From The Economist:
Although California's major pollsters reckon the gap is closing, they have never found a majority of residents in favor of same-sex marriage. Whites are evenly divided on the subject, whereas Latinos are opposed and blacks are fiercely opposed. February's primary election suggests turnout among both minority groups will be high this November.
It's altogether possible that a huge African-American turnout for Obama (who believes marriage is only between a man and a woman, just like the wording of the ballot initiative) could doom marriage equality in the nation's most populous state. But that's a scenario you won't hear discussed by Obama's LGBT supporters.
More. Since one commenter charges that my remarks about Obama's views on same-sex marriage are wrong, here are some facts:
Obama says: "I do not support gay marriage. Marriage has religious and social connotations, and I consider marriage to be between a man and a woman." (From the Human Rights Campaign's 2008 Presidential questionnaire)
Proposed California marriage amendment says: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."
Furthermore. Reader "avee" predicts:
Obama says he is against the CA marriage amendment [sic], but he also says that he is against gay marriage because marraige can only be between a man and woman. Expect his anti-gay-marriage quote to be reproduced in ads in the African-American media by amendment supporters before the election.
Actually, Obama apparently has not come out in opposition of the amendment, unlike GOP Gov. Schwarzenegger. From the San Francisco Chronicle:
Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, the likely Democratic presidential nominee, supports civil unions and equal rights for same-sex couples, but he has said repeatedly that marriage itself should be reserved for a man and a woman.
With an amendment outlawing same-sex marriage on the California ballot in November, Obama will probably be called to defend his carefully nuanced position when he campaigns in the state.
McCain, regrettably, endorsed the state amendment while continuing to oppose a federal amendment, but one would certainly expect more-much more- from Obama, who is and will be receiving droves of gay dollars and gay votes, and the adoration of LGBT activists throughout the land.
More still. It's now on the ballot. And it's unclear whether same-sex marriages performed over the next five months would be nullified if the amendment passes. Also, New York State's recent executive order instructing state agencies to recognized same-sex marriages performed elsewhere is being challenged.
64 Comments for “California & the Obama Factor”
posted by queerunity on
that is a legitimate point
http://www.queersunited.blogspot.com
posted by Richard on
I have not endorsed any of the dozen, or more, people running for president in 2008.
Yet, most politicians no that most Americans do not support gay marriage.
Most politicans want to win elections, which, often means doing what — in America — a pluarity of voters want.
I suspect that more could be done to build bridges with people of color as well as people who are not Democrats or liberals.
People tend to be less homophobic when some one they knew is gay.
posted by Bobby on
Remember, Obama is the guy who told a graduating class not to seek the big house (his house is worth $1.5 million) and expensive suits (his suits look pretty expensive) our money culture demands. So don’t trust anything he says.
Obama is full of shit, he plays the unity card while associating himself with convicted terrorist like Bill Ayres, radicals like Jeremiah Wright and some white-hating white guy who happens to be a catholic priest, the one who attacked Hillary Clinton.
“Latinos are opposed and blacks are fiercely opposed. ”
—You see? Gays have done so much for those ungratefull minorities, they have given them so much liberal support. And then when you need them, they betray you. So I’ll tell you this, the next time some republican asks you to vote against affirmative action, or to ban public funded bilingual education, for God sakes, vote for it! But stop supporting minorities that don’t support you!
posted by Rob on
the vote might pass, but like Zeke stated, the ballot initiative is worth squat. Banning same-sex marriage will require a constitutional convention, not an amendment. I just wonder if NDT is going to fight for the recognition of the ballot initiative, and going to betray gay families.
posted by Zeke on
If I’m not mistaken what Obama has REALLY said, as opposed to Stephen’s picking a choosing as it suits him, is that he believes civil unions are the best way to achieve “equality” in benefits, rights and responsibilities for gay couples and that he will work to acheive that status as they relate to FEDERAL rights but that “marriage” should be decided at the state level where it always has been. He also said that he SUPPORTED the CA Supreme Court’s decision because it falls into line with what he’s always believed in; individual STATES deciding for themselves.
Do I believe that the latino and black vote will hurt us in CA in November? Yes. But please stop with the cutesy little Obama swipes especially if you can’t be accurate with them.
posted by avee on
Zeke, you simply don’t know what your candidate has said, or you are being disingenuous. So here’s the relevant Obama quote:
“I do not support gay marriage. Marriage has religious and social connotations, and I consider marriage to be between a man and a woman.” [ from the Human Rights Campaign’s 2008 Presidential questionnaire http://a4.g.akamai.net/f/4/19675/0/newmill.download.akamai.com/19677/anon.newmediamill/pdfs/obama.pdf ]
posted by Richard on
Bobby, I suspect that you are another gay partisan. Not to mention, slightly racist.
