comes to gay rights, but they remain the party that's least likely to back a "Stone the Queers" amendment to the Constitution. This entire situation exists primarily because Republican party is such a vile, hate filled organization that gays don't have any real alternatives to the Democrats. When you stop buddying up to preachers who blame hurricanes on us, then you can come back and talk. Until then, try to remember that you're actually the greater of two evils, here.

Richard Parker
10-25-2010, 11:03 PM
The next promise Obama will break?

Sorry, is this not fitting your trolling narrative? I think you're supposed to hand-wave about the partisan affiliation of a Judge as your rebuttal.

Scylla
10-25-2010, 11:19 PM
Let's not get out of hand here. The Democrats are pretty reprehensible when it comes to gay rights, but they remain the party that's least likely to back a "Stone the Queers" amendment to the Constitution. This entire situation exists primarily because Republican party is such a vile, hate filled organization that gays don't have any real alternatives to the Democrats. When you stop buddying up to preachers who blame hurricanes on us, then you can come back and talk. Until then, try to remember that you're actually the greater of two evils, here.

This is why you, personally suck.

How the fuck do you come off calling me, the evil. Do you mean because I'm a conservative and all conservatives hate gay, therefore I hate gays and I'm therefore evil?

It seems like the main product of the left is fear-mongering against Republicans in order to keep the minorities in line. I mean, if it's not to stand up against the evil hateful Republicans, than exactly what does the left have to recommend itself?

This one dimensional pandering and fear-mongering by assholes like yourself on the left is perhaps the deepest and most entrenched example of cynical prejudicial race-baiting that exists at a systemic level in this country.

I got news for you. We have a black president. Discrimination and hate based on race and sexual preference is on it's way out. We are entering the post-racial, post- discriminatory age. People that have a real problem with other people based on race or sexual preference are the ones that are looked down on by the majority these days.

You need to sell another lie, because the picture the left would like to paint of itself as the crusading superhero fighting for the underdog against prejudice and discrimination from the right has not aged well. You're just another fat guy in spandex selling fear

Richard Parker
10-25-2010, 11:21 PM
And here I thought Scylla was posting slyly with half-smile. But it turns out, he seriously believes this shit. My apologies. I retract my comment about trolling and replace it with stunned disbelief that you could be so willfully ignorant.

Scylla
10-25-2010, 11:23 PM
Sorry, is this not fitting your trolling narrative? I think you're supposed to hand-wave about the partisan affiliation of a Judge as your rebuttal.

Since putting arguments into your opponents mouths (as the only way to defeat the) appears to be your forte (and the primary tactic of the ledt) why are you bothering to debate me?

Why not just take your one trick pony show to the left where you can preach to the choir?

Richard Parker
10-25-2010, 11:25 PM
Is this a debate? If so, why don't you address my points?

And I wasn't putting an argument in your mouth, I was making fun of your previous post. Sorry you couldn't tell the difference.

BigT
10-25-2010, 11:34 PM
This is why you, personally suck.

How the fuck do you come off calling me, the evil. Do you mean because I'm a conservative and all conservatives hate gay, therefore I hate gays and I'm therefore evil?

It seems like the main product of the left is fear-mongering against Republicans in order to keep the minorities in line. I mean, if it's not to stand up against the evil hateful Republicans, than exactly what does the left have to recommend itself?

This one dimensional pandering and fear-mongering by assholes like yourself on the left is perhaps the deepest and most entrenched example of cynical prejudicial race-baiting that exists at a systemic level in this country.

I got news for you. We have a black president. Discrimination and hate based on race and sexual preference is on it's way out. We are entering the post-racial, post- discriminatory age. People that have a real problem with other people based on race or sexual preference are the ones that are looked down on by the majority these days.

You need to sell another lie, because the picture the left would like to paint of itself as the crusading superhero fighting for the underdog against prejudice and discrimination from the right has not aged well. You're just another fat guy in spandex selling fear

Your statement about being post discrimination will only make sense after your party, which has historically been overwhelmingly white, both denounces the racist elements and actually gets a little integration. The black president we have only happened because the other party won.

elucidator
10-25-2010, 11:36 PM
... The problem is, the people who keep claiming to be our friends and allies keep fucking us in the ass. And not in the way that we like!...
So, now you're all butthurt about it! (Hey, you started it!)


....Our friends and allies talk about how much they care about us... until they get into office, and then it's, "Oh, it's not the right time in the election cycle for that." "We'd love to, but we'd alienate the Latinos, and we really need their support." "We can't risk a conservative backlash, sorry." That's not what friends do, luci. Friends help. Where's our help? ...
What if they're telling you the truth? And what if they are right? On what basis do you presume malice? Have you some secret policy documents:"Hey, time to fuck over the gays, why the heck not!" You trusted them before, but now you know that they are....universally!...cynical bigots. All of them?


...You'll get it done? Christ, I guess that answers my earlier question: you really haven't read any single word anyone else here has written....

What I actually said was "we'll see if we can get this thing done." In the peckerwood dialect in which I was raised, that it is a conditional, a way of saying what one hopes to accomplish despite discouragements. You see, with you or without you, we keep on going, because its the right thing to do. Gay doesn't matter, or, more to the point, it doesn't especially matter, it matters just as much as latino, black, or any human condition whatsoever. Justice matters, everything else is commentary.

...The entire issue here is that you don't fucking do anything at all! If the Democrats would actually get off their asses and help us out, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Not a Democrat. Damn sure not a mealy-mouth, menshevik, centrist, business-friendly, Blue Dead Dog Clintonista. Don't mind being called a hippy, just watch it, is all.

Scylla
10-25-2010, 11:40 PM
Your statement about being post discrimination will only make sense after your party, which has historically been overwhelmingly white, both denounces the racist elements and actually gets a little integration. The black president we have only happened because the other party won.

Oh yeah, good point. The right are a bunch of racists as evidenced by the fact that the previous administration had no minorities in it. :rolleyes:

Idiot.

Richard Parker
10-25-2010, 11:48 PM
Of the 43 Black elected federal officials in 2008, do you know how many were Republicans? I'll give you a clue. It's roughly the same percentage chance that Republicans won't filibuster the two bills I identified above: Zero. (Which is not to say that appointing cabinet members without regard to race isn't a step in the right direction.)

Miller
10-25-2010, 11:50 PM
This is why you, personally suck.

Actually, it's because I'm almost 35, and I'm still wearing GrrAnimals.

How the fuck do you come off calling me, the evil. Do you mean because I'm a conservative and all conservatives hate gay, therefore I hate gays and I'm therefore evil?

Did I call you evil? I don't think that I did. I called the Republican party evil. I also called the Democratic party backstabbing cowards. Does this mean I think that every single member of the Democratic party is a backstabbing coward? Unlikely, as I'm a registered Democrat. If you want to take assigning a pejorative to a group is the same as assigning a pejorative to every individual member of a group, that's fine. But that's going to be a difficult position to defend when you're starting threads entitled, "Liberals hate gays." By that standard, you just called me a homophobe, so why shouldn't I call you evil?

But I don't think you called me a homophobe, any more than I think I called you evil.

It seems like the main product of the left is fear-mongering against Republicans in order to keep the minorities in line. I mean, if it's not to stand up against the evil hateful Republicans, than exactly what does the left have to recommend itself?

This is largely a fair and accurate summation of the relationship between Democrats and gays. However, I don't think I would term it as "fear-mongering," precisely, because the Republicans really are as bad as the Democrats say. Significantly worse, actually, because Democrats routinely let Republicans slide on the most outrageous anti-gay slurs.

But yes, at least in the context of gay rights, the primary purpose served by Democrats is to ensure that Republicans are not elected to office. Beyond that, they have proven themselves to be entirely useless.

This one dimensional pandering and fear-mongering by assholes like yourself on the left is perhaps the deepest and most entrenched example of cynical prejudicial race-baiting that exists at a systemic level in this country.

Really? More than, say, Tom "[The gay] is the greatest threat to our freedom that we face today" Coburn? More than Sally "The homosexual agenda is just destroying our nation" Kerns? More than David "[Gay marriage] is the crossroads where [hurrican] Katrina meets [hurricane] Rita" Vittier? I may be engaged in one dimensional pandering and fear-mongering, but I'm pretty clearly in the bush leagues compared to the Senate Republicans.

I got news for you. We have a black president.

Okay... Is he also gay? Because otherwise, I'm not sure I'm seeing the relevance.

Discrimination and hate based on race and sexual preference is on it's way out. We are entering the post-racial, post- discriminatory age. People that have a real problem with other people based on race or sexual preference are the ones that are looked down on by the majority these days.

True, true, and half-true. Beating on gays is still a winning electoral strategy in most of this country. It is getting less and less effective, but I think it's rather stretching things to give Republicans the credit for that. Or the Democrats, for that matter - again, neither party is particularly enamored of gay rights, but only one of them regularly has high-placed members call us godless abominations.

You need to sell another lie, because the picture the left would like to paint of itself as the crusading superhero fighting for the underdog against prejudice and discrimination from the right has not aged well.

You might want to scroll up and read some of my other posts in this thread.

You're just another fat guy in spandex selling fear

It's not actually spandex: they don't make GrrAnimals in my size.

elucidator
10-25-2010, 11:53 PM
....not to say that appointing cabinet members without regard to race isn't a step in the right direction.)
Colin Powell is secretly Italian. Saw him dance once, news video of a Pubbie gathering. Almost gave it away, right there, but no black people were watching.

jayjay
10-25-2010, 11:53 PM
It's not actually spandex: they don't make GrrAnimals in my size.

Point of minor correction: the clothing brand is actually Garanimals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garanimals), which is a play on the name of the manufacturer, Garan Incorporated.

Scylla
10-25-2010, 11:57 PM
Miller

Did I call you evil? I don't think that I did.

Previous post:

"Until then, try to remember that you're actually the greater of two evils, here."

I kinda figured when you said "you" in your response to me, you were referring to me.

Miller
10-26-2010, 12:06 AM
What if they're telling you the truth?

If that's the truth, fine. But the time to tell me the truth is before you ask me for my vote, not after you've won the election.

And what if they are right? On what basis do you presume malice? Have you some secret policy documents:"Hey, time to fuck over the gays, why the heck not!" You trusted them before, but now you know that they are....universally!...cynical bigots. All of them?

Most of them, yes. How many Democratic politicians are explicitly and unambiguously in favor of gay marriage? There are some, sure. Not a lot. Some of them weasel around it. Those would be the cynics. Some of them come right out and say they're opposed to gay marriage. Those would be the bigots. Sometimes there's overlap between the two, and you get your genuine cynical bigot.

What I actually said was "we'll see if we can get this thing done." In the peckerwood dialect in which I was raised, that it is a conditional, a way of saying what one hopes to accomplish despite discouragements. You see, with you or without you, we keep on going, because its the right thing to do.

No, you don't. That's pretty much the crux of the argument, here.

Gay doesn't matter, or, more to the point, it doesn't especially matter, it matters just as much as latino, black, or any human condition whatsoever. Justice matters, everything else is commentary.

In this thread, you have explicitly stated that gay rights should take a backseat to the concerns of blacks and Latinos, for the good of the party. So, apparently, it matters quite a bit less than many other human conditions.

Not a Democrat. Damn sure not a mealy-mouth, menshevik, centrist, business-friendly, Blue Dead Dog Clintonista. Don't mind being called a hippy, just watch it, is all.

That's a shame, because of the terms you just listed, "hippy" is by far the most derogatory.

Miller
10-26-2010, 12:08 AM
Miller



Previous post:

"Until then, try to remember that you're actually the greater of two evils, here."

I kinda figured when you said "you" in your response to me, you were referring to me.

Fair point. I should have said, "your party is the greater of two evils." My apologies for the unintentional insult.

