# Liberals hate gays **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [October 21, 2010, 1:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-hate-gays/557849 "2010-10-21T01:46:44Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2010, 3:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-hate-gays/557849/41 "2010-10-21T03:53:11Z")
> [@boytyperanma](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![friedo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/8edcca/32.png) [@friedo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/friedo)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2010, 4:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-hate-gays/557849/42 "2010-10-21T04:02:40Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![AdmiralCrunch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/6f9a4e/32.png) [@AdmiralCrunch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AdmiralCrunch)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2010, 4:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-hate-gays/557849/43 "2010-10-21T04:04:39Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2010, 4:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-hate-gays/557849/44 "2010-10-21T04:12:33Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Dissonance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/85f322/32.png) [@Dissonance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dissonance)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2010, 4:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-hate-gays/557849/45 "2010-10-21T04:47:44Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2010, 4:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-hate-gays/557849/46 "2010-10-21T04:49:31Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2010, 4:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-hate-gays/557849/47 "2010-10-21T04:59:04Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > 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… > [@Scylla](#): > > But… Let Obama do it, and… Nothing. > > \ > > 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? ---
**Author:** ![waterj2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/858c86/32.png) [@waterj2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/waterj2)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2010, 4:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-hate-gays/557849/48 "2010-10-21T04:59:31Z")
> [@Squink](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Bosstone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/22d042/32.png) [@Bosstone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosstone)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2010, 5:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-hate-gays/557849/49 "2010-10-21T05:09:19Z")
> [@AdmiralCrunch](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2010, 5:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-hate-gays/557849/50 "2010-10-21T05:11:37Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![waterj2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/858c86/32.png) [@waterj2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/waterj2)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2010, 5:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-hate-gays/557849/51 "2010-10-21T05:20:31Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > 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? ---
**Author:** ![pikey\_pete](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8edcca/32.png) [@pikey\_pete](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pikey_pete)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2010, 7:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-hate-gays/557849/52 "2010-10-21T07:02:49Z")
brief aside…the phrase is 'shit doesn’t **stink**", not “shit doesn’t **stick** ” ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2010, 1:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-hate-gays/557849/53 "2010-10-21T13:53:13Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2010, 2:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-hate-gays/557849/54 "2010-10-21T14:04:30Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2010, 2:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-hate-gays/557849/55 "2010-10-21T14:12:50Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2010, 2:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-hate-gays/557849/56 "2010-10-21T14:32:53Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > 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? ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2010, 2:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-hate-gays/557849/57 "2010-10-21T14:33:35Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Duke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e8c25b/32.png) [@Duke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duke)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2010, 2:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-hate-gays/557849/58 "2010-10-21T14:38:00Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > 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? ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2010, 2:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-hate-gays/557849/59 "2010-10-21T14:47:01Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2010, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-hate-gays/557849/60 "2010-10-21T15:36:09Z")
> [@Ludovic](#): > > 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. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-hate-gays/557849.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-hate-gays/557849.md?page=4)