?

Log in

BACK DOOR BOY IN A FRONT DOOR WORLD
OUTSIDE OF SOCIETY - THAT'S WHERE I WANT TO BE
Now THIS Is More Along The Lines Of What I Expect To Hear! 
12th-Nov-2007 09:26 am
Obama On Teh Gays
Comments 
(Deleted comment)
12th-Nov-2007 03:13 pm (UTC)
I don't disagree with you necessarily, and while I prefer Richardson's position on those same issues, he simply doesn't have the numbers or support to make the kind of impact that the current frontrunners have.

I really wished he did as well, because his record on reform and economy surpasses everyone else in the running!
12th-Nov-2007 03:53 pm (UTC)
I guess baby steps forward is better than nothing at all, but I'm highly frustrated by Obama's inability to see how "Separate but Equal" is anything but. You'd think that he as an African-American would be a bit more sensitive to that issue.

JOhn.
12th-Nov-2007 04:29 pm (UTC)
Yeah, and I get that a lot in conversations with others who cannot seem to get it through their heads that the push for equality should ONLY be confined to legislation. In every other way, we're NOT equal - in order for us to be equal, we would have to be the same thing, either all hetero or all homo. Further, I don't think it is a good idea for gay folks to be hung up on this idea that we're 'just as good' as our heterosexual counterparts, because I don't see where being heterosexual is all it's cracked up to be either; certainly not something to model oneself behind - the statistics on the marriage/divorce ratio speak for themselves. If anything, we should want to be better than that. The claim that marriage should be protected from the right for us to legally wed, as it would destroy the foundation of marriage in the US is completely ludicrous. 52% of marriages end in divorce, the remaining 48% in death - what the fuck is so sanctimonious about that? It makes me really angry when I hear straight people make the claim that we're trying to ruin THEIR relationships or invalidate them in some farcical way, as if they had a right and were not singlehandedly responsible for their own relationships' successes and failures.

Before we can change anything, we need to change ourselves. We'll never change the way the majority of these religious nutjobs think or feel, but we have a good chance of being responsible for ourselves and each other - including the younger generations coming up soon.

I think he gets it that this is a political game trying to build this bridge, which is why he stated that he's willing to engage these evangelicals even though he disagrees with them. If he can manage to tap that resource and curry favor with them, then he has increased his chances of winning. He's not afraid to associate and engage the opposition, which is one more thing I admire about him. Sure, I have my issues with Obama, I do with them all - but this was a step in the right direction from my view.

Edited at 2007-11-12 04:39 pm (UTC)
12th-Nov-2007 06:52 pm (UTC)
I fail to see how any squawking about Dem candidates even matters, given that they're a bunch of incompetent, spineless, disorganized pantloads who run and cower anytime someone calls them a bad name.

Maybe if they had the intestinal fortitude to actually, I dunno, put up some kind of opposition I'd give a flying fuck.

It's totally a choice between a giant douche and a turd sandwich.

Vote for the evil fucktards, or vote for the evil fucktard enablers. Whoopee.
12th-Nov-2007 06:54 pm (UTC)
You would be absolutely correct, but it's what we got. I know, pathetic, but still - just wait 'til I'm Emperor...
12th-Nov-2007 07:12 pm (UTC)
I actually kind of like that idea.
12th-Nov-2007 08:15 pm (UTC)
I have to say that what that clip really tells me is Obama is a consumate politician. He deftly avoided answering two specific and very politically-charged questions, while seeming to give an answer that satisfies the GLBT community and those who support us.

Bottom line though is that he didn't come out and say we have the right to be married under the Constitution. He didn't come out and say that one's sexual orientation is something you are born with.

No, he danced around those questions with the politically-acceptable answers of "civil union" and "not a choice." Not enough. Not damn near enough.

Separate is not equal. And contrary to Shakespeare, a "marriage" under any other name does not "smell as sweet."

Personally, I think the politicians are cowards; they're waiting for the Supreme Court to tell them that we are entitled to the same rights and privileges under the law of the Constitution, so they can go back to their constituents and cast the blame back on the "liberal Court." It's so much easier and safer that way.
12th-Nov-2007 11:35 pm (UTC)
-1:23 he says
"I do not believe that being gay or lesbian is a choice, and so I disagree with Rev. McClurkin."


He supports civil unions, which in his view is the legal recognition afforded to heterosexuals who are married. No, separate is not equal, but neither are we in terms of our equalness to heterosexuals. To be their equal, we would have to be them.

Marriage is what you make it, a legal contract affording rights is what the legislature makes. If we could secure that, then I for one would feel pleased. Heterosexuals do not define me, I define me - and my relationships. They have no more power to control the quality of the life I live or the relationships I have than I do to destroy the sanctity of their marriages.

I don't think it is cowardice to look at a very big picture that is the sum of its parts and take these issues on priority. As long as Americans are dying every day in this sham of a war, Americans are without desperately needed, quality healthcare (and those are just a couple of the issues I think take precedent over same sex marriage), then I think what he has proposed is sufficient for the time.

I hear where you're coming from and I don't begrudge you your feelings on this, but for a candidate to live in this political world, he/she has to do the best to build compromises that they can and reach as wide an audience of people as possible - and earn the trust of that majority so that they can be granted the opportunity to make the necessary changes for the good of us all.

Whether fair or not, we've been used as a wedge issue tool by fundamentalist scaremongers, and it has wreaked huge damages on the real issue. In order for that to start getting reversed, it's going to take someone like Obama to say what he's said in the above clip to the midwesterners that have been swayed by our enemies, get them to listen, have a productive dialogue, and see these things for their realistic merits - then the work can begin to help substantiate an even more solid playing field for everyone. Until such happens, nothing will change - because nothing will have to.

17th-Nov-2007 12:50 am (UTC)
-1:23 he says
"I do not believe that being gay or lesbian is a choice, and so I disagree with Rev. McClurkin."


Yet he does not come out and say it is something we are born with. Not saying something is just as important as what is said. By couching his position thusly, he takes a more acceptable tack than stating it is something we are born into; a position that is unacceptable by the majority of the electorate.

He supports civil unions, which in his view is the legal recognition afforded to heterosexuals who are married. No, separate is not equal, but neither are we in terms of our equalness to heterosexuals. To be their equal, we would have to be them.

If he believes the words "civil union" and "marriage" are interchangeable, then let him use the word "marriage" when talking about same sex "civil unions." Again, what is not said becomes just as important, and just as much a political dance.

As for us having to be them to be equal to them, I disagree, and I think many African Americans would stand with me. They don't have to be Caucasian to be equal to us white folk under the Constitution.

I am personally waiting for a politician who will speak plainly and not dance around the issues in the name of political correctness. I don't think I'll see one of those in my lifetime.

And now, to be totally honest with you, I think the best bet we have, as a nation, is to put Hillary in as President and Obama in as her Vice President. She knows the shark-infested waters, and has connections to get through them; he has the drive, the energy, the spunk, and the vision to be outspoken and advance us socially. As a Veep, I think he'd be more influential and more successful right now. Together, I think they'd be unstoppable.

FWIW.
This page was loaded Jul 27th 2017, 8:51 pm GMT.