So pissed off. So hurt. So let down.
First off, I can’t believe Obama had the gall to say he was a “fierce advocate for gay and lesbian Americans”.
Excuse me, but you do NOT get to call yourself a fierce advocate when you don’t support the very basic, fundamental civil right of marriage for gay people.
You do NOT get to call yourself a fierce advocate when you give Rick Warren the stage at your inauguration. Oh, and one of his talking points was that he also had a glbt friendly pastor.
The Inauguration will also involve Reverend Joseph Lowery, who will be delivering the official benediction at the Inauguration. Reverend Lowery is a giant of the civil rights movement who boasts a proudly progressive record on LGBT issues. He has been a leader in the struggle for civil rights for all Americans, gay or straight.
So does that mean it would be okay to have a racist preacher as long as we had a preacher who believed in equality to balance him off? hmm, I kind of doubt that.
And you do NOT get to call yourself a fierce advocate when you allowed opponents to use you as a prop for Prop. 8 and you stayed silent when your voice could have been the deciding factor.
< /rant >
Now turn that anger into something productive. Let Obama know how you feel. Call: 202-540-3000 and press “2”. Email.
reminds me of gov richardson boasting before the primaries how he had delivered up domestic partnerships to the people of new mexico. except that he hadn’t – the vote hadn’t taken place yet and in fact when it did, the bill failed. there is no doubt that he pushed hard for the bill’s passage, but he was an overreaching boob to claim an accomplishment before the fact, and i stopped thinking about supporting him at that point. but at least it was clear that he really had put some work into the effort.
<
p>you don’t get to call yourself “fierce advocate” until you have something to show for it. otherwise, you just make yourself look like a fool.
<
p>regarding obama not piping up when he was used in Yes on 8 ads, here fyi is a link to a related diary. and here is only one the offending pieces of advertisement that used obama and that he remained utterly silent about.
Is Obama being accused by some of you of backpeddling because you had reason to believe he WAS a “fierce advocate” originally, or have you known these to be his views all along. My question to those of you for whom this seems to be almost the only issue is whom did you support in the primary? I believe only Kucinich and Gravel supported marriage equality, but for other reasons they were always bottom-tier candidates. Somehow, Obama was painted as a progressive messiah even though his own words were always about bridging divides and bringing people together. Not that he isn’t more progressive than not, but I always got the sense that his credentials in this regard were based almost entirely on the fact that he spoke out against our involvement in Iraq from the beginning while Clinton and Edwards, the other top two candidates, vote for the authorization. I’d be curious as to thoughts on this.
<
p>Only one issue? You have no idea how incredibly OFFENSIVE that is. It’s our freaking CIVIL RIGHTS. It’s our rights as humans in this country. And you think that’s just ‘one’ issue? How dare you? That’s the most bigoted statement I’ve read in a very long time – which is saying quite a lot.
<
p>Only one issue?
<
p>Being gay in the military can get you booted. That’s just one issue.
<
p>Being gay in the workplace in most states in this country can get you fired. That’s just one issue.
<
p>Denied health care in almost every single freaking state in this country. Just one issue.
<
p>States that bar gays and lesbians from adopting. Just an issue.
<
p>Spouse dies and you lose all their benefits. Just an issue.
<
p>Hate crimes. Just an issue.
<
p>Discrimination in housing, from cops, from people like YOU. Just an issue.
<
p>Oh, yeah, we’re just “one issue” people. I’d like to see what you’d think if all YOUR civil rights were constantly up for vote, if people constantly told you that your relationahips were phony, or that you and all your friends were disease-carrying sluts. Yeah, just one issue. We’re so selfish. We don’t care about anything else. Yeah, right.
Was that REALLY worth a recommendation to delete? First, I wasn’t talking about you as you do comment on plenty of other things here. Second, I really wanted an answer to my question. I’m absolutely not saying it’s not an important issue and I AGREE with you on the merits. I’m offended at being called a bigot for simply asking a question, but I think this is a time to remember the saying, “You can attract more flies with honey than with vinegar.” To me the “one issue” was very specifically marriage equality, which again, I FAVOR. Even in this comment above I count possibly seven issues if taken separately. Now, would you like to answer my question?
will resort to calling gay rights “one issue” then I completely stand by what I said. Perhaps you’ll think more carefully before you label it as such in the future. Sometimes people are very offensive when they don’t intend to be because they just don’t understand. If my strong remarks lend a clearer picture to the situation – a small understanding of what it feels like to be gay in this country – then I’ll be very pleased.