Most Latinos and Blacks polled were opposed and most of them probably do not know people in their lives who are openly gay.
Your argument that we should resopnd my undermine someone’s human rights is precisely what we accuse other miniorities of doing.
posted by Richard on
Find me a candidate who (1) supports same sex marriage and (2) is a viable candidate for president.
None of the top three major party candidates support gay marriage. Obama and Clinton seem more supportive of civil unions, then McCain.
The current Libertarian Party nominee pushed for the DOMA, and only disagrees with a part of it.
posted by avee on
Richard, the point is that Obama’s gay supporters claim that he represents a quantum lead forward for gays. No one would dream of claiming any such thing about McCain.
Obama says he is against the CA marriage amendment, but he also says that he is against gay marriage because marraige can only be between a man and woman. Expect his anti-gay-marriage quote to be reproduced in ads in the African-American media by amendment supporters before the election.
posted by Bobby on
“Bobby, I suspect that you are another gay partisan. Not to mention, slightly racist.”
—Yes well, everyone who doesn’t support Obama is a racist. Geraldine Ferraro? A neo-nazi. Hillary Clinton? Aryan Nations. Blue-collar workers? KKK.
What you don’t get is that the left is a lot more racist than the right, the left created affirmative action, the left encourages all-black fraternities and all black dormitories, the left never talks about being color blind, but color conscious. And the left intimidates anyone who questions Obama, affirmative action, homophobia in the black community, bilingual education by taking out the race card. Question anything and you’re immediately labeled a racist. Martin Luther King, Jr. would be ashamed of how the liberals have redefined racism. Hitler would be proud.
“Most Latinos and Blacks polled were opposed and most of them probably do not know people in their lives who are openly gay.”
—I went to a latin high school, why would I want to socialize with the homophobic assholes of my youth? My experience is that blacks and latinos tend to be more homophobic, I don’t know why, maybe it’s machismo for latinos and a sense of superiority for blacks. But no matter the reason, I will not support race-based preferences for anyone, homophobe or not.
“Your argument that we should resopnd my undermine someone’s human rights is precisely what we accuse other miniorities of doing.”
—Going to college on a scholarship because you’re black is not a human right.
posted by susiekini09 on
This problem is always talked about by LGBT. I have read many articles about it. Gay marriage has been accepted by most of people. It would be really nice. and I am as a bisexual here show my gratitude for your being so open-minde. “What about adopting a child for us?” is always the popular quesiton for LBGT, espcially for bisexual at http://bimingle.com . There is no dout that we all love the world, love the children, and do not mean to hurt anybody. Hopefully, everybody can accept us.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Steve Miller is clearly right about Obama’s stated position on SSM. As an Obama supporter, I have never claimed otherwise. Overall, Obama is similar to Hillary on gay issues (perhaps slightly better) and clearly better than McCain. Gay-specific issues are, of course, not the only basis for most people’s votes.
posted by Richard on
I have neard heard an Obama or Clinton supporter claim that Obama or Clinton was a ‘quantum leap’ [good tv show] forward on gay rights. In fact, most of the supporters I know, rarely bring up the issue.
They are both better — on gay rights issues — then the only viable alternative; McCain. Yes, other issues matter, and can be debated, but this is a thread on gay rights.
No one is a racist simply because they do not support Obama. Nor are they sexist simply for not supporting Clinton or ageist simply for not supporting McCain.
Perhaps, what I see as slight racism, is just Bobby mean unhappy with huis own life, and still single.
“Why would I want to socialize with the homophobic assholes of my youth?”
Well, not all Latinos are youth or homphobic. Also, if we want to fight homophohia in a racial, ethnic, political, religious community, we have to engage them.
posted by avee on
I have neard heard an Obama or Clinton supporter claim that Obama or Clinton was a ‘quantum leap’
Andrew Sullivan certainly comes close:
“there is simply no choice here. Obama’s positions, candor, courage, generation and religious embrace of us are dispositive. … within the Democratic contest, the case for backing Obama at this point in time is, to my mind, urgent, vital, historic. Gay Americans must not throw this chance away.”
posted by Richard on
Even then, Andrew Sullivan is some what vague on what Obama’s positions on gay rights are and does not comment them them specifically.
Not unlike, those partisan gays who blindly support the war on terrorism, but get all silent about the situation for gay Iraqis.
posted by avee on
Richard, did you read the Sullivan quote? I think anyone who reads it has to see that Sullivan thinks Obama’s embrace of gays is, what shall I say, dispositive and historic.