Der Trihs
10-26-2010, 12:08 AM
What I actually said was "we'll see if we can get this thing done." In the peckerwood dialect in which I was raised, that it is a conditional, a way of saying what one hopes to accomplish despite discouragements. You see, with you or without you, we keep on going, because its the right thing to do. Again, no. The whole point is that you are doing no such thing. While there has been progress on the front of rights for homosexuals, the driving forces for that progress have nothing to do with the Democrats. They've been about as active on the subject as the same number of beef carcasses. Any progress made is in spite of them, not because of them.

elucidator
10-26-2010, 12:41 AM
...in this thread, you have explicitly stated that gay rights should take a backseat to the concerns of blacks and Latinos, for the good of the party. ...

Never said any such thing.

Miller
10-26-2010, 12:49 AM
Never said any such thing.

Oh, look. A Democrat lying about his position on gay rights. Quel fucking surprise.


As a practical fact, your demand that the Dems put your agenda at the very forefront of their efforts is probably counter-productive, it plays into the hands of our mutual enemies. Who would like nothing better than to Balkanize the progressive movement into mutually competitive, squabbling groups. It is their wettest dream.

Latinos, for instance, tend to be rather conservative as regards their religion, as do blacks. But they are on board with us, moving towards the light. If they Dems were to place your concerns above theirs, what happens then? Not that they vote Pubbie, but that they just don't vote.

And you lose. We lose. We.

waterj2
10-26-2010, 12:58 AM
There's also GOProud, on top of the Log Cabin Republican (figuratively, of course.).

All these Republican groups fighting for civil rights, and conservative judges declaring discriminatory laws unconstitutional, and all these Democratic doing their best to create uphold, and delay the repeal of these discriminatory laws....

Well, damn! It's enough to make your average God-fearing intolerant social conservative become a Democrat.

Good riddance.GOProud isn't fighting for civil rights. They take no position on same-sex marriage. They invited Ann Coulter, who's been known to use anti-gay hate speech, to address their convention, and to tell them that same-sex marriage isn't a civil right, and "you're not black." GOProud is a phone-booth's worth of gays who think the Log Cabin Republicans waste time working for gay rights when it could be better spent bashing liberals. And even then, this is the reception they get (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cuBlFflPOIg) just for being at CPAC (where they were certainly not given any speaking time.

So that leaves you with the Log Cabin Republicans as your "all these Republican groups". A group that awarded it's Barry Goldwater award to John Cornyn (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20017427-503544.html) who has a rating of 0 for the last three Congressional sessions on gay rights issues from the Human Rights Campaign. But, being the first time someone as prominent as the head of the NRSCC has actually deigned to appear with a gay organization, it's pretty historic (http://www.frumforum.com/cornyn-to-attend-log-cabin-republicans-dinner). Yep, that's some effective lobbying, going from "your money's no good here (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=990CE4DC1E3EF934A1575BC0A963958260)" to "I'll take your help, as long as you don't require anything from me" in only 14 years.

Seriously, there is no contest which party is less harmful to gay rights.

There's 37 Senate races this year. Do you want to go through them one by one and see if there's a single one where the Republican is better on gay rights than the Democrat? What was the DADT vote again? Oh, yeah 57 Democrats in favor, 41 Republicans and 2 Democrats opposed. Maybe Blanche Lincoln's challenger supports DADT repeal, but that seems vanishingly unlikely.

There's also 37 governor's races. How about these? How many current Republican governors have vetoed gay rights bills that have passed the legislature? I'll start you off with Rhode Island (http://www.ontopmag.com/article.aspx?id=4852&MediaType=1&Category=26), Vermont (http://www.wcax.com/Global/story.asp?S=10069165), Minnesota (http://www.towleroad.com/2010/05/minnesota-governor-tim-pawlenty-vetoes-gay-death-rights-bill.html), and Hawaii (http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6660FW20100707).

Maybe the House of Representatives has the occasional Democrat staking out the anti-gay position in their race, but I don't know of any. I recall Dede Scozzafava was for marriage equality in the NY-23 special election, while Bill Owens wasn't. But the Republicans drummed her out of the race (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/election_2009/2009/10/31/2009-10-31_gop_candidate_dede_scozzafava_drops_out_of_key_.html) in favor of a less gay-friendly candidate than either. Even Ike Skelton, probably the most anti-gay Democrat in Congress is in some danger of losing his seat to the even more rabidly anti-gay (http://motherjones.com/politics/2010/10/vicky-hartzler-most-anti-gay-candidate-america) Vicky Hartzler.

There's simply no contest between the parties. Electing Republicans to advance the cause of equal rights for gay people would be like getting pissed that the fire department cares more about conserving their water than extinguishing the fire burning down my house, so maybe I'll try those other guys with a truck full of gasoline they're willing to use. It's a shitty situation to be in, but it's where we are.

mhendo
10-26-2010, 01:12 AM
Scylla, now that you're back, i'd still be interested in hearing why, in your estimation, Obama is responsible for what the Justice Department does on his watch, but Bush was not responsible for what the Justice Department did on his.

The original question, and your posts that inspired it, are back in post #47.

elucidator
10-26-2010, 01:37 AM
Can you grasp the distinction between "not advance to the forefront" and "...should take a backseat... " They are very different. A whole bunch.

Hard to believe that you don't grasp the distinction. But being a generous soul, I'll attribute that to incomprehension rather than mendacity.

And Christ Jeus, dim bulb, I'm not a Democrat, you're the one says he's a registered Dem!

Bosstone
10-26-2010, 01:40 AM
It's not a retreat, it's a strategic advance to the rear!

Miller
10-26-2010, 01:48 AM
Can you grasp the distinction between "not advance to the forefront" and "...should take a backseat... " They are very different. A whole bunch.

Like fucking hell they are. If you're trying to parse a meaningful distinction between the two, you should be running for office. With bullshit skills like that, you could go far.

And Christ Jeus, dim bulb, I'm not a Democrat, you're the one says he's a registered Dem!

Yeah, right, sorry. You're not a Democrat. You've just voted for them in every election since the Great Deluge. (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13065325&postcount=120) And you throw a giant hissy fit when any of us uppity queers dares - dares - to suggest that the Democrats take us for granted. But you ain't one of them, nosiree.

Talk about your distinctions without a difference. Up next, elucidator insists he never said he liked to-may-tohs, reaffirms support for toh-mah-tohs.

elucidator
10-26-2010, 02:02 AM
Let me see if I can break this down into cognitive chunks small enough for your algae level intelligence. Its going be tough...

Lets say you drive a buggy with three horses, one black, one brown, one gay. All three horses are in tandem, side by side. And I say to you "It would not be wise to advance the gay horse in front of the others", you will hear me saying "Take the gay horse, and place him behind the others." That's what that means, so far as you can grasp?

Seriously? You're gonna stick to that?

And I swear by Eugene V. Debs, this has to be the first time a registered Democrat has slandered me by calling me a Democrat. Its so post-modernist!

Miller
10-26-2010, 02:47 AM
Let me see if I can break this down into cognitive chunks small enough for your algae level intelligence. Its going be tough...

Lets say you drive a buggy with three horses, one black, one brown, one gay. All three horses are in tandem, side by side. And I say to you "It would not be wise to advance the gay horse in front of the others", you will hear me saying "Take the gay horse, and place him behind the others." That's what that means, so far as you can grasp?

That makes perfect sense... except for one thing. The poster you were responding to wasn't asking to be placed ahead of anyone. He was asking to be treated the same as everyone else. So, if I may, I think your analogy should be corrected thusly:

You have three horses. Two of them are regularly fed and well treated. The third is half-starved and badly whipped. I ask you why you treat the third horse so poorly, and you respond, "It would not be wise to advance that horse in front of the others."

Now, as you can clearly see, that's a crazy and incomprehensible response to the question. So, when you first said it would be "unwise to advance our interests over theirs," I assumed what you were trying to say was, "Blacks and Latinos are pretty homophobic, and we don't want to risk pissing them off, so you gays are going to have to go fend for yourselves, because you simply aren't important enough to have your concerns addressed." Which, while a generally shitty sentiment, is at least sensical and based on real-world logic. My apologies for assuming that you meant to present that argument, and not the crazy and incomprehensible one. I'll try not to make that mistake in the future.

Leaper
10-26-2010, 03:08 AM
Then the question for gay voters becomes, how do they balance their concern for basic human rights, which Democrats don't have a stellar record on, with all the other concerns they may have that the party may be better with (e.g. health care, the economy, etc.)? That question will probably determine what individual voters (and not, obviously, the larger special interest/issue groups) do next week and two years from now.

Scylla
10-26-2010, 09:09 AM
Fair point. I should have said, "your party is the greater of two evils." My apologies for the unintentional insult.

I may have overreacted to the slight as well. No worries.

Scylla
10-26-2010, 09:20 AM
Scylla, now that you're back, i'd still be interested in hearing why, in your estimation, Obama is responsible for what the Justice Department does on his watch, but Bush was not responsible for what the Justice Department did on his.

The original question, and your posts that inspired it, are back in post #47.

Like I said, Bush does not appear to have been particularly involved in the issue you raise. Obama is out front on this, and appears to be Directing it.

Bush is responsible for what happens under his watch, in some sense. What's more telling are the issues a President actuAlly gets in front of and directs. Obama appears to be very much in front of this issue and the justice department actions, Bush did not from what i can see.

Gyrate
10-26-2010, 10:50 AM
I'm a liberal and I absolutely hate gays.

No, wait, not gays...whatchamacallits...what are those things with all the legs? Oh yeah...centipedes. I really hate centipedes.

And I definitely don't think people should be allowed to marry them.

mhendo
10-26-2010, 10:57 AM
Bush is responsible for what happens under his watch, in some sense. What's more telling are the issues a President actuAlly gets in front of and directs. Obama appears to be very much in front of this issue and the justice department actions, Bush did not from what i can see.So, George Bush's general position was to do absolutely nothing for gay rights. He consistently supported DADT and over 6,000 service members were dismissed under this law during his presidency; he supported a constitutional ban on gay marriage; he opposed gay adoption; he supported the right of the Boy Scouts to refuse gay members; and he opposed the expansion of employment non-discrimination legislation to include gays.

But he's not to be criticized when his Department of Justice fights against a court challenge to DADT, because he's not "in front" of the issue.

Barack Obama has made clear that gay rights is an issue for him; he has explicitly stated that he opposes any constitutional amendments banning gay marriage; he has explicitly called for the repeal of DADT, and has pushed Congress to actually enact legislation that would allow gays into the military; and he supports the expansion of employment non-discrimination legislation to include sexual orientation.

But he deserves criticism when his Department of Justice appeals a decision in that same court case, because he doesn't have "the guts to stand up to this and give you the equal rights to the protections of marriage or to serve your country."

Got it.

FWIW, i agree with many of the critiques of the Obama administration offered in this thread, and i wish he had pushed a whole bunch of these issues harder over the past year and a half, like he promised he was going to. But your position is one of a partisan hack looking to take a political cheap shot, and using the issue as nothing but a thinly-veiled dig at Obama. You're pathetic.

Bricker
10-26-2010, 11:07 AM
Like I said, Bush does not appear to have been particularly involved in the issue you raise. Obama is out front on this, and appears to be Directing it.

Bush is responsible for what happens under his watch, in some sense. What's more telling are the issues a President actually gets in front of and directs. Obama appears to be very much in front of this issue and the justice department actions, Bush did not from what i can see.

I don't agree with this distinction. The Justice Department under Bush was not given a free hand to pursue or drop issues like this. This would have been a political calculation that the DoJ would have gotten White House approval in 2006 just as much as in 2010.

I grant that the appearance of Presidential involvement is greater, but only because Obama is (a) a constitutional law scholar; and (b) a Democrat. This means there's a general perception he's not hostile (or not as hostile) to gay rights as a Republican, and he has some personal understanding of the legal issues as well as the policy issues.