I didn’t say it was necessarily a bad thing. I’m not a single-issue voter myself, but I can certainly respect that others might be, especially if it has such a direct effect on them. I’d still be curious as to how you would answer my questions above. To me “offensive” is intentional by definition; “insensitive” might have been better here.
or even in the general election. the president-elect should never give anyone a roll in the inaugural who works to deprive Americans of their constitutional and legal rights. that is because the president is supposed to defend the constitution. all of it. for everyone. even faggots and bulldykes. we all knew obama was against marriage, but we never dreamed he would even consider elevating one of the most ardent anti-constitutional activists in the country on such a historic day. and a day that belongs to all Americans (or is supposed to). see the difference?
laurel summed up my “answer” quite nicely.
I think Christopher deserves better. Ryan, it seems to me that the most likely effect of your comment is to frighten and to close down conversation. No one at BMG (perhaps our resident provocateurs are exceptions) wants to be labeled as a bigot or a homophobe. But when I read a thread like this, I wonder whether it’s worth participating in case I make a verbal misstep that’s unacceptable to you. I suspect others feel the same way.
<
p>It’s okay if this comment earns me your scornful reply–I’m a big boy. But I just think you ought to think about the dangers of using zeros and ALL-CAPS WORDS LIKE “OFFENSIVE” to enforce a speech code.
<
p>TedF
but I will just say that numerous posts by several people who probably call themselves liberal or progressive border on troll quality. It is just. plain. cruel. to see that people are hurting so deeply at the hands of their government and the citizenry and think it’s ok to tell them that they’re just another debate point. That is truly cruel. especially when they’ve put their heart and soul into getting “change! hope!” elected.
I understand where you’re coming from, but I don’t necessarily think you relate to my point of view. I’d say that if I heard of another person calling gay rights just ‘one issue’ I’d scream, but obviously I’ve already done that. I will not tolerate someone calling gay rights ‘just one issue’ when, in fact, it’s not only many issues, but at the heart of what it means to be human in America.
<
p>Wayne Besen had a great column today in which he talked about “the Great Gay exception” and I think that’s relevant here.
<
p>
<
p>I’m sick of hearing people talk about how they support our rights, and then do something off-handed that shows that while they say they support us, they may not support it as fully as even they think they do. Our rights cannot be compromised. We cannot wait any longer. Obama says he supports gay rights, then pulls this Rick Warren thing on us. People say they support equality and then call fierce equality advocates “one-issue” voters.
<
p>I’m not going to stand for that. If that means being a bit rude to make a point, then fine. If that means “policing” threads, then whatever. Either you think I’m an equal human and will fiercely defend that, or you don’t. You can’t trade our rights or bargain it away; you can’t say that, well, we need to pass the health care bill first before we agree to call you an equal human being, because really, health care’s more important anyway, so in the meantime be proud to call yourself 4/5ths of a human being. No other minority community would accept this. I don’t get why so many people expect gay and lesbian people to continue to do so. It ain’t happening.
I respect what you’re saying. It seems to me that Christopher does “think [you’re] an equal human,” at least insofar as he supports marriage equality. As I understand it, your beef with his comment really had nothing to do with the strength of his commitment to that position. Instead, you were unhappy at the mention of “single-issue” voters. Fair enough, and you’ve made your point about this, although I’m not sure I really understand it–surely there are some people who use support for marriage equality or even other civil rights for LGBT people as the litmus test for their votes, right? I mean, that’s true of lots of contentious issues, even issues that you or I think ought not to be contentious. And I think that Christopher was asking about those voters, not saying that everyone who supports marriage equality is a single issue voter, or even that marriage equality is “just another issue,” no more important than any other of the many issues on the domestic agenda for the next administration.
<
p>But my point really was that it seems to me that Christopher, a supporter of marriage equality, is not the kind of person you want to intimidate into not participating in discussions of marriage equality for fear of saying the wrong thing or setting the wrong tone. I mean, he supports marriage equality! If your point is that you don’t need or want his support (perhaps you would say, “support,” with the little air quotation marks around it) because his comments show him to be a less than ideal supporter, well, that doesn’t seem like very good politics to me.
<
p>TedF
he goes on to say in another post that gay rights is indeed just one issue that can be “prioritize[d].” If you think it’s okay to let the Democrats sit on issues of equality for a year or two while we pass other good bills, then, no, you’re not a strong ally of the GLBT community. There’s no reason why we can’t pass health care, a jobs bill and ENDA all in the same year. We’ve waited for full equality more than enough.
<
p>
<
p>No, he’s exactly the kind of person I want to “intimidate” as you call it (though, criticize I think is a better word).
<
p>Why? Simply put, people will say they support marriage equality and then it’s like they want to a pat on the back. Sorry, that’s not good enough. Thinking marriage equality is right and then doing something about it are two very different things. Thinking we should have marriage equality, but being willing to compromise on where, how or when we get it is NOT really supporting marriage equality.
<
p>Or, as Tudor quoted MLK Jr. recently, these kinds of people are exactly who we need to be targeting.
<
p>
<
p>Emphasis mine.