And how about those partisan gay lefties who think any criticism of IRAN’s executions of gays should be hushed because it could be seen as supporting Bush?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Not unlike, those partisan gays who blindly support the war on terrorism, but get all silent about the situation for gay Iraqis.
Yes, because, as we know, Iraq under Saddam and Afghanistan under the Taliban were such havens of open communication and tolerance.
Isn’t it amazing how how leftists only cared about human rights abuses in Iraq when they could blame the United States — and not when they were occurring on a far grander scale under the dictator who was paying their liberal allies billions of dollars in bribes and kickbacks?
posted by Michigan-Matt on
avee, sure Richard read the Sullie quote… but it is contrary to his worldview so, like all good Democrats, he’s just going to ignore it and spin onto other issues. Just like Richard trying to spin Sullie’s quote you provided to clearly prove Richard is wrongheaded on this… taking that point, ignoring it with flourish and trying to spin it into another anti-gay conservative, anti-neocon smear by falsely claiming those who support the WOT are slient on the abuse of gays under Iran, Iraq, etc.
For the record, Richard, you can go to GayPatriot.net and read extensively on how gay conservatives are concerned and working to reverse the plight of their gay brethern in those countries… that’s just one of 9-10 sites you wrongly claim aren’t doing anything toward this end.
I think that last claim puts you squarely in the camp of the gayLeft enemies of the Bush Administration who can’t even take off their partisan blinders because it’ll appear they might be agreeing with those Bushies. Afterall, there could be no worse fate in your book than to appear to agree with something your partisan opponents are doing for the benefit of gays worldwide.
What was that thread of Stephen Miller’s on how the gayLeft is more concerned about securing partisan advantage for the Democrats rather than progress on issues of import to gays? You prove his point again, Richard.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
NDXXX writes: “Isn’t it amazing how how leftists only cared about human rights abuses in Iraq when they could blame the United States — and not when they were occurring on a far grander scale under the dictator who was paying their liberal allies billions of dollars in bribes and kickbacks?”
Hey, just look back at all those gayLeft American liberals who served as human shields for Saddam in the lead-up to the war? Could anything more unpatriotic, unAmerican and dishonest be imagined by the gayLeft? Oh, sorry… there is CodePink afterall.
https://www.cia.gov/library/reports/general-reports-1/iraq_human_shields/index.html
posted by Mark on
“Yes, because, as we know, Iraq under Saddam and Afghanistan under the Taliban were such havens of open communication and tolerance.”
Are you familiar with the “straw man” fallacy?
Actually, Iraq was one of the more tolerant Middle Eastern countries under Hussein, which is not to say he wasn’t a bad dictator. However, there was some civil society, which has been more or less destroyed since the immoral and unjustified U.S. invasion, which killed at least 100,000 people, destroyed billions in property, created a refugee crises and set in motion a cruel civil war.
posted by Mark on
Actually, Obama may draw out young and better educated voters, which may help defeat the marriage initiative. Time will tell.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
However, there was some civil society, which has been more or less destroyed since the immoral and unjustified U.S. invasion, which killed at least 100,000 people, destroyed billions in property, created a refugee crises and set in motion a cruel civil war.
“Civil society”, indeed.
Just as a start, perhaps someone can explain to me how the death of 100,000 Iraqis is better than 500,000 Iraqi children alone starving to death.
We’ll get to the genocide and ecocide mentioned in the second link, or perhaps talk about Saddam’s diversion of billions of dollars into his own personal coffers and that of UN and European bureaucrats at the expense of his own collapsing infrastructure, later.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Mark offers a little LeftCoast revisionism: “Actually, Iraq was one of the more tolerant Middle Eastern countries under Hussein, which is not to say he wasn’t a bad dictator.”
Gee, Mark, I don’t recall other MiddleEast countries offering to sell spent nuke waste for dirty bombs to terrorists… I don’t recall other MiddleEast countries rounding up dissenters and political opponents and slaughtering them in front of their families when the regime took power… I don’t recall other MiddleEast countries using biological and chemical weapons –which liberals are still saying Hussein didn’t really, truly have– on their own countrymen and killing over 15,000 women and children… I don’t recall other MiddleEast countries waging genocidal war against its neighbors, invading sovereign terrority and then creating the world’s greatest environmental disaster to date by firing oil wells.
And how about this tidbit from Wiki speaking about Saddam’s very civil-minded offspring…
“Saddam’s support base of Tikriti tribesmen, family members, and other supporters was divided after the war, and in the following years, contributing to the government’s increasingly repressive and arbitrary nature. Domestic repression inside Iraq grew worse, and Saddam’s sons, Uday Hussein and Qusay Hussein, became increasingly powerful and carried out a private reign of terror. They likely had a leading hand when, in August 1995, two of Saddam Hussein’s sons-in-law (Hussein Kamel and Saddam Kamel), who held high positions in the Iraqi military, defected to Jordan. Both were killed after returning to Iraq the following February.”