But Bush and Obama deserve precisely the same amount of credit or blame for this type of decision. You cannot ding Obama and give Bush a pass.

mhendo
10-26-2010, 11:11 AM
I should add, Scylla:

I am somewhat heartened by your concern about this issue. I guess i must have inadvertently skipped over your cogent and impassioned pleas for gay rights in all the threads we've had about DADT over the past couple of years.

Military Polls Soldiers on DADT (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=570805)
According to Sen. James Inhofe, soldiers are unwilling to fight and die for gay soldiers (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=563190)
Allowing Gays to Openly Serve In the US Military, But Not In Combat Arms Positions: Fair? (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=550411)
"A kiss sealed her fate", or "Don't ask, don't tell SUCKS!!!" (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=505608)

Also, knowing your concern about the importance of holding a President responsible when he is "in front" on an issue, i went in search of the thread you started when George Bush, in 2004 and 2005, explicitly called for an amendment to the US Constitution that would ban gay marriage and prevent "activist judges" from allowing it in places like San Francisco and Massachusetts. Unfortunately, my search skills seem to be lacking, and i couldn't find the thread; perhaps you could track it down for me.

Gyrate
10-26-2010, 11:20 AM
You cannot ding Obama and give Bush a pass.Can we do it the other way around?

One of the possible interpretations I have been considering is that Obama is deliberately avoiding commitment to this issue to avoid energizing the Republican base in advance of the elections. The last thing he needs is the social conservative wingnuts voting in force because he dared to suggest that homosexuals are people too.

I am, however, aware that this is an extremely charitable view of what Obama has been doing and would rely on him suddenly pressing the "go" button after the election. Or after the 2012 election. Or the 2014 midterm...

Okay, I'm officially grumpy about it.

elucidator
10-26-2010, 11:34 AM
... and not the crazy and incomprehensible one. I'll try not to make that mistake in the future.

Well, here, let me help you with that. Next time you don't quite grasp the point, next time you are confused about something I said, ask me. I'll tell you, I'm not particularly shy about expressing my views. I will be happy to clarify.

But if you would be so kind as not to twist my words like a balloon animal to say something they don't say, I would prefer that. If you have trouble with definitions of such complex concepts like the word "advance", there are any number of online dictionaries to assist you in your quest for truth. Or, as I said, you could just ask.

Our mutual enemy lies about us quite adequately, they do not require your assistance. Disraeli, IIRC: I can deal with my political enemies, Heaven protect me from my allies.

But lets put the question, lets find out where you stand here. Suppose we made Miller a heavy leader of the coalition, one empowered to make difficult and painful decisions. Because that's what coalition politics is about, don't you know: difficult and painful decisions in the pursuit of justice. The kind of decisions we elected Obama to make, because we trust his judgment somewhat more than the other guy.

And lets just do a hypothetical: you can advance your agenda to the forefront, all the members of the coalition will put it at the very top. Even in those districts where the populace is not all that friendly. And you look at the polling and the numbers, you hear from your black and latino constituents, and others who desperately need health care reform, and so on and so forth.

Do you say to the Latinos of Arizona "Well, yes, you can be stopped on the street and taken to jail until you can prove your citizenship, but equal marriage and DADT are more important." Or the to person who needs health care for their children "Well, yes, your children are very important, but not quite so important as my right to marriage."

Of course you wouldn't. It would destroy our fragile advantage and offer aid and comfort to our enemies. We would all lose, and you would gain nothing.

Of course, I am assuming that you are a sensible person of good will and conscience, that your commitment is to human rights above all, and not simply in it for yourself. That you are committed to justice and not just "gimmee mine, and fuck you".

Am I wrong about that? WWMD? What would Miller do? Suppose that you were convinced that moving your concerns to the "back burner" were necessary, to advance the larger cause. Would you do it? Do you have the courage to make such hard choices, if they prove necessary?

Are you in this for us, all of us, or just for you? I shouldn't even have to ask that question, but you've made it necessary. Me, I'm obvious, I've made it clear, I'm not gay, black or latino, I'm in it for human rights. How about you, what level of loyalty to the overall cause can we expect from you?

Scylla
10-26-2010, 11:54 AM
Mhendo:

I've consistently argued for gay marriage and been a proponent of gays in the military on these boards since I started posting in 1999. The fact that I may not have posted in a handful of threads that you produced is more likely an indicator that I have a life outside these boards and do not share your ubiquity of presence.

Secondly, your trying to draw some sort of false equivalence, but I'll play along. Bush is better on gay rights than Obama because every gay person knew exactly where Bush stood on the issue. He was against gay marriage and gays in the military. No question about it. Most importantly, his actions were consistent with his stated stance.

With the Democrats on the hand, we have Clinton reinforcing and giving credence to discrimination with "don't ask, don't tell.". That piece of shit legally places a stigma on gays, literally forcing them into the closet.

Obama on the other hand is actively blocking and speaking on the topic of blocking the repeal of DADT on the grounds that it is unconstitutional.

You can play all the semantics you want, but when it comes down to actions, which is what matters, we have in this case conservatives fighting for gay rights, and liberals blocking them.

The left pays a lot of lip service to gay rights, but in terms of actual actions.... Not so much.

I don't really give a shot how many democrats vote in favor of a bill that is doomed by foregone conclusion, just so that they can tick off "supports gay rights" box on their bios.

Because that's all they're doing. That's all they've been doing for years. They create these bills that have no chance whatsoever and then they take turns supporting them so that they look sympathetic to gay rights. Nothing ever happens except that they get to claim they're progressive on the issue. Big fucking deal.

But when a conservative group actually does something that can effect meaningful change, what happens? "oh no no, this is not the right way, be patient, we want to do tithes other way down the road.". And then the whole thing loses momentum gets swept under the rug, the stays quo remains, and the left blames the right claiming it got blocked in this other that they had wanted to do it. Nothing changes. The left gets to blame the right, and time marches on.

I think it's a bunch of bullshit. Truman integrated the army by executive order and that seemed to work fine. Obama didn't even have to go that far. All he had to do was not actively oppose the repeal of DADT. But, for all his talk, when push comes to shove he didn't do it. Actions mean something. Empty gestures and votes for doomed bills don't.

So, Bush was better. Gays knew they did not have a friend in that President. He did them the honor and respect of being open in his opposition.

Obama smiling and saying he really doesn't mean it and that he supports you is small consolation if he's doing so while he's sliding the knife into your gut.

But your right, the Democrats have a much better record of empty rhetoric on this subject than the right.

elucidator
10-26-2010, 12:14 PM
Wow. Classic Scylla. Definitely a contender for inclusion in the CD of Scylla's Greatest Hits, Vol. II.

Scylla
10-26-2010, 12:24 PM
Wow. Classic Scylla. Definitely a contender for inclusion in the CD of Scylla's Greatest Hits, Vol. II.

That already went platinum. Were up to volume 4 now.

elucidator
10-26-2010, 12:47 PM
....He did them the honor and respect of being open in his opposition....

This. Crystalline perfection, weapons-grade Scylla.

I remember, it was 1970. Bunch of Nixonian hard hats started an impromptu game of "Let's Kill the Hippy". A merry chase ensued, but I trained on brown rice and veg, their training table was mostly beer and cheeseburgers.

But I never got the chance to thank them for the honor and respect of their open opposition. They're probably dead by now. Darn.

42fish
10-26-2010, 12:47 PM
So, Bush was better. Gays knew they did not have a friend in that President. He did them the honor and respect of being open in his opposition.

I don't buy the idea that open hostility constitutes an improvment over benign neglect. Or even over benign neglect accompanied by elucidator-eqsue "We're all in this together for justice. Now, stop rocking the boat by complaining about being treated as a second-class citizen" sanctimony*.



But your right, the Democrats have a much better record of empty rhetoric on this subject than the right.

I ain't gonna argue against that one though.



*Anyone else read luci's posts and have flashbacks to making a customer service call that ends without anything resolved and the customer service rep cheerily asks "Is there anything else I can help you with" while you want to respond, "You do realize that 'Anything else' implies that you've actually helped me with my original problem, don'tcha?"

jayjay
10-26-2010, 12:50 PM
Wow. Classic Scylla. Definitely a contender for inclusion in the CD of Scylla's Greatest Hits, Vol. II.

That already went platinum. Were up to volume 4 now.

Nah...the guy's been coasting on the blimps and groundhogs since about 2002...

Hamlet
10-26-2010, 01:06 PM
Bush is better on gay rights than Obama because every gay person knew exactly where Bush stood on the issue. He was against gay marriage and gays in the military. No question about it. Most importantly, his actions were consistent with his stated stance.This "logic" is simply astounding to me. In your world, was the KKK better on civil rights for blacks than the moderates who didn't march, didn't vote, and just stood on the sidelines because, at least you knew where the KKK stood? I think my Reeder/Scylla comparison is spot on.

With the Democrats on the hand, we have Clinton reinforcing and giving credence to discrimination with "don't ask, don't tell.". That piece of shit legally places a stigma on gays, literally forcing them into the closet.I think we're pretty clear that I don't agree with DADT, but it was, at the time, a small step in the right direction. It was a compromise between groups who wanted the absolute ban completely lifted or modified, and those who wanted to keep the ban. That was the problem, and oddly enough is the same problem Obama is facing. Actually trying to compromise with the right is a complete and utter waste.

And, I gotta ask. Do you think the actions of a few brave conservatives who are fighting for the repeal of DADT is indicative of the Republican party as a whole? Because, to me, it seems you're simply taking the very best of one group (Log Cabin Republicans), and comparing it to the not so good (Obama's filing an appeal on DADT, instead seeking a legislative solution). Anyone can win that kind of comparison.

It's very sad, because we kinda agree that Obama is screwing the pooch on this and the Democrats record isn't the best on gay rights. We have a point where we can both agree. Huzzah!

But that reality isn't good enough for you. You have create this fantasy world, where the actions of a few brave Republicans, completely outweighs the rhetoric and actions of the rest of the rest of the party. Prop 8, fighting extending anti-discrimination laws to homosexuals, hateful rhetoric, anti-same sex marriage, and the rest all *poof* just seemingly disappear because of Log Cabin Republicans v. USA. Nice trick. Not very convincing, or logical. But very Scyllaesque.

elucidator
10-26-2010, 01:15 PM
...elucidator-eqsue "We're all in this together for justice. Now, stop rocking the boat by complaining about being treated as a second-class citizen" sanctimony*....


You don't like coalition politics? I don't either, its long, hard and slow. Best I can tell, its all we got.

You got a better plan? Bring it. If you don't, then grab your end of the rope and pull, dammit, pull! Bitch all you want, but pull!

The Forces of Darkness are not going to roll over and play dead, they won't just give it to you, you have to take it. What are you going to do, overwhelm the electorate by the sheer mass of your numbers? Get real. You need allies, you need a coalition, and to get that, you will have to make compromises and deals.

Our ememies are rich, ruthless and powerfui. You got a better plan, birng it. Lead, follow, or get the fuck out of the way!

crowmanyclouds
10-26-2010, 01:21 PM
Wow. Classic Scylla. Definitely a contender for inclusion in the CD of Scylla's Greatest Hits, Vol. II.The lyrics are a bit different, but the tune is the same as this one (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QKFAiMbm1Fc&feature=player_embedded).

CMC fnord!

42fish
10-26-2010, 01:44 PM
The Forces of Darkness are not going to roll over and play dead, they won't just give it to you, you have to take it. What are you going to do, overwhelm the electorate by the sheer mass of your numbers? Get real. You need allies, you need a coalition, and to get that, you will have to make compromises and deals.


"Vote Democratic and we'll drag our feet on DADT, won't repeal DOMA and won't support same sex marriage" ain't much of a deal or a compromise.