<
p>Do I want Christopher’s support? Of course I do. But he needs to know, right now, he’s not really a strong supporter. In fact, his kind of tepid support is – as Dr. King put it – perhaps even more dangerous than someone who was not a supporter.
<
p>Why? We need things to pass. We need votes now. We need to make clear to our “supporters” that it is no longer acceptable for them to delay their support, to compromise it or to trade it for something they value more than our equal rights. Allowing gay rights to be seen as acceptable to stall or push back for whatever unacceptable and false reasoning the “mainstream” Democratic “leadership” spouts could further stall equal rights by 2-4-8-10 years. It’s never a good time to push for equal rights, except when it is. We should pass health care first and get gay rights next year. Next year it’s an election year, so let’s wait until the year after that. Then we need to pass the green energy bill, so we need to push back that ‘one issue’ a little longer. ENOUGH.
especially on when is there a good time to push for equal rights. You hit it spot on the nose.
and send it out to all the pro-equality groups. Seriously, it was very very well put.
<
p>I am so friggen tired of that “one issue” insult, coming of course from the Republicans and unfortunately from far too many Democrats.
<
p>Speaking of, maybe all LGBT and pro-Equality people should “un enroll” in response to Obama’s honoring Warren. A mass unerollment from the Democrat Party. So at least for the next elections the Dems will look at us as voters that they need to target for support instead of expecting it and taking it for granted.
<
p>Did you read this Chris Mason and the JoinTheImpact people?? Get the LGBT and allies to unenroll from the Democratic party on Inauguration Day. That would make a statement. Until we are fully recognized as American Citizens, we shouldn’t be in ANY party! And until one of the parties puts our equal place in America as an important priority, they really don’t want us anyhow.
This was never intended to be an insult, but I do think it is objectively one issue among many. Of course, there are other issues out there: health care, security, education, jobs, etc. It’s fine to prioritize this or any other issue ahead of other issues. I would think you would defend the fact that this is so important to you rather than getting such thin skin about it.
You didn’t get the message. I’m very sorry to hear it. Our rights are not a bargaining chip. Either you think I’m a full, equal human being, or you don’t. It is not okay for us to wait a single day longer to be 100% citizen in this country. Our “issue” is neither one issue nor a group of issues to be “prioritized” over. We’ve “defended the fact” of why our civil rights are important to us for a very, very long time as a community and if you can’t understand that, if you can’t understand why we’d be “thin skinned” over it, as you called it, then you just don’t get it.
<
p>I thought you did and almost felt bad for my angry response a few days ago over what was in all honesty a few words that I thought betrayed your true feelings. Clearly, I was prescient. Until you think our rights are uncompromisable, then you’re just not a strong ally of the community.
he had the charisma and the organization to win. I liked that he was running a grassroots campaign – thought it was a smart strategy and helps build a constituency for the work that needs to be done after the election. Although glbt civil rights and marriage equality are very important issues for me, I’m not a single-issue voter, and I didn’t want to hand the Republicans a wedge issue. I knew Obama wasn’t there on marriage equality, but neither were the other leading candidates – I was prepared to give the Democratic nominee a pass on a tough issue before the election. I didn’t expect him to poke a sharp stick in the eye of the glbt community right after the election, though. Sarah Compton from the campaign has been sending emails looking for coordinators to participate in organizing a day of service on January 19th in honor of the inauguration, and my response is “no way.” If Rick Warren is on the program, I won’t be participating in commemorating or celebrating the event.
… not a single issue voter by any means. It’s one thing to be politically expedient and pragmatic during the campaign. Not fun, but strategically forgivable. Now hes won and without needing to, he’s trying to score points with one crowd at the expense of the dignity of another. As such, there really can’t be any surprise that it would draw a reaction.
<
p>I get that this is just the inauguration and not (thankfully) a cabinet post we’re talking about. But for crissakes,… we’re talking about civil rights. Did he really think this would be overlooked? Right after the Prop 8 vote?
Obama’s passed over a number of very highly qualified people in cabinet positions and top white house staff for often less-qualified straight people. If he put one gay person in a prominent position, perhaps this firestorm wouldn’t have been started. More on that here http://www.americablog.com/200…
hear me out on this one. The HRC and the Boston Gay Mafia/preHRC don’t seem to be getting the jobs and the positions and the power that they would have expected with Hillary Clinton.
<
p>So why do I think this is good? Because now the HRC with the millions and millions of LGBT community money is pissed as hell! Do you really think the HRC would have lashed out at Obama on Warren if it was highly present in this administration?
<
p>Now Solmonese and the HRC are getting a taste of what LGBT people really go through!
Ever. About anything that I can think of. But I do hope that he can find the castinets God gave him, because we need a very good president right now. Luke-warm ain’t gonna cut it.
You’ve been doing great work lately and I figured you deserved to be publicly acknowledged for it. So, keep it up!