Are you sure you have the right Saddam Hussein regime?
You are such a tool of the Left. Thank you for not trying to make a purse from a sow’s ear in the future.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Mark, when you offered: “Actually, Obama may draw out young and better educated voters, which may help defeat the marriage initiative.”
Were YOU familiar with a non sequitur argument?
Younger, better educated people already vote in high percentages… in CA, according to Rasmussen’s polling center, that will result in about 13% of the vote in general elections… the black vote in CA amounts to 14.5% of the vote in general elections in CA.
We can safely assume the young, better educated voters will be anti-DOMA… just like we can assume that nearly 70% of the black vote will be pro-DOMA.
Like Stephen Miller posits: it’s likely the voters that BarryO is bringing to the general election will have a significant portion of pro-DOMA voters… most especially because BarryO is in favor of keeping marriage defined as male-female LTR.
We really don’t need to wait for time to tell us anything about who BarryO is bringing to the party in November… mostly because, as you prove with the revisionist nonsense about Iraq being some civil paradise prior to the Coalition freeing its people, you can’t be trusted with time.
It only brings out a decidedly “untruthiness” in your projections of revisionist history or historical fiction, I can’t figure out which.
posted by tavdy on
If Saddam’s regime was really consistently worse in all aspects than the current Iraqi democracy, how come the Iraqi Jewish, Christian and Gay communities have all virtually evaporated? Yes, Saddam’s regime was vicious and inhuman – but that doesn’t mean that it was bad for all Iraqis; thousands have lost out as a result of the war, and in many cases they have had to leave their homes in fear of losing their lives.
That doesn’t mean I think getting rid of Saddam’s regime was the wrong thing to do – I think it was, though I have doubts about the methods used. I just don’t think that the “everyone benefits” line is necessarily accurate; taking that approach always vastly oversimplifies any given situation. You cannot satisfy the needs of everyone – someone will always lose out.
posted by D\'UMP on
“I don’t recall other MiddleEast countries using biological and chemical weapons –which liberals are still saying Hussein didn’t really, truly have– on their own countrymen and killing over 15,000 women and children.”
What “leftist” is making that claim. Everyone knows that the good old USA gave Saddam the chemical weapons he used on his own people.
posted by tavdy on
Actually I thought some of those weapons came from the UK…
posted by Zeke on
Sorry avee but it’s YOU who do not know what my candidate has said and it is YOU who is being disingenuous. Unlike your generic quote that was not in response to the CA ruling THIS is the REAL relevant QUOTE from the Obama campaign spefically on the CA ruling:
“Barack Obama has always believed that same-sex couples should enjoy equal rights under the law, and he will continue to fight for civil unions as president. He respects the decision of the California Supreme Court, and continues to believe that states should make their own decisions when it comes to the issue of marriage.” “On the issue of constitutional amendments, Senator Obama has been on record for some time: He opposes all divisive and discriminatory constitutional amendments, state or federal. That includes the proposed amendments in California and Florida.”
Obama has said that he PERSONALLY believes that marriage is between a man and a woman but he has NEVER supported or even said that he supported ANY move to make same-sex marriage illegal.
Please stop lying and twisting words to suit your nefarious purposes.
posted by avee on
Zeke,
I apologize because I incorrectly said that Obama had opposed the Calif. amendment. As Steve points out (with a quote from the San Francisco Chronicle), Obama has not opposed the amendment, and has said that marriage can only be betweeen a man and a woman. So, just who is the liar here? Well, it’s not me!
posted by Michigan-Matt on
tavdy asks: “If Saddam’s regime was really consistently worse in all aspects than the current Iraqi democracy, how come the Iraqi Jewish, Christian and Gay communities have all virtually evaporated?”
Ummm, tavdy, just like a large segment of the Iraqi middle, upper and merchant class -as well as the remnants of the royals- those groups fled Iraq when fighting started and continue to remain outside Iraq in lots of neighboring countries like Jordan until things settle down and their personal safety can be assured.
As for the Iraqi Christian community, it’s going strong despite the terrorist-like tactics of the radical muslim goons preying on them with kidnapping and extortion… it seems understandable that when the govt is fighting outside terrorist states and working toward political/economic security, religious persecution of small minorities don’t seem THE pressing issue of the day -especially when those minorities have fled the country.