But if that crap was accompanied by a simple "Face facts: it's still an improvement over the guys who think you're an abomination against the Lord and want a Constitutional ammendment to kill same sex marriage entirely" it could be swallowed.

It's when all that is accompanied by your combination of "We're all on the same team!' cheerleading and "Aren't you committed to justice for all and not just 'Gimme mine'?" hectoring that it becomes grating as fuck.

elucidator
10-26-2010, 02:16 PM
I didn't ask you how I might gain your respect and affection. I asked you how you would improve on the plan, I asked how you might advance our common cause more effectively.

If I read you right, and please correct if I'm mistaken, then you accept that coalition politics, with all of its agonizing problems, is the only way forward. But you don't like me much. OK, fine. Just pull. You can call me an asshole every few minutes, if you like, I ain't delicate. Just pull.

42fish
10-26-2010, 02:27 PM
I didn't ask you how I might gain your respect and affection. I asked you how you would improve on the plan, I asked how you miight advance our common cause more effectively.

Actually, you don't seem to be trying to advance our common cause. You sound like you want to exploit me to advance your agenda. At least judging from things like...


Do you say to the Latinos of Arizona "Well, yes, you can be stopped on the street and taken to jail until you can prove your citizenship, but equal marriage and DADT are more important." Or the to person who needs health care for their children "Well, yes, your children are very important, but not quite so important as my right to marriage."

(PS.: To the person who needs health care for her children, I'd say, "Looks like we should've picked someone with the cojones to follow through on his promises. Sorry that we both got fooled again.")

Scylla
10-26-2010, 02:27 PM
Hamlet:

Sorry I can't quote easily, I'm posting from an iPhone in a car. I think this is different hwn your comparison of a KKK member to a moderate who did nothing. I think the more apt comparison would be between a KKK member, and a guy who joins the NAACP, and displays all the right attitudes and says all the right things but still won't hire a black man or rent to him.

And, I think the KKK member is better. He's being true to his beliefs. He's wrong, but he's true to his beliefs. The possibility exists that if you can show him he is wrong and change his beliefs than than you can change the man.

The other guy understands that he's wrong, and he's doing it anyway, and he's hiding it, pretending he's being true to his beliefs. I think that's worse, and more difficult to change.

Bosstone
10-26-2010, 02:31 PM
And they call liberals the idealists.

Scylla
10-26-2010, 02:36 PM
If I read you right, and please correct if I'm mistaken, then you accept that coalition politics, with all of its agonizing problems, is the only way forward. But you don't like me much. OK, fine. Just pull. You can call me an asshole every few minutes, if you like, I ain't delicate. Just pull.

Yeah right! Nice try! My uncle used to say that exact same thing, but when you finally pulled his finger guess what happened?

Anyway, I disagree with you buddy. Coalition politics isn't going to change this. What will change this is one man, likely a conservative.

Somewhere out there is a highly religious binaries acceptable conservative who is going to deliver the message that this is not about religion, it is about freedom and equality. That person will hacve the moral authority with the social conservatives to make it happen.

Scylla
10-26-2010, 02:38 PM
And they call liberals the idealists.

No, they call them "idiots"

Bosstone
10-26-2010, 02:39 PM
No, more likely the people who oppose gays are either going to die out, stop caring, or find something new to get enraged about that eclipses gays. This kind of thing is a generational shift, not an overnight revolution.

Edit: And it's so cute that you think your side is so noble.

Tethered Kite
10-26-2010, 02:43 PM
More surprising than anything politicians say or do is the fact that anybody, anybody at all, actually believes them.

Why do gay people think they are the only ones let down by politicians? Nothin' new here.

Scylla
10-26-2010, 02:46 PM
No, more likely the people who oppose gays are either going to die out, stop caring, or find something new to get enraged about that eclipses gays. This kind of thing is a generational shift, not an overnight revolution.

Edit: And it's so cute that you think your side is so noble.

Ok. So that's the plan. We just tell all the gay people to keep waitng until that happens, and then they can be treated like humans.

Nice plan.

elucidator
10-26-2010, 02:47 PM
42fish:

Boy, you got me there! I'm all about advancing the cause of aging hippies from Texas, I was just trying to con you. Darn! Too smart for me. As soon as I get Federal support of the makers of tie-dye shirts and scented candles, I'm outa here, the rest of you guys are on your own!

But lets go with that hypothetical. In real life, its never this cut and dried, but let's just pretend.

You make the decision. You can have total marriage equality and an end to DADT. But if you do, you let the law on latinos being stopped and questioned stand. Assuming, as I do, that marriage equality is going to happen, and that DADT will be dead in a matter of weeks or months. Not years.

Which would you choose? And how would you explain your decision to the people you would have to disappoint?

And not Obama, because he betrayed you and broke your heart? Ok, who? That can win! Not just make a principled stand and go down to glorious defeat. Win!

Bosstone
10-26-2010, 02:49 PM
Ok. So that's the plan. We just tell all the gay people to keep waitng until that happens, and then they can be treated like humans.

Nice plan.Are you taking disingenuity lessons from gonzo?

No, it's because of the push for equal rights that new generations grow up more tolerant of other people at all. Older generations aren't going to be swayed from their set beliefs. Even today we have older folk -- who vote -- who casually throw about the word nigger even though they're aware on some level that it's unacceptable.

Scylla
10-26-2010, 02:52 PM
It's a false dilemma Lucy. There's no reason why repealing DADT will strengthen the deportation of illegal aliens.

It's nice to think it would. I support the AZ law. I'd call it a twofer.

Hamlet
10-26-2010, 02:56 PM
Sorry I can't quote easily, I'm posting from an iPhone in a car. I think this is different hwn your comparison of a KKK member to a moderate who did nothing. I think the more apt comparison would be between a KKK member, and a guy who joins the NAACP, and displays all the right attitudes and says all the right things but still won't hire a black man or rent to him.

And, I think the KKK member is better. He's being true to his beliefs. He's wrong, but he's true to his beliefs. The possibility exists that if you can show him he is wrong and change his beliefs than than you can change the man.See, this just astounds me. While there is certainly nothing admirable about simply paying lipservice (although we can disagree on whether or not what the Democratic party has done is simply lipservice), I simply cannot fathom how you find doing nothing positive is worse than doing something negative. For all the Democratic party faults in dealing with homosexual issues, they are still nowhere near as bad as the Republicans, who actively work to do harm to homosexuals. Maybe you can better explain how actively seeking to continue to deny equal rights to homosexuals is better than not taking enough positive steps to stop the other party.

Take the extension of federal benefits to homosexual partners. Democrats have done only a small bit to get it done (Obama's tiny extension, passing the Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act out of committe (over Republican votes), but the little they accomplish is in the face of strong Republican objections. While I think it is well beyond time for the Act to be passed, I can understand the political decision to not prioritize it at this time, not because the Democrats don't want to extend them, but rather because of midterm elections and the opposition of the Republican party. It sucks, and I condemn their spinelessness, but I understand the Machiavellian need to put it on the back burner.

But, despite my dislike for the spinelessness of the modern Democratic party, I am still flummoxed that anyone could conclude the Republicans are the better option.

Bosstone
10-26-2010, 02:58 PM
For all the Democratic party faults in dealing with homosexual issues, they are still nowhere near as bad as the Republicans, who actively work to do harm to homosexuals. Maybe you can better explain how actively seeking to continue to deny equal rights to homosexuals is better than not taking enough positive steps to stop the other party.But conservatives are noble heroic manly men! What they do is automatically the right and just thing and you should be proud of them for it.

elucidator
10-26-2010, 03:00 PM
.... or find something new to get enraged about that eclipses gays.....

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/10/26/tea-party-nation-ellison/

Tea Party Nation: Vote Out Rep. Keith Ellison Because He’s Muslim And ‘Supports’ Terrorists


Ask, and it shall be given!

My congressman, by the way, People's Republic of Minnesota. There are lots of pictures out there of him in Minnesota Muslim garb. Suit, tie. Mukluks.

Don't Call Me Shirley
10-26-2010, 03:01 PM
Luci, I love ya and everything, but I can't get behind you here. The Democrats are abandoning the gays to pander to the Latinos. In your argument, the gays should be willing to compromise or perhaps "wait their turn" because everyone is advancing together. I might be more willing to see it your way if the Democrats were actually helping anyone by validating the religious bigotry of Latinos, but I think they are actually setting everything back by doing so. When religion is allowed to direct politics, there can be no winners, only losers. Even if the Latinos are happy with the Dems and vote for them this time, the long-term damage done by continuing to allow superstitious nonsense to prevail is far greater, by showing people that bullshit religious arguments will still be allowed to carry the day. The line must be drawn.

elucidator
10-26-2010, 03:03 PM
It's a false dilemma Lucy. There's no reason why repealing DADT will strengthen the deportation of illegal aliens.

It's nice to think it would. I support the AZ law. I'd call it a twofer.

Its a hypothetical, Scylla Kind of like your conservative guy who leads the way to progress. Hard to say which is more of a stretch.

But that AZ law? Madre de DOS!

jayjay
10-26-2010, 03:05 PM
Madre de DOS!

Hey! Watch it! My mother was a mother of two!

Scylla
10-26-2010, 03:05 PM
Are you taking disingenuity lessons from gonzo?

No, it's because of the push for equal rights that new generations grow up more tolerant of other people at all. Older generations aren't going to be swayed from their set beliefs. Even today we have older folk -- who vote -- who casually throw about the word nigger even though they're aware on some level that it's unacceptable.

I don't know where you get your history from. Was the civil war the gentle generational change you are talking about?

How about the civil rights movement in the 60s when hippie liberal scum like Elucidator actually did some good?

Sorry, I think history indicates this sort of change is sudden and revolutionary not evolutionary.

Besides, the basic bottom line is this: citizens are being withold their basic rights to equality under law just because some other people don't like them.

This country was founded under the principle of freedom which says that that level of intolerance is never to be accepted. It has nothing to do with religion or conservatism. It's simple right versus wrong.

There are sticky issues out there like abortion where there are rational arguments on both sides. There is no good reason to deny the right to marriage or to defend the country to people based on their sexual preference. None.

There is no excuse for taking actions that perpetuate this injustice. Period.

Bosstone
10-26-2010, 03:11 PM
You know, I don't disagree with you. But your side is not the side to turn to. Your side sucks worse than the Democrats when it comes to civil rights.

I realize you can't see that because you, personally, are full of nobility and patriotism and freedom and red white and blue, and naturally you think every Republican is like you. They're not. And while you might end up with a convincing case that Democrats/liberals aren't advancing rights for gays, given the two-party system, the implication is that the other side is therefore better. And that's just laughable on its face.

heatmiserfl
10-26-2010, 03:23 PM
Hamlet:

Sorry I can't quote easily, I'm posting from an iPhone in a car. I think this is different hwn your comparison of a KKK member to a moderate who did nothing. I think the more apt comparison would be between a KKK member, and a guy who joins the NAACP, and displays all the right attitudes and says all the right things but still won't hire a black man or rent to him.

And, I think the KKK member is better. He's being true to his beliefs. He's wrong, but he's true to his beliefs. The possibility exists that if you can show him he is wrong and change his beliefs than than you can change the man.

The other guy understands that he's wrong, and he's doing it anyway, and he's hiding it, pretending he's being true to his beliefs. I think that's worse, and more difficult to change.

Nah, it's more like a time warp with Director Skinner telling Mulder and Skully they need to focus on finding out the source of this mysterious virus that sprung up in the Louisiana swamps. At the same time, Skully suspects some KKK members as church burners but Skinner tells her to back off and focus on the virus as he has another team investigating the church burnings. She's pissed and so are the negros because many times the FBI puts things like organized crimes and weird alien viruses above their civil rights issues.

