Being “more gay friendly than any President in history” doesn’t make him their friend. It doesn’t even make him a neutral. So far, he hasn’t done anything to make him appear to be a friend.
The fact of the matter is the Democratic party needs gay votes. Recent elections have been too close for them to brush off their gay constituents as unnecessary. Gays have the option of not voting for either party. As the republicans aren’t getting a huge percentage of our votes it hurts the DNC far more.
Given a choice between the DNC who promises representation but fails to deliver vs the GOP who is honest about the fact they will not represent us, not voting for either and supporting a third party is looking like a a better option.
It is hardly laughable posturing. As we have not had equality in the US ever, I think they gay community can afford to withhold our votes and suffer 4 years of Sarah Palin if that’s what it takes to force the DNC to represent us. So yes we can take our ball and go home not like either side is inviting us to play anyway.
A non-vote for a Democrat is like a vote for the Republicans. If the gays want to try their luck, then they are free to, but better a cowardly friend than a courageous bully.
Gay people need to realize that with so much shit on Obama’s plate right now and absolutely no momentum going into the issue, now is not the time for gay rights. Ideally of course, I’d like to just say to hell with all that and give gays all the rights they deserve by Executive Order, but there are bigger fish to fry
They do have the option of not voting for either party. And by removing themselves so completely from the process they’ll soon find out that neither party will make any effort on their behalf. What, the homosexual vote is going to boost the Green Party to competitiveness? I think not.
Who?
It is 100% laughable posturing. The Republicans don’t care, they’re only helped by such a mass desertion. The Democrats, faced with outright betrayal, will not come to the LGBT community with hat in hand begging forgiveness for being the only party that has actually advanced rights in that arena for the last 30 years.
Without the Democrats LGBT rights do not have a chance in hell, and you have to know that.
If anything, they’re probably low.
Why Yes Sir, Massa’. We sure is happy to keep our heads down and go on being second-class citizens. :rolleyes:
Based on what?
As far as I know you’re correct on the ‘one experience’ thing. We’ve certainly considered using it to get my wife out – and she is bisexual so it wouldn’t have been a stretch.
The only things that prevented us were her getting orders off the carrier she is assigned to (in fact her last day there is today) and that we were told by a friend (officer on another carrier) that they would probably push it to infidelity rather than using DADT. The type of discharge being different and not wanting to lose her benefits we avoided it. If she had not gotten the orders we probably would have done so just to get her out regardless of consequences.
Obama is not now, and has not ever ignored them. What they are upset about is that their issues are not his number one issue. Like every other minority constituency they’ll have to wake up one day and realize that their issue is not the only issue, and that the President must juggle many special interests. If they take their ball and go home, then it’ll hurt the party yes, but it will hurt their issue a great deal as well. Unless you think 8 years of a Republican Presidency will end DADT.
Whatever, Obama is the first President who has even paid lip-service to the gay community. But go ahead, hang him out to dry for not being loyal enough. That’s fine. I’m sure it will accomplish a whole lot for LGBT causes.
I was correct the first time, it’s laughable posturing. It might hurt the Democratic party, but that’s the ONLY thing it will accomplish.
Common sense and basic observation. Also, from gay friends who have told me the closeted population is much larger than anyone would believe.
This is something where you can’t just rely on self-identification, not only because so many are closeted, but because there are people who honestly tell themselves they’re straight even though they engage in same-sex relationships, or have same-sex attractions while engaging outwardly only in heterosexual relationships, etc.
The percentage of people who have same-sex sexual attractions an/or have engaged in same-sx acts is much higher than 3%. I find that number laughable.
Incidentally, the military defines anyone who’s ever done anything with a member of the same sex as gay, so the number of those in the military affected by DADT is going to be a lot higher than 2-3%
Clinton actually helped with DADT. It turns out that it was a bit misguided, but it was perceived better than the status quo at that time. (Of course, with DOMA, he went back the other way.)
I don’t see how it is laughable posturing. Dems need those votes. The LGBT community has been sidelined since, well, forever. Dems taking a stance that they get whatever crumbs they throw them and they should be happy with that is what is laughable. If they have to toss a Dem and live with a Rep for a few years to get the message across so be it.
They can also support a different Dem as a challenger to an incumbent that does nothing for them.
In politics keep your base happy. They got you there and have a good chance keeping you there. Piss them off at your political peril.
Was it Clinton’s top priority upon taking office?
One question, while watching the SotUA and the DADT part came up, the camera panned to a stoic gathering of the joint chiefs of staff. I can see how it would be proper for the supreme court justices to remain impartial to whatever the president says, but are the joint chiefs like that too or was it the subject matter?
There are other issues that affect the LGBT community besides DADT. If they want to throw Obama and the DNC under the bus over the issue, then that’s their prerogative. More of that DNC being held hostage to minority coalitions because of slim electoral margins. Oh joy, another resentalist voting bloc to pander to.
It doesn’t matter. Politics has become pure resentment all the time. Why should anyone care about anything, let it all collapse. Nobody gives a shit about anything but their narrow interests anymore.
Obama didn’t end DADT immediately, therefore he’s the enemy. Whatever. That’s the politics of Gridlock. Sounds like the LGBT vote is another wing of the obstructionist party now.
The Joint Chiefs, at a speech like that, must remain apolitical.
I wouldn’t vote for a president who made gay rights a top priority any more than one who was for legalizing pot. I may agree with those positions but they are not and should not be top priorities either.
Economy/Budget and Defense should take those spots.
Yes, well Obama put it on his agenda, and now the LGBT community are abandoning him because it wasn’t at the top of that agenda in his first year while the economy and healthcare were. That just shows you the state of politics. Everyone expected the world from him in the very first year of his term. And then when he didn’t turn out to be their messiah, they just throw the hate.
That’s just how it goes.
Why were they even invited?