Kind of like complaining that McDonald’s isn’t able to open a store in downtown Baghdad –so things must be worse for all.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
… and tavdy, aren’t we getting slightly off topic here? I mean Richard’s toolish comment about Iraq got this started… we were talking about how Obama voters may end up getting the CA Nov DOMA initiative passed.
posted by Herb Spencer on
I’d like to know the basis for blacks’ fierce opposition to gay marriage. I suspect it may be yet another evil offspring of the fractured black family that DPMoynihan warned us of in the ’70s. With black gays abandoned by – and abandoning – their already shaky family units, what remains doesn’t seem to allow for much interaction, and therefore understanding/acceptance. Of course, the simplistic theologies of many black churches – matched only by the equally elementary beliefs of white Protestant Evangelicals (and Islamo-Fascists) – may also play a role, but I’d really like to know what’s behind this antipathy.
posted by mike on
Seems to me the overwhelming support he has with those under thirty, who also overwhelmingly support marriage equality, is going to be just as much a factor in whether it passes or not as race. And regardless of his support of marriage equality personally, he has repeatedly said he supports the right of the states to make their own decisions on the matter and he opposes the federal DOMA.
posted by Richard on
Once again, gay partisans squirm when faced with the truth.
Both Mccain and Obama oppose gay marriage. Why? Most voting Americans oppose gay marriage. Obama supports civil unions, McCain does not. In fact, McCain seems to oppose just about every single gay rights issue.
Gay conservatives tell us — when confronted with the homophobia of the GOP that we need to reach out to them more. But when confronted with the homophobia of people of color, they are not quite so kind.
Gay partisans, like straight partisans, are often disconnected from the reality. The Iraqi war is just one such example of this. Most people who support and oppose the war are incredibly inept about the situation.
For example, the bulk of the violent harassment and attacks on Iraqi Christians and gays is coming from Iraqi government backed gangs. In many ways, the militias and the government are one and the same.
Fast food? Comparing human beings to a fast food burger is, well, just really really bad.
posted by Richard on
Gay partisans who foolishly support the war seem to believe that if a woman leaves her abusive girlfriend, only to date another abusive woman, things have improved.
Things have gotten worse for Iraqi women, gays, Christian, artists, and intellectuals.
What has bene going on is basically a civil war between one group of wackos, who run things, and another group of wackos who want to run things.
When gay partisans oppose human rights violations in Iran, in order to make the foolish claim that we should invade Iran, people should speak up. Setting aside the fact, that such talk is often invoked to avoid the reality in Iraq, that we actually helped to create.
Post-Saddam Iraq is hardly a bacon of open communication and social tolerance.
People who think it will be, when things ‘calm down’ are demonstrating an utter lack of comprehension about the situation.
I am not a ‘leftist’ or a ‘rightist’ so I do not speak for them. However, I known many self-avowed leftists who have campaigned on behalf of human rights across the globe, not just in Iraq or Afghanistan.
I have known very, very few conservatives — gay or straight — who have much interset in human rights, especially within a global context.
Just looking at Iraq, most gay conservatives seem to believe that things will improve for gays once things calm down. Well, if one side wins, the nation will be like iran, if the other side wins, it will be like saudi arabia.
So, please tell me what are these gay conservatives doing for gay Iraqis? As an Independent, unlike most of the gay partisans here, I have no trouble giving credit when it is due.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Gay conservatives tell us — when confronted with the homophobia of the GOP that we need to reach out to them more. But when confronted with the homophobia of people of color, they are not quite so kind.
That would be because HRC and its leaders have no trouble giving money and endorsements to FMA and state constitutional amendment supporters — as long as they are the right color and party.
The problem here, Richard, is that it is blatantly obvious that whether or not an action is “homophobic” to gay liberals has nothing to do with the action itself, but with the minority status and political affiliation of the person doing it.
Gay partisans who foolishly support the war seem to believe that if a woman leaves her abusive girlfriend, only to date another abusive woman, things have improved.
Versus gay liberals like you, Richard, who argue that she should continue to date her abusive girlfriend because things might be worse elsewhere.
The problem here is that you are trying to spin why you think a war that you claim has resulted in the deaths of 100,000 Iraqis is somehow worse than the sanctions regime you supported under which five hundred thousand children — not including adults — starved to death.
Furthermore, you whine about “government-supported gangs” preying on gays — when before the war, Saddam’s government was doing EXACTLY THE SAME THING without one whisper of complaint from you. Indeed, most of the people doing the whining about the condition of gays in Iraq now are gays who left Iraq DURING Saddam’s regime because they had been threatened with prison, torture, and death.
posted by Mark on
“… as you prove with the revisionist nonsense about Iraq being some civil paradise prior to the Coalition freeing its people…”
I never said Iraq was any “paradise.” What I said was that Hussein was more liberal than many Middle Eastern dictators and there was some sort of civil society in Iraq.