Meanwhile the same KKK members physically harass a negro who wants to marry a white woman. They successfully block the marriage at the local courthouse and the negro thinks, "Well, I'll take those KKK fellas over the feds any day. They're just being true to their beliefs after all. Even though the feds have investigated other race crimes and enforced desegregation of schools, they're just pretending to believe in civil rights. The feds hate negros. This stalling of the church burning investigation is all the proof I need. I'm just glad these nice KKK fellas didn't string me up!" :D

Scylla
10-26-2010, 03:25 PM
Nosedive:

Laughable on it's face. I hear that sentiment a lot from those on the left that have an interest in selling. You can repeat it all you want. It doesn't make it true no matter how much you'd just like to make everybody believe the Republicans are evil and Democrats are good on this issue.

"everybody knows" "it's laughable" "it's undeniable". These assertions are most often used to to cover up lies and half truths in an absence of evidence.

elucidator
10-26-2010, 03:29 PM
...How about the civil rights movement in the 60s when hippie liberal scum like Elucidator actually did some good?....

Hippy? OK, guilty as charged. Scum? Well, you know, whatever. But liberal! You take that back! I've still got the pictures of you and the doughnut girl. Just sayin', is all.

Scylla
10-26-2010, 03:30 PM
Hamlet:

I don't know why yo keep comparing Democrats with people who are "doing nothin.". The democrats are doing something. They created DADT, and they got an emergency injunction to overturn a court decision that declared it unconstitutional.

I think that counts as something more than doing nothing.

Part of the reason that Democrats get away with all this shit is that they paint themselves as crusaders helping the people they are actually fucking over.

Bosstone
10-26-2010, 03:31 PM
You really are sounding like gonzo. You've got better punctuation, at least.

Can you point to any, any conservative politician running on a platform of equal rights for gays? That's all I ask. One. Show me one serious politician on a state or national level (local really doesn't count when talking about civil rights) and I'll concede it's not undeniable nor laughable on its face.

Individual conservatives may believe in civil rights, and I'm right there with them. The Republican party as a whole has been a stellar disgrace.

Lobohan
10-26-2010, 03:33 PM
I just wanted to check in. Is Scylla still a fucking retard?

Hamlet
10-26-2010, 03:43 PM
Hamlet:

I don't know why yo keep comparing Democrats with people who are "doing nothin.". The democrats are doing something. They created DADT, and they got an emergency injunction to overturn a court decision that declared it unconstitutional.And, for the second time, DADT was a compromise Clinton reached with mostly Republicans who wanted to keep the entire ban and investigatory problems. It was a small step in the right direction. Nowhere near good enough, but it was something.

And it was a step away from the Republican position. That's what you just keep glossing over. In this little reality you want to create, there are only Democrats and Log Cabin Republicans, so you simply pretend the rest of the Republicans adn their actions, don't exist.

Part of the reason that Democrats get away with all this shit is that they paint themselves as crusaders helping the people they are actually fucking over.No the reason they get away with this is because the other realistic option, the Republicans, are 20 times worse. THAT'S why.

Look, we're all upset that the Obama administration and Congress are going way too slowly and in too piecemeal a fashion, on homosexual rights. But you are still kidding yourself (although thankfully no one else here) that the Republicans are any better.

elucidator
10-26-2010, 03:43 PM
Luci, I love ya and everything, but I can't get behind you here. The Democrats are abandoning the gays to pander to the Latinos. .....

Whoa, hold it right there! No way, Josefina! I know that's how my words have been tiwisted, but its not what I think, and its not what I think is happening! There are some religious latinos who are uncomfortable with the whole gay marraige thing, but thats across the board, white, black, latino. But to the extent that the coalition has latino support, they already know what we think, we've already told them, and those who are on board are still on board. Mostly, the young, the urban, and so on.

Personally, I think its the word "marriage" that sticks in their craw. I think we can build a civil union plan that offers all the same benefits but avoids the word. A compromise, to be sure. What I would ideally want if for latinos to whole-heartedly embrace gay marriage, but failing that, I'm OK with them shrugging it off, and staying on the team.

But advancing an agenda centered around atheism? Boy, I dunno. I have a feeling we would certainly have Karl Rove's enthusiastic support, but I don't really trust him.

(But thanks for the love, and backatcha.)

elucidator
10-26-2010, 03:47 PM
...Show me one serious politician on a state or national level (local really doesn't count when talking about civil rights) and I'll concede it's not undeniable nor laughable on its face.....

Well, there's Arnie. To be strictly fair, he does exist.

And please don't make me do this again.

Bosstone
10-26-2010, 03:50 PM
Well, there's Arnie. To be strictly fair, he does exist.

And please don't make me do this again.Aha, I'd forgotten about him to be honest. But, you know, California.

jayjay
10-26-2010, 03:52 PM
Personally, I think its the word "marriage" that sticks in their craw. I think we can build a civil union plan that offers all the same benefits but avoids the word. A compromise, to be sure. What I would ideally want if for latinos to whole-heartedly embrace gay marriage, but failing that, I'm OK with them shrugging it off, and staying on the team.


Well, sure you are! No one is seriously asking you to settle for a second-class institution like the good little GayTM you aren't. No skin off your teeth. It's just a word, after all!

THIS is why so many gays are muttering to themselves "They just don't get it!"

Hamlet
10-26-2010, 04:01 PM
Aha, I'd forgotten about him to be honest. But, you know, California.Ileana Ros Lehtinen (R) Fla has an 88 rating by the HRC. Susan M. Collins has a 78, as does Olympia Snowe, and there are 3 others with a 75. Sure the party has over 140 or so of Congresspersons with a rating of zero, but the Democrats have at least 7, so I suppose that balances out.

Cite (http://www.votesmart.org/issue_rating_detail.php?r_id=3520&sort=rating&rtype=)

Miller
10-26-2010, 04:06 PM
Well, here, let me help you with that. Next time you don't quite grasp the point, next time you are confused about something I said, ask me. I'll tell you, I'm not particularly shy about expressing my views. I will be happy to clarify.

Well, that's going to be pretty time consuming, because what you mean appears to change every time you post. Like here, for example, where you take precisely the position I ascribed to you earlier, which led to your whole "gay horse" analogy.

But lets put the question, lets find out where you stand here. Suppose we made Miller a heavy leader of the coalition, one empowered to make difficult and painful decisions. Because that's what coalition politics is about, don't you know: difficult and painful decisions in the pursuit of justice. The kind of decisions we elected Obama to make, because we trust his judgment somewhat more than the other guy.

And lets just do a hypothetical: you can advance your agenda to the forefront, all the members of the coalition will put it at the very top. Even in those districts where the populace is not all that friendly. And you look at the polling and the numbers, you hear from your black and latino constituents, and others who desperately need health care reform, and so on and so forth.

Do you say to the Latinos of Arizona "Well, yes, you can be stopped on the street and taken to jail until you can prove your citizenship, but equal marriage and DADT are more important." Or the to person who needs health care for their children "Well, yes, your children are very important, but not quite so important as my right to marriage."

That's a pretty solid rebuttal to all the people who have been demanding that the Democratic party focus on gay rights to the exclusion of all other issues. If any of these people ever show up in this thread, this post will sure put them in their place! However, it doesn't do much to address the concerns that have actually been raised in here, which is that we'd like the Democrats to do something about gay rights. Not everything - just something. And you know, they could do that. Because you can do somethings for gay rights, and somethings for Latinos, and somethings for health care. You can do all of these at the same time. Equality isn't a zero-sum game. You can give gays rights, and still fight for immigrants, and work on health care, and all that other stuff.

Of course you wouldn't. It would destroy our fragile advantage and offer aid and comfort to our enemies. We would all lose, and you would gain nothing.

Really? So, you're saying that if we did nothing at all for Latinos, then Latinos would leave our coalition? And the same for blacks? And people who need health care? Fascinating. So... why doesn't the same logic apply to gays? Why are gays the one group who you expect to suck it up and let their agenda be ignored, while everyone else gets their concerns addressed? Why are you, our so called "ally," treating us like shit, and yelling at us for not smiling while you do it?

Am I wrong about that? WWMD? What would Miller do? Suppose that you were convinced that moving your concerns to the "back burner" were necessary, to advance the larger cause. Would you do it? Do you have the courage to make such hard choices, if they prove necessary?

You know, my issue has been on the back burner for my entire adult life. If a chance came along to jump ship to an organization that was actually willing to work (and work successfully) to help out me and mine, I might take it. Not because I don't care about other issues - I do care, believe me. But maybe it's time for someone else to spend some time on the back burner. Yeah, the Arizona immigration law sucks, and should be changed. But if, for some reason, it became a choice between one or the other: get gay marriage now, or repeal Arizona's law, I'll take gay marriage. Sorry, Latinos, I guess its your turn to wait for your rights, for a change.

How about you, what level of loyalty to the overall cause can we expect from you?

As in everything, you will receive loyalty in measure with the loyalty you dispense. How much loyalty have you shown to gays?

elucidator
10-26-2010, 04:08 PM
JayJay:
None of us "understand" each other. Couldn't the latino guy just as easily say "Well, gays don't understand what is like to be pulled over by the cops just because you look Hispanic". And they would have a point, wouldn't they?

Its not about being the same. Its about treating each other with equal justice, to the extent that is humanly possible. Its about forming a coaltion around that idea and putting our own immediate concerns as second to that. It takes trusting each other. And it takes trusting ourselves, that if offered an immediate advantage at the other guys expense, we won't do it.

And if any of this were easy, we already would have won. Instead of just winning. Which we are. And remember, there is no "oy!" in "team".

mhendo
10-26-2010, 04:11 PM
Bush is better on gay rights than Obama because every gay person knew exactly where Bush stood on the issue. He was against gay marriage and gays in the military. No question about it. Most importantly, his actions were consistent with his stated stance.

With the Democrats on the hand, we have Clinton reinforcing and giving credence to discrimination with "don't ask, don't tell.". That piece of shit legally places a stigma on gays, literally forcing them into the closet.

Obama on the other hand is actively blocking and speaking on the topic of blocking the repeal of DADT on the grounds that it is unconstitutional.

You can play all the semantics you want, but when it comes down to actions, which is what matters, we have in this case conservatives fighting for gay rights, and liberals blocking them.
I expect that, when Merriam-Webster next revise their entry for the word "sophistry," this post will constitute the new definition.

Bosstone
10-26-2010, 04:12 PM
Ileana Ros Lehtinen (R) Fla has an 88 rating by the HRC. Susan M. Collins has a 78, as does Olympia Snowe, and there are 3 others with a 75. Sure the party has over 140 or so of Congresspersons with a rating of zero, but the Democrats have at least 7, so I suppose that balances out.

Cite (http://www.votesmart.org/issue_rating_detail.php?r_id=3520&sort=rating&rtype=)Well, fair enough. I don't know how those percentages actually break down, but I asked for just one, and we have a whole 5 national Republicans at 75% or better. Brava.

Miller
10-26-2010, 04:14 PM
Hamlet:

Sorry I can't quote easily, I'm posting from an iPhone in a car. I think this is different hwn your comparison of a KKK member to a moderate who did nothing. I think the more apt comparison would be between a KKK member, and a guy who joins the NAACP, and displays all the right attitudes and says all the right things but still won't hire a black man or rent to him.

And, I think the KKK member is better. He's being true to his beliefs. He's wrong, but he's true to his beliefs. The possibility exists that if you can show him he is wrong and change his beliefs than than you can change the man.

The other guy understands that he's wrong, and he's doing it anyway, and he's hiding it, pretending he's being true to his beliefs. I think that's worse, and more difficult to change.

Very serious question, here, Scylla. Would you prefer me to tell you a lie, or to shoot you in the chest? Based on your post here, I'd have to assume that you'd prefer the gunshot - because while I may be violent, at least I'm not dishonest, and you seem to be arguing that violence is the lesser sin than dishonesty.