The coalition did not “free” people. Of course, it freed a number of people from their lives and property , but I don’t think that is the kind of freedom you had in mind.
posted by Mark on
Look, I said Hussein was a bad dictator. However, he did not threaten the U.S. in 2002, there were no WMDs at that time, and claims about ties to 9/11 terrorists were nonsense.
You are a fool, however, if you think Iraqis are better off after Bush’s war. Are the half million dead better off?
posted by Mark on
“Just as a start, perhaps someone can explain to me how the death of 100,000 Iraqis is better than 500,000 Iraqi children alone starving to death.
We’ll get to the genocide and ecocide mentioned in the second link, or perhaps talk about Saddam’s diversion of billions of dollars into his own personal coffers and that of UN and European bureaucrats at the expense of his own collapsing infrastructure, later.”
Both the death toll from Clinton’s sanctions (which I opposed) and the death toll from Bush’s war are deplorable. Actually, I use the 100,000 figure because it is an absolute lowball figure–the true figure is probably closer to 500,000 dead from the war.
Of course Saddam Hussein always was a rotten dictator. I don’t argue that. How does that argue in favor of the war? Bush 1 (you know, that famous liberal) declined to invade Iraq in 1991. Why? Because he had more sense than his son, and did not think it was in the interests of the United States.
posted by Mark on
Let me make my position clear. The role of the U.S. military is to defend the United States. Absent an attack on the United States, the military has no role overseas.
posted by Mark on
“I don’t recall other MiddleEast countries waging genocidal war against its neighbors”
You mean the Iran war when Hussein was supported by the United States?
posted by Mark on
A final thought. I oppose the United States starting wars or getting involved in wars unless the United States is attacked. Period. Stalin and Mao were far worse than Hussein, yet the U.S. never invaded Rusia or China. Was that an error?
posted by Richard on
Gay partisans seem determined to pretend they are non-partisan. Nice that.
It makes no sense to confront the GOP’s homophobia with diologue and bridge builidng, only to turn around and do the exact opposite when the homophobia is coming from people of color.
It makes no sense, no matter what the Human Rights Campaign or the Log Cabin Republicans do or do not do.
I have never seen any evidence that either interest group only gives to candidates of a certain skin color.
Futhermore neither organization would be called liberal. The HRC is a centrist pro-choice organization, while the LCR are fiscally conservative, socially moerate or libertairan and possiblly pro-life.
Again, the major problem is that some one is suggesting that the proper response to homophobia is education and bridge building only when the speaker is a Republican, or a Democrat or white or black. This is an indefensible position and will not be very effective in combating homophobia.
Gay Partisans seem to have a one track mind. Gay conservatives assume that if you disagree with them, at anytime, you must be a liberal. Gay liberals assume that if you disagree with them, at anytime, you must be a consrevative.
The truth, in my case, that I am an Independent seems alien to gay partisans because it does not fit the talking heads script they been taught to read and promote.
I never suggested, that the abused woman, in this case Iraq, should stay with her abusive girlfriend. Some far leftist liberals and libertarians may suggest that, but neither speak for me and I do not claim to speak for them.
Yet, many gay partisans — of the conservative bent — have told the woman to leave her girlfriend, helped her to do so, and helped her pick up a new abusive girlfriend.
Unlike the gay partisans I do not support spousal abuse. Nor do I insult people by calling it a symbol of freedom or democracy.
Their is NEVER any “might” involved in what was going to happen once Saddam fell. Anyone who had a basic knowledge of the nation’s (and region’s) history and politics could have told you what would happen.
I have never made any claims about the number of people killed in the Iraq War, nor do I ‘spin’.
Today, government supported gangs have been targeted gay and transgender Iraqis for their sexuality. As are Christians, Jews, artists, inteluectuals and feminists.
This is very different from what happened throughout most of the Ba’athist/Saddam rule.
Iraqi Christians and Jews were, compared to now, tolerated. Iraqi women were allowed, even encouraged to have careers and public lives.
The current campaign against gays is much, much more severe then what happen under the Ba’athists.
I was certainly not silent about the human rights abuses being conducted by the Ba’athist regime. Nor when the various international human rights groups that I am aware of.
posted by Richard on
Notice that Iraq is a different situation — in terms of history, politics and human rights developments –then Afghanistan.
Under the Taliban, sodomy was a capital crime, and now it appears to be punishable by a long prison sentence. Yeah, not really great progress but its a slight cooling off of religious fundamentalism.
posted by D/\'UMP on
NrthDlls30 – “Furthermore, you whine about “government-supported gangs” preying on gays — when before the war, Saddam’s government was doing EXACTLY THE SAME THING without one whisper of complaint from you.”
Complete and total bullshit. There was a healthy gay community in Saddam’s secular Iraq before USA’s illegal invasion. Don’t lie.
posted by Richard on
No, the Iraqi gay community was not really ‘healthy’, but it was less molested then it is today.
Under Saddam homosexuality was not a crime until around 2002, even then its tough to tell what the new law did and did not say.
Gays could be fined or imprisoned,(their appears to have been a crack down in the 1990s) neither was pleasant, but capital punishment was not really used.
Remember that in a post-Saddam Iraq the question has become will the nation become like Iran or Saudi Arabia? Both probably means death for gays.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Complete and total bullshit. There was a healthy gay community in Saddam’s secular Iraq before USA’s illegal invasion. Don’t lie.
Mhm.
?In the late ?80s and early ?90s there were a couple of gay clubs in Baghdad,? Hili explained, ?but they were all shut down in 1993 after sanctions were imposed against Saddam?s regime and Iraq. We had a weekly gay nightclub in the Palestine Hotel that became the gathering place for gay people, especially for actors and others in the entertainment world, but it, too, was shut down. I was arrested three times for being gay, and tortured. After several attempts, I finally was able to escape the country, going first to Dubai, then Jordan, then Syria, and finally reaching England.?
But again, perpetuating Saddam in power was what liberals and Democrats wanted, so, given their definition, what he was doing was not in any way homophobic or harmful to gays and in fact was creating a “thriving” community.
posted by Richard on
Again, despite what the gay partisans may say, the situation for gay Iraqis has gotten worse.
It was not great to being with, although in some ways better and worse for the region. But now its becoming more like Iran or Saudi Arabia.
I have never met a liberal or consrevative, Republican or a Democrat who supported the old Ba’athist regime.
posted by Richard on
?We understand the Americans have sided with the Shi?ites. It?s shocking. It doesn?t fit American values. They have spent so much blood and money here, only to back the creation of an Islamist state… I can?t believe that?s what the Americans really want or what the American people want.?
posted by avee on
Presenting Richard with facts and expecting him to respond by taking them into account is an amusing excerise to watch. It’s just not gonna happen, guys.
posted by ashpenaz on
I liked McCain on Ellen. I thought he genuinely wanted to embrace her marriage, but couldn’t because he was part of a party which won’t let him. Obama would have to say the same thing–but he’d be all smarmy and elitist about it. Plus, he has all those homophobic pastors around him and the largely homophobic African-American community to placate. I think McCain, in his heart, is fine with gay marriage and will probably support whatever the states do.
I really, really don’t like Obama.
posted by D\'/UMP on
ash – “I really, really don’t like Obama.”
Then you should fit in just fine in Nebraska. As white as the pure driven snow.
posted by Ashpenaz on
Nebraska is the birthplace of Malcolm X. Many ex-slaves came to Nebraska because it was a free state. Also, we have the largest growing Hispanic population in America due to meatpacking. Perhaps on your next visit you could drive up and down 24th St. from South Omaha to North Omaha and see how diverse we are. Girlfriend.
posted by D/\'UMP on
No thanks, I know what hayseeds look like. No need for a re-education.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Richard contends: “… have never met a liberal or consrevative, Republican or a Democrat who supported the old Ba’athist regime.”
Ummm, you may not have met them personally, Richard, but that’s just being disingenious (again) and highly partisan for one so devoted to polishing the banner of “independent”.
You know of lots of liberals and gayLefties and Democrats who supported Saddam while he was in power… back then, they were called “Human shields” against American capitalist hemegony… they sided and stood by their man of the hour, Saddam, in the streets of Baghdad before the Coalition troops began the air attack… they were standing on top of Iraqi buildings sending eyewitness reports back to their adoring fans in the liberal MSM about how Coalition bombs were missing targets and taking out schools and hospitals… killing indiscriminately… killing almost exclusively children holding dolls or pregnant women.
Does the former CNN star reporter and darling of the Democrat Party cocktail circuit in DC –Mr Peter Arnett– ring a bell? He was a liberal, working for a liberal MSM cable outlet begun by an uber-liberal Ted Turner, married to a former anti-VN War activist and Democrat Party stalwart Jane Fonda… surely, Richard, even you can recall liberals standing up and making political love to Saddam… just like they did to Ho Chi Minh… and Pol Pot and Hitler and… well, the list is as long as history.
“… have never met a liberal or consrevative, Republican or a Democrat who supported the old Ba’athist regime.”