Miller
10-26-2010, 04:18 PM
Its not about being the same. Its about treating each other with equal justice, to the extent that is humanly possible. Its about forming a coaltion around that idea and putting our own immediate concerns as second to that. It takes trusting each other. And it takes trusting ourselves, that if offered an immediate advantage at the other guys expense, we won't do it.

And when you're ready to treat gays that way, give us a call. We could really use some help, over here.

jayjay
10-26-2010, 04:23 PM
I just want to make clear, luci, that I don't think you're homophobic or anything. Nor do I think the majority of progressives are. But I do think you're all under the influence of straight privilege, which makes it difficult for you to understand the gay experience.

And, in all this talk of "gays before Latino/as" and "Latino/as before gays", how about the gay Latino/a? How does he or she feel about the whole thing? Because it's really easy to make the argumentatory assumption that "gay" = "white", but it's not an accurate assumption. This applies to black LGBT, or Asian LGBT as well.

And Miller has a very good point that hasn't been addressed by anyone but him yet...LGBT rights, outside of low-hanging fruit (shuddup, you!) like the hate crimes bill, has been on the back burner a long time. Do you know how long ENDA has been in process? I remember it not passing at the same time DOMA did pass, almost 20 years ago. And that was when it only covered orientation. Yeah, it would probably have passed at some point since 2007 if we hadn't insisted that it include gender expression, too, but we don't leave our wounded on the battlefield.

I just find it really hypocritical of a party whose president has said to us, "hold my feet to the fire" on the issues we consider really important, to turn on the people with the kindling when it comes time to make things hop. The minute the LGBT community started to make their voices heard on DADT and DOMA, when it became apparent that it was all being slow-walked, the establishment Dems immediately started decrying us as hotheads and said we were "hurting the party". Dan Choi and his fellow military heroes who continued to try to keep awareness of the damage that DADT does in the spotlight were insulted and made fun of by their own party because they were using direct action.

I've spent the past two years watching Democrats belittle me and the LGBT community, even on sites as leftish as Daily Kos, because we try to hold this president and his party to their promise and platform. But our issues aren't really important. We just "want a pony". We're "too brash". We're "hurting the party and the president". Hell, over at DKos, gay critics of Obama are routinely painted as Republican covert operatives concern trolling.

And the part that really galls, the part that just plunges the dagger in and twists, is that the Democrats are STILL a better deal than the Republicans. That bitter taste lingers, y'know?

Don't Call Me Shirley
10-26-2010, 04:25 PM
Whoa, hold it right there! No way, Josefina! I know that's how my words have been tiwisted, but its not what I think, and its not what I think is happening! There are some religious latinos who are uncomfortable with the whole gay marraige thing, but thats across the board, white, black, latino. But to the extent that the coalition has latino support, they already know what we think, we've already told them, and those who are on board are still on board. Mostly, the young, the urban, and so on.

Personally, I think its the word "marriage" that sticks in their craw. I think we can build a civil union plan that offers all the same benefits but avoids the word. A compromise, to be sure. What I would ideally want if for latinos to whole-heartedly embrace gay marriage, but failing that, I'm OK with them shrugging it off, and staying on the team.

But the only reason the word "marriage" sticks in their craw is because of their religion. As for the whole civil marriage offering the same benefits thing, "separate but equal" was a bad idea then, and it's a bad idea now. I can put up with a lot of stuff, but not compromising with religious beliefs. Not anymore. Religious beliefs just keep changing, so it's a fool's game to begin with.

But advancing an agenda centered around atheism? Boy, I dunno. I have a feeling we would certainly have Karl Rove's enthusiastic support, but I don't really trust him.


Who said anything about building an agenda around atheism?

elucidator
10-26-2010, 04:32 PM
Well, that's going to be pretty time consuming, because what you mean appears to change every time you post...

On at least two different occasions, I pointed out to you that your interpretation of my words were directly contrary to the intent. Ain't my fault if you don't get it.

...That's a pretty solid rebuttal to all the people who have been demanding that the Democratic party focus on gay rights to the exclusion of all other issues....

Never said exclusion. Said you seem to want some preference. I say thats a bad idea for practical, political reasons.

...And you know, they could do that. Because you can do somethings for gay rights, and somethings for Latinos, and somethings for health care. You can do all of these at the same time. Equality isn't a zero-sum game. You can give gays rights, and still fight for immigrants, and work on health care, and all that other stuff....

OK, now, we're getting somewhere! Hot damn!

...Really? So, you're saying that if we did nothing at all for Latinos, then Latinos would leave our coalition? And the same for blacks? And people who need health care? Fascinating. So... why doesn't the same logic apply to gays? Why are gays the one group who you expect to suck it up and let their agenda be ignored, while everyone else gets their concerns addressed? Why are you, our so called "ally," treating us like shit, and yelling at us for not smiling while you do it?...

Oh, well, that didn't last very long, did it? You want to think I treat you like shit, I can't help that, there is no way to prove sincerity. Believe what you will. But one thing: I've been pulling on this rope longer than you've been alive. If that counts for something, fine. If not, oh, well. I would have done it anyway. Because its the right thing to do. I could use your help, but your approval don't count for much.

...You know, my issue has been on the back burner for my entire adult life. If a chance came along to jump ship to an organization that was actually willing to work (and work successfully) to help out me and mine, I might take it. Not because I don't care about other issues - I do care, believe me...
I do believe you. Its you who don't believe me.

...But maybe it's time for someone else to spend some time on the back burner. Yeah, the Arizona immigration law sucks, and should be changed. But if, for some reason, it became a choice between one or the other: get gay marriage now, or repeal Arizona's law, I'll take gay marriage. Sorry, Latinos, I guess its your turn to wait for your rights, for a change....

On what basis? Justice? Aren't there more of them than there are of you? On what basis, besides self-interest, do you make this claim for preference?

Miller
10-26-2010, 05:12 PM
On at least two different occasions, I pointed out to you that your interpretation of my words were directly contrary to the intent. Ain't my fault if you don't get it.

And on both occasions, I explained why the words you used were not communicating the intent you claimed.

Never said exclusion.

You didn't use the word, true. But you defined the concept perfectly.

Said you seem to want some preference. I say thats a bad idea for practical, political reasons.

No, I never said preference. I want the same attention to my concerns that everyone else in this coalition gets. I don't think thats unreasonable, but you have consistently said that my concerns aren't important enough to be dealt with.

Oh, well, that didn't last very long, did it? You want to think I treat you like shit, I can't help that, there is no way to prove sincerity.

Actually, it's really, really easy to prove sincerity. Just live up to your promises. That's all anyone here is asking. We're not even asking for results. We'd just like to see you try.

In the context of this thread, you want to prove your sincerity? Stop defending the utter betrayal of gay rights by the Democratic mainstream. Get on our side of the line, and start demanding that our elected officials live up to their promises and work on justice for everyone. Live up to the principles of coalition building you keep espousing, and demand that everyone in the group gets time for their issues. Hold every group in the coaltion to the same standards of self-sacrifice you have, heretofore, demanded only from gays.

You start doing that, I'll start believing you when you say you care about gay rights.

On what basis? Justice? Aren't there more of them than there are of you? On what basis, besides self-interest, do you make this claim for preference?

On the basis that I am not endlessly selfless, and I can only spend so much of my life putting other's needs ahead of mine with no reward, before I have to do something to help myself.

Scylla
10-26-2010, 07:02 PM
Very serious question, here, Scylla. Would you prefer me to tell you a lie, or to shoot you in the chest? Based on your post here, I'd have to assume that you'd prefer the gunshot - because while I may be violent, at least I'm not dishonest, and you seem to be arguing that violence is the lesser sin than dishonesty.

Not really. Your serious question requires context. If you are asking whether I'd prefer if you shot me and remained honest or simply lied to me without shooting me when I asked if you took the last beer, I'd prefer the lie.

However, if the choice is between you being openly hostile to me, and then shooting me in the chest, or acting all friendly and then shooting me in the chest, then I'd prefer the honesty. That's more like what happened here.


This thing was a done deal. Recruiters were told to accept gays. It was over, finito. And where were the hoardes of hateful conservatives protesting? Where were all the Republicans up in arms? Where was the outcry?

There wasn't one.

Obama spoke out against it, and had the DOJ seek an "emergency" stay (what fucking emergency?) "Oh My God there's a faggot in a uniform! Call the Police." He put it back. Because this was not the way to do it. It should be measured and carefully considered.

Again, I don't fucking understand. If it's unconstitutional why on earth would Obama need to defend it? Why on earth would there need to be a bill integrating gays into the military? Isn't the Constitution good enough?

And, it was fucking perfect. Obama didn't even need to take the heat for it, because it was Log Cabin Republicans and a conservative judge that overturned it.

If a bunch of social conservatives or Republicans or what have you got up in arms and pissed off Obama could just say "Hey, don't look at me. Not my fault. I didn't do it. It was those Damn Republicans. Don't bitch to me because you can't control your own people."

A done deal.

For justice to get done, all he had to do was...... nothing.

And then, he actively the gays in the chest. And, he spoke out about it. "Hey, be patient. We'll stop fucking you over later, sometime, when we get around to doing it."

It's total bullshit to excuse this.

Again, Truman racially integrated the military by executive order. 50 years later it's still fine. The President swears in his oath of office to uphold the Constitution. THere is NOTHING that he has to fight to put back a law that was declared unconstitutional.

The excuses for this are weak.


And then these other assholes come out and say "Oh, well everybody knows Republicans are a lot worse on gay rights" or "Republicans fighting for Gay rights, that's laughable." or "You cannot argue that the Democrats have done more for Gay rights," and such.

It's a stupid fucking argument on about 5 different levels.

1. What Democrats did or didn't do in the past has no bearing on the fact that a Democratic President is fucking over gays in the military again, today.

2. Arguing by assertion, or acclaim is a logical fallacy.

3. It's like arguing well Fritz the Nazi killed more Jews than Hans the Nazi so therefore Hans is a better guy.

4. The argument isn't about who is generally nicer to gays or pays them more lipservice, the argument is about who is actively denying them their civil rights at this moment. Obama.

5. Arguing the general from the specific is another fallacy. Here we have specific Republicans fighting for gay rights and specific democrats fighting against them. Democrats maybe being generally nicer in the past has no bearing. It's like if somebody is getting mauled by a bear and you tell them, and while it's ripping their face off you tell them "Bears are generally timid creatures, and will tend to run from humans."

Idiotic.

Scylla
10-26-2010, 07:05 PM
And, for the second time, DADT was a compromise Clinton reached with mostly Republicans who wanted to keep the entire ban and investigatory problems. It was a small step in the right direction. Nowhere near good enough, but it was something.

Yeah, it was an opportunity to do the right thing, like Truman and instead Clinton forced the gays into the closet.

Some things you compromise on. Some you don't. Basic civil rights are in the latter category.

So no, he gets no credit for perpetuating an injustice.

Scylla
10-26-2010, 07:09 PM
Well, fair enough. I don't know how those percentages actually break down, but I asked for just one, and we have a whole 5 national Republicans at 75% or better. Brava.


It's not that impressive to me. Again, there's lots of bills that don't pass and I don't think much of a Senator or congressman voting for a Bill that he knows will fail simply so he can tell his constituents he voted for something.

It's a pretty old trick.

I'd be more interested in seeing what the track record is on votes that became law. I don't care about what lost causes were promoted. I care about what was accomplished.

Revenant Threshold
10-26-2010, 08:00 PM
It's not that impressive to me. Again, there's lots of bills that don't pass and I don't think much of a Senator or congressman voting for a Bill that he knows will fail simply so he can tell his constituents he voted for something.

It's a pretty old trick.

I'd be more interested in seeing what the track record is on votes that became law. I don't care about what lost causes were promoted. I care about what was accomplished. Doesn't that have the same problem, except the other way? Just as someone might vote for a Bill he knows will fail simply so he can tell constituents he voted for something, couldn't they also vote for something that will pass on the basis that they then get to parade their successful voting record?

Perhaps a good way to look at it would be to examine votes that were close, on the assumption that in such circumstances politicians are more likely to actually vote idealogically (or, at least, be pressured into voting in lockstep with party, but for this examination that's just as helpful).

Scylla
10-26-2010, 08:02 PM
Doesn't that have the same problem, except the other way? Just as someone might vote for a Bill he knows will fail simply so he can tell constituents he voted for something, couldn't they also vote for something that will pass on the basis that they then get to parade their successful voting record?

That's a good point. I'd thought of it, but couldn't see a way around it. I just figured if it passed then whether they meant it or not, it's an actual accomplishment.


Perhaps a good way to look at it would be to examine votes that were close, on the assumption that in such circumstances politicians are more likely to actually vote idealogically (or, at least, be pressured into voting in lockstep with party, but for this examination that's just as helpful).


That's an interesting idea.

Hamlet
10-26-2010, 08:06 PM
Yeah, it was an opportunity to do the right thing, like Truman and instead Clinton forced the gays into the closet.Again, I don't like it anymore than you do. But it was better than what came before, which was a blanket ban, mandatory questioning of new recruits, the questioning and prosecution of suspected homosexuals, witchunts, dishonerable discharges, and extrajudicial beatings. And it was what the Republicans fought, and fought hard, to keep.

Again, we agree, it was a poor compromise. But your insistance, once again, on ignoring the small steps forward and the role of the right wing as the one that the left had to compromise with is annoying as hell. Of course you've been doing it for almost a decade now, so who am I to change your mind. You trot out Barry Goldwater and DADT and ignore the entirety of what the Republican party has been doing regarding gay rights in the last 40 years.

Some things you compromise on. Some you don't. Basic civil rights are in the latter category.MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

*sigh*, sorry about that outburst, but I ...

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHA!!!

Dammit! Seriously, I'll try and keep a straight face this time, because having a "conservative", who consistently backs Republicans talking about not compromising on civil ....

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHA!!

Sorry. I just can't do it.

Are you sure you're not a liberal? With civil rights being so important and uncompromisable, I find it amazing you would support the Republican party and their clearly stated stance on homosexuality.

But, in effect, we agree. It was a very poor compromise. But, for about the tenth time, you ignore who he had to compromise with.

So no, he gets no credit for perpetuating an injustice.He replaced a greater injustice with a lesser injustice. And, once again, he did it because of opposition by the Republican party. The very same party you are laughingly trying to portray as standing up for gay rights.

And I couldn't help but notice how you clipped my reply to you to take out merely one point and ignored the rest. Why is that?

Scylla
10-26-2010, 08:53 PM
Again, I don't like it anymore than you do. But it was better than what came before, which was a blanket ban, mandatory questioning of new recruits, the questioning and prosecution of suspected homosexuals, witchunts, dishonerable discharges, and extrajudicial beatings. And it was what the Republicans fought, and fought hard, to keep.

So you keep saying as if assertion were argument. Oh yes, and this is the same brave President who signed DOMA which passed in a landslide with broad bipartisan support.

Yeah, those brave Democrats really saved the day there.

You trot out Barry Goldwater and DADT and ignore the entirety of what the Republican party has been doing regarding gay rights in the last 40 years.

Agreed. I argue with specific examples and you counter with vague generalizations and assertions.


MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

*sigh*, sorry about that outburst, but I ...

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHA!!!

Dammit! Seriously, I'll try and keep a straight face this time, because having a "conservative", who consistently backs Republicans talking about not compromising on civil ....

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHA!!

Sorry. I just can't do it.

In all seriousness, fuck you. What fantasy world do you live in, where it's all black and white with the good guys on the left and the bad guys on the right? It's probably real comforting to think that way.

Almost everybody that I work with is a Republican. Almost everybody that I know personally is a Republican. You know what they have in common. They don't care about race or sexual preference. They just don't fucking care. They don't care if you are black, they don't care if you are hispanic, they don't care if you are gay. As far as they and I are concerned, these are among the least interesting and important things about somebody.

That to me is equality. That to me is the paradigm to aspire to. 99% of the time when I hear about race or sexual preference as an issue, it's usually on this board or somebody on TV, or some liberal or Democrat during a party going on and on about how prejudiced we all are. Bullshit. In most instances, the left is far more prejudiced than the right because race is an issue for them. I never heard Bush going on about race, but Obama is out there campaigning and today he said Republicans "need to ride in the back." I also heard a quote where he was talking to a hispanic group and asking them whether they were going to stay at home or go out and fight "our enemies" by voting.

It's fucking race baiting, and it's fucking racist and the left does it... all.... the... fucking... time.

Most of us just don't care.

Yes, there are fucking assholes and most of the assholes in this area are social conservatives and therefore Republicans. But.... they get more fucking power because of the attention focussed on them by the left. Without that, they'd be just a bunch of sad assholes that most people despise. Take that group of fucking hateful baptists from Kansas protesting gays at military funerals.. Phelps et al. They wouldn't fucking even exist and do what they do, without the attention focussed on them by the left.

You guys like them. They are useful to you. You gotta go searching all the way to fucking to Wichita Kansas to find a group of 20 hateful motherfuckers that you can hold up and despise.

Racial and sexual preference as issues are tools for the left to use to garner and keep minority votes. Nothing more. So yeah, we have a bunch of ignorant assholes, but you have a bunch of smug manipulative conniving sonsabitches playing at civil rights for votes.

So don't fucking laugh at me. Go fucking kick yourself and your party members in the teeth for politicizing a basic rights issue, and for purposefully muddying the stew and calling people bigoted and racist who disagree in good faith with arguments that really aren't about civil rights.

Affirmative action? I don't like it.

Hate crime legislation? I don't like it.

I understand the arguments for both, and I concede there are many merits, and it's not an easy issue, but in the end I come down against both simply because I think singling people out and creating special laws based on race or sexual preference is the source of the problem, not the solution.

I don't think that disagreement makes me a racist or intolerant to gays. I fucking resent the fact that assholes on the left would try to color me or people who agree with me as racists or intolerant due to this disagreement, who would lump me in the same category as true racists or those idiotic intolerant social conservatives who are so fucking stupid that they don't even know their own religion well enough to understand that gay sex is a venial sin not a cardinal sin, considered the same as masturbation or birth control for the same fucking reasons.

If they want kick people out of the military for whacking off or deny marriage to people who wear a rubber then I guess it would be ok to deny the same to those who are gay, but until they make that argument they are a bunch of morons (not to say I'm in favor of any of that, but it would be consistent and make some sense.)

Instead the religious and moral objections are just an excuse for plain old bigotry. Most of the people I know, you engage in bigotry at your own expense. Nobody is likely to say anything or make a big deal about it to your face. It's gonna be about the same as if you announced that you seriously believed in faeries. People are gonna back away and distance themselves from you, because you are demonstrating that you are an idiot.

Most people just don't fucking care all that much about race or sexual preference. It doesn't have to be that a fucking issue. The left makes it so. It baits it and it trades on it, and it perpetuates the divisiveness because it's useful.

If the majority of intelligent people who consider these things non-issues would stop making or allowing these issues to be political issues there would be no refuge in politics for racists. They couldn't function. That they can and that they have a place is the fault of the left.

Are you sure you're not a liberal? With civil rights being so important and uncompromisable, I find it amazing you would support the Republican party and their clearly stated stance on homosexuality.

Oh yeah, because Obama is doing such a great job, and Clinton didn't start DADT, or sign DOMA, and the latter didn't pass with bipartisan support 85-14, and like none of the Democratic candidates ever said they were against gay marriage (Oh wait, they all did.)

The Democrats don't have the moral high ground. They are panderers, and pretenders. They put down other people for not having virtues that they too lack. They are fucking hypocrites.

So, no. I'm not a big fan of the Democrats on this issue. Again, minds can be changed. I think we can change minds on the right. But dishonest panderers whose position shifts depending on whether it is expeditious or not.... that type of character weakness is hard to change. I'll take the Republicans.


And I couldn't help but notice how you clipped my reply to you to take out merely one point and ignored the rest. Why is that?

I thought the rest of it was bullshit.

Scylla
10-26-2010, 09:10 PM
I just realized I said "Fuck you," which is against the rules, part of that restricted language in the pit. I forgot. My bad, and the edit window is closed. If a moderator would change the "Fuck you," in my previous post to "Lick my fucking balls," or somesuch I would be appreciative.

Thanks, and sorry. I'll be more careful.

elucidator
10-26-2010, 09:13 PM
I just want to make clear, luci, that I don't think you're homophobic or anything. Nor do I think the majority of progressives are. But I do think you're all under the influence of straight privilege, which makes it difficult for you to understand the gay experience....

Sorry I didn't see this earlier, JJ. I was walking along, chatting with Milller, and then there was this train wreck...

Anyway, some thoughtfulness here, not to be ignored, that would be rude. So this is not about hearing myself talk, but being polite. Jus so you know.

Understand the gay experience? Hell, I don't even understand my own damn experience, and I'm him! About thirty years ago, I lied my way into a job waiting at a snooty restaraunt. Of a wait staff of twenty, I was the only non-gay man there. And it took me about two weeks to catch on. What with being a country boy from Waco, and all. But I digress....

We fling ourselves into the utterly and absolutely subjective, what can be argued there? there is only witnessing. Not snarking, mind, but how do we judge, what can we measure? If we had the perfect impartial judge, entirely free of bias, and we offer him the life experience of an average black guy, an average latino, and an average gay man, who might he say was the more oppressed? The latino guy can marry, but the gay guy don't get pulled over for being brown.

So we can't judge on the basis of who's more oppressed. Whats left? Numbers, I suppose, an injustice visited on more people is a worse injustice. Seems sensible enough to me, how about you?

But that won't work either, because at least some of the groups are going to feel that their lot in life is far worse, so the numbers don't matter. Human, all too human, no?

So what is to be done? About all thats left is trying to treat all the same. But that means working for all the same, that means a coalition of equal partners. And that means, at least to some degree, a coalition of equal and willing partners who are willing to set aside their personal perspective. And, of course, trust. Oh, dear. Houston, we already have a problem.

How else can this thing be done? How else do we bring our fellow citizens around to the truth?

Progressive coalition politics is slow, agonizing, and all around pain in the butt. Oh, and you lose a lot of fights. (Didn't want to leave out the upside.) So, if you got a better plan, hurry right in here and share. I'll probably be pissed about the forty years shot to hell, but at least it won't be forty-one! Yeah, I'm sure I'll feel really fucking great about that.

jayjay
10-26-2010, 09:14 PM
Scylla, if all of these rank-and-file, average-joe Republicans are really all about equality and color-blindness and not caring about homosexuality and all that, then why do you (and they) keep electing racist, homophobic, misogynist, retrograde neanderthals to Congress and the Senate?

jayjay
10-26-2010, 09:16 PM
luci, I'm pretty sure that most gay folk who vote next week are going to vote for Democrats. I am. But we're voting for them because, as much as the lip service and all that sucks, the Republicans suck even more. The Republicans are existential suckage for LGBT. The Democrats are just mediocrities on this subject that happen to suck.

elucidator
10-26-2010, 09:21 PM
...You guys like them. They are useful to you. You gotta go searching all the way to fucking to Wichita Kansas to find a group of 20 hateful motherfuckers that you can hold up and despise.....