Right, Richard. Time to put that head back in the sand and rewrite some more history for the Left.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
D\\’/UMP offers: “No thanks, I know what hayseeds look like. No need for a re-education.”
Gee, D\\’/UMP, you sound exactly like BarryO when he presented the typical Left liberal elite sneer by contending that people displaced by the global economy just cling to their guns, gods and beer blaming immigrants and boogey-man for their collective plight.
posted by Pat on
MichiganMatt, I did not support, by any means, those who went to Iraq as human shields. I certainly don’t know the motivations of all of them, but the one that I did know did NOT go there out of any love or hero worship of Saddam Hussein. Far from it. It was more for the citizens of Iraq who were going to be caught in a middle of a war. She did not see the Iraqi invasion and virtual civil war as a solution to the problem. She was right, IMO, on that.
posted by D/\'UMP on
MM – Gee, D’/UMP, you sound exactly like BarryO when he presented the typical Left liberal…blah blah blah.”
Do you really not know what “exactly” means? Dummy.
posted by Priya Lynn on
Northdallass quotes this from his link in an attempt to prove that things were worse for gays under Sadam than now:
?In the late ?80s and early ?90s there were a couple of gay clubs in Baghdad,? Hili explained, ?but they were all shut down in 1993 after sanctions were imposed against Saddam?s regime and Iraq. We had a weekly gay nightclub in the Palestine Hotel that became the gathering place for gay people, especially for actors and others in the entertainment world, but it, too, was shut down. I was arrested three times for being gay, and tortured. After several attempts, I finally was able to escape the country, going first to Dubai, then Jordan, then Syria, and finally reaching England.?
Laughably and conveniently he leaves out the very next line which says “Now, Hili says, he is heartbroken to see that, three years after Saddam?s fall, life for gay people in Iraq is even more unbearable than before.”
Impressive, Northdallass, as is often the case your very own link is your undoing, proving the opposite of what you claimed it would do – gay Iraqis were better off under Sadam than they are now.
posted by Priya Lynn on
D\\’/UMP said “Then you should fit in just fine in Nebraska. As white as the pure driven snow.”.
If you had ever melted a pot of that “pure driven snow” you’d see its anything but pure.
posted by Priya Lynn on
Northdallass said “Just as a start, perhaps someone can explain to me how the death of 100,000 Iraqis is better than 500,000 Iraqi children alone starving to death.”
As of Sept 2007 an estimated 1.2 million Iraqis have died as a result of the U.S. invasion:
http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/iraq/iraqdeaths.html
http://www.opinion.co.uk/Newsroom_details.aspx?NewsId=78
And this is a far shorter time period than the reign of Sadam during which Northdallass alleges 500,000 children starved to death. Things are much worse for Iraqis since the U.S. invasion then they were during the time of Sadam.
posted by Ashpenaz on
Did I miss anything? I was out clinging to my guns and religion.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Impressive, Northdallass, as is often the case your very own link is your undoing, proving the opposite of what you claimed it would do – gay Iraqis were better off under Sadam than they are now.
Actually, the amusement value comes from what gay liberals were previously saying, Priya Lynn.
Complete and total bullshit. There was a healthy gay community in Saddam’s secular Iraq before USA’s illegal invasion. Don’t lie.
But again, perpetuating Saddam in power was what liberals and Democrats wanted, so, given their definition, what he was doing was not in any way homophobic or harmful to gays and in fact was creating a “thriving” community.
Simply put, what invalidates the comparison of before and after by liberal gays is the fact that they quite obviously did not consider it a problem that Saddam’s regime arrested, imprisoned, tortured, and murdered gays, and considered the fact that his regime did so to be creating a “thriving” community.
And ah yes, the Lancet study; partially funded by leftist George Soros, timed to release right before the US elections, and radically higher than every other verified number in Iraq, but of course, automatically considered an “impartial judgment”.
And as for the “alleged”, go ahead and state publicly that the UN was lying.
Of course, the whole thing going on here is that gay liberals could really care less about the Iraqis, inasmuch as they said nothing when Saddam was murdering, torturing, and imprisoning gays as well as millions of other Iraqis; it’s merely a matter of being able to bash the United States and to bark on the command of the liberals and leftists who lost billions of dollars in kickbacks when Saddam was put out of business.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
D/\\’UMP, thanks for the compliment but I think you’re missing a few bricks if you think your condescending sneer isn’t exactly the same condescending sneer that BarryO presented to his liberal, classy, SF-values pol-pals at that infamously taped fundraiser…
Speaking of condescending sneers… I’m wondering if D/\\’UMP is just Charles Wilson parading as someone new now? Hmmm, he does have a long record of getting banned, barred and blocked… only to come back with a different name… same act, same guy? Hmmmm.