This is nearly perfect Scylla, a gossamer, venemous butterfly. Starving Artist, eat your heart out.

elucidator
10-26-2010, 09:25 PM
Scylla, if all of these rank-and-file, average-joe Republicans are really all about equality and color-blindness and not caring about homosexuality and all that, then why do you (and they) keep electing racist, homophobic, misogynist, retrograde neanderthals to Congress and the Senate?

Tradition!

Gfactor
10-26-2010, 09:27 PM
I just realized I said "Fuck you," which is against the rules, part of that restricted language in the pit. I forgot. My bad, and the edit window is closed. If a moderator would change the "Fuck you," in my previous post to "Lick my fucking balls," or somesuch I would be appreciative.

Thanks, and sorry. I'll be more careful.

No need to edit the post. And since you've acknowledged that it's on the list, there's no need to remind you. Please try to remember for next time. No warning issued.

Gfactor
Pit Moderator

Scylla
10-26-2010, 09:28 PM
Scylla, if all of these rank-and-file, average-joe Republicans are really all about equality and color-blindness and not caring about homosexuality and all that, then why do you (and they) keep electing racist, homophobic, misogynist, retrograde neanderthals to Congress and the Senate?

I dunno. Too general a question, and I dispute the assumption. Get specific. Name names an support your assumptions.

Who specifically in the republican senate and congress fits that bill? What percentage do they represent? Is that percentage higher for Republicans than Democrats? Than, assuming it is, does correlation represent causation?

For example if a Louisiana Republican congressman is racist is he racist because he's a Republican or because he's from a racist district in Louisiana? When that same district elects a Democrat will that Democrat tend to be racist?


The assumption built into your question is actually a pretty complex and difficult one to demonstrate.

Revenant Threshold
10-26-2010, 09:29 PM
Most people just don't fucking care all that much about race or sexual preference. It doesn't have to be that a fucking issue. The left makes it so. It baits it and it trades on it, and it perpetuates the divisiveness because it's useful. What proportion of people must care about a subject (in a presumably either too negative or too positive a manner) for it to be an issue without being raised by a side of politics? How do we go about determining whether that proportion is reflected in reality or not?

I mean, the easiest way I could think of (so probably not the best) would be to pick some percentage - let's say 20% being a potentially problematic figure - and then look at opinion polls to discover whether more than 20% of the public have some strong opinion on the subject. How is it you've arrived at your particular opinion on this?

Honestly while i'd agree with you that the nature of politics is such that you are guaranteed to find people who'll cynically manipulate their potential voters, i'm not sure this isn't a case both problems existing; yes, there's liberals who'll drum up support by pointing to or exaggerating cases of apparent inequality, but I don't think that, in and of itself, means that such cases don't exist.

If I may address your examples from experience - you say that 99% of the time you hear things like this, it's from liberals on here or TV and suchlike, as compared with your Republican friends and aquaintances who aren't bothered. As you say, most of the people you know are Republican, but do you hear such things coming from the mouths of the few Democrat (or non-party) aquaintances of yours?

Hamlet
10-26-2010, 09:33 PM
So you keep saying as if assertion were argument. Oh yes, and this is the same brave President who signed DOMA which passed in a landslide with broad bipartisan support.

Yeah, those brave Democrats really saved the day there.Again, you simply ignore my points (that DADT was better than what was there and that it was, by and large, the Republicans party he had to compromise with) and repeat yourself. How utterly unsurprising.

Agreed. I argue with specific examples and you counter with vague generalizations and assertions.More lies from you. You've been given Prop 8, the Republican refusal to support anti-discrimination laws both at state levels and in federal law, their fighting against recognition of same sex marriage, and the rhetoric that comes from Republican leaders about homosexuals, even homosexuals in their own party (some nice videos which have been linked to in this very thread). I could, of course, add in their support for the blanket ban on homosexuals in the military, their support of denying same sex partners the power to adopt children, and their support of anti sodomy laws like those in Lawrence v. Texas. Or a myriad of other examples. But, really, what's the point. You've ignored them so far, you're likelyl to just keep on ignoring them now.

In all seriousness, fuck you.Buy me dinner first. I'm not easy.

ETA: I see you edited it. Does that mean you weren't serious? I bought a new pair of khakis, a really nice sweater, and a bottle of cologne just because of that offer. Now I'll have to return them.

Most of us just don't care.Keep telling yourself that. Your party disagrees.

You keep bitching about DOMA and Clinton. Here's what your party has to say about it:

"A Republican Congress enacted the Defense of Marriage Act, affirming the right of states not to recognize same-sex “marriages” licensed in other states. Unbelievably, the Democratic Party has now pledged to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, which would subject every state to the redefinition of marriage by a judge without ever allowing the people to vote on the matter. We also urge Congress to use its Article III, Section 2 power to prevent activist federal judges from imposing upon the rest of the nation the judicial activism in Massachusetts and California. We also encourage states to review their marriage and divorce laws in order to strengthen marriage. "

GOP Platform (http://www.gop.com/2008Platform/Values.htm#6)

That's the Republican party's fucking platform, and they are against any change the Democrats want to make to DOMA. You have the audicity to sit there and condemn Dems for DOMA while ignoring that it's the Republican party's vehemence against it.

Where do you live again? Pennsylvania?

"States should not recognize gay marriage from other states. After more than two centuries of American jurisprudence, and millennia of human experience, a few judges and local authorities are presuming to change the most fundamental institution of civilization, the union of a man and a woman in marriage. Attempts to redefine marriage in a single state or city could have serious consequences throughout the country, and anything less than a Constitutional amendment, passed by the Congress and ratified by the states, is vulnerable to being overturned by activist judges. On a matter of such importance, the voice of the people must be heard. The Constitutional amendment process guarantees that the final decision will rest with the American people and their elected representatives. President Bush will also vigorously defend the Defense of Marriage Act, which was supported by both parties and passed by 85 votes in the Senate. This common sense law reaffirms the right of states not to recognize same-sex marriages licensed in other states.

Source: 2004 Republican Party Platform, p. 85

Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage

We strongly support a Constitutional amendment that fully protects marriage, and we [oppose] forcing states to recognize other living arrangements as equivalent to marriage. The well-being of children is best accomplished [when] nurtured by their mother & father anchored by the bonds of marriage. We believe that legal recognition and the accompanying benefits afforded couples should be preserved for that unique and special union of one man and one woman which has historically been called marriage."

From the Republican's platform in Pennsylvania found here (http://www.ontheissues.org/Archive/2004_GOP_Platform_Civil_Rights.htm). Sorry it's 2004, but I couldn't access their 2008 or 2010 platforms without a password.

You can pretend all you like that the it is just a few nutjobs who are ruining it for all Republicans, but it's a fucking lie. Throw all the hissy fits you want, it won't change any of the facts.

elucidator
10-26-2010, 09:33 PM
...coming from the mouths of the few Democrat (or non-party) aquaintances of yours?
The butler only speaks when spoken to, and knows his place.

Scylla
10-26-2010, 09:34 PM
No need to edit the post. And since you've acknowledged that it's on the list, there's no need to remind you. Please try to remember for next time. No warning issued.

Gfactor
Pit Moderator

Will do.

Miller
10-26-2010, 09:48 PM
Again, Truman racially integrated the military by executive order. 50 years later it's still fine. The President swears in his oath of office to uphold the Constitution. THere is NOTHING that he has to fight to put back a law that was declared unconstitutional.

The excuses for this are weak.

And I'm not offering any excuses for Obama. That's elucidator's job, and I wouldn't want to take it away from him. Not after he spent all that money on new knee pads and a fresh bottle of mouth wash.

But here's the thing. As fucked up as Obama has been on this issue, the worst that you can say about him is that he's on par with Republicans on the issue. There are, after all, two attacks on DADT currently underway. One is the court case, which would have succeeded, if Obama hadn't knifed us in the back. The other is the bill to repeal it, which would have succeeded if Senate Republicans hadn't filibustered it. Now, if the question is, "Is Obama better or worse than the Republicans on this issue," the answer is clearly that he's worse, because in addition to working against our rights, he also lies to our faces about his intentions. However, if the question is, "Are Democrats better or worse than Republicans on this issue," well, Obama's just one guy. It took forty Republicans working together to stop the vote on repealing DADT from going forward. Oh, and a grand total of three Democrats voted with them. On the other side of the aisle, there were fifty five Democrats, one independent, and not a single Republican. Now, you've argued that those Democratic votes can be dismissed as hot air from people who knew that the vote wouldn't pass. And you may be right about that. But it doesn't change the fact that not one single Senate Republican stood up for what was right on this issue. Not. One.

"But what about the Log Cabin Republicans?" you ask. Yes, they were the ones who got the issue to court, and good on them for that. But you may not be aware of the fact that the Log Cabin Republicans are a group of homos. A homosexual advocacy group advocating for homosexual rights is not really noteworthy. It is unusual that they're a conservative homosexual rights group, but I think it's stretching things a bit to credit their actions to their politics, and not their sexuality.

Lastly, keep in mind that DADT is not the whole of the gay rights movement. What positive actions have conservatives taken for gay rights outside the area of DADT? How many gay marriage bills have been sponsored or endorsed by Republican politicians? As near as I can tell, the number is just about zero. Which, as it happens, is only slightly fewer than the number of bills that have been sponsored by Democrats. And the Dems deserve a lot of condemnation for dragging their feet on that issue. However, lets look at the other side of the aisle again. Twenty nine states have banned gay marriage. Nineteen of them have banned civil unions. Three of them have even banned domestic partnerships. How many of those laws were proposed by Democrats, do you think? How many by Republicans? And note, please, that these are constitutional bans, enacted by the will of the people. I'm not even counting states where gay marriage is illegal by statute.

So, over all, I agree with you that Obama's appeal to the DADT decision was an unconscionable betrayal. And I agree that, overall, Democratic support for gay rights is a lot of hot air. But I don't think you can make a reasonable case that Republicans are in any wise a better, or even equivalent, alternative to the Democrats on this issue. The Dems, on the whole, do nothing to make things better. Republicans, on the whole, are actively working to make things worse. And they are doing so with the approval of the majority of their voting base.

waterj2
10-26-2010, 09:59 PM
luci, I'm pretty sure that most gay folk who vote next week are going to vote for Democrats. I am. But we're voting for them because, as much as the lip service and all that sucks, the Republicans suck even more. The Republicans are existential suckage for LGBT. The Democrats are just mediocrities on this subject that happen to suck.There are some Democrats who actually are concerned about the issue and willing to fight for it. Several months ago, for example, I voted for Martha Coakley for Senate. As Attorney General for Massachusetts, she sued the federal government to overturn section 3 of DOMA. She lost to Scott Brown, who has consistently fought against gay marriage as a state senator, voted against DADT repeal twice, mocked his Cheryl Jacques's (his predecessor in the state senate before she left to head HRC) "alleged family responsibilities," and posed for a photo at a Tea Party event with the head of the anti-gay hate group Mass Resistance. Maybe Coakley was just trying to appease the gay lobby or whatever, and really does hate gays. I can't know her heart. But when it comes down to her actions, she has certainly been the sort of "passionate advocate" that certain sitting Democratic presidents try to say they'll be.

I do realize that there are plenty of other reasons Coakley was a miserable Senate candidate. I had voted for Capuano in the primary. He's got a near-perfect record on gay issues, but hasn't really gone above and beyond, as far as I know. But he was a better candidate overall, IMHO.

It's a vast over-simplification to write Democrats as a group off as mediocrities. Yeah, as a group they end up tied to whatever they can get folks like Blanche Lincoln and Ben Nelson to go along with, the politicians who are willing to fight for gay issues are also almost invariably Democrats. And we can always try to get rid of the mediocrities and replace them with fighters. I'm still kicking myself for voting for John Kerry in the primary in 2008, when a pro-equality candidate challenged him. Sure, it was a long shot, but I'm not going to pass up those opportunities in the future.