From The Advocate: "Sen. Obama reminded us this week that he believes marriage is between a man and a woman, something LGBT people might have easily forgotten over the course of the primary." Meanwhile, thousands of gay couples wed across California. And Obama still hasn't (that I could find) spoken out against the California anti-gay marriage amendment, despite the swooning endorsements and piles of cash he's receiving from smitten LGBT activists and their followers.
But, as former Reason magazine editor Virginia Postrel observed on her Dynamist blog, "If Obama comes out forcefully against the amendment-as he should-his African-American base in California and elsewhere won't like it."
More. Postrel also notes that "Blacks are overwhelmingly opposed to gay marriage and supportive of the [California] initiative, so much so that gay marriage supporters are essentially writing them off...," and that if, as widely expected, Obama turns out a hugh African-American vote in the Golden State, it will help pass the anti-gay marriage amendment. That's a point I've also made.
Furthermore. On June 25, Andrew Sullivan takes exception and says I'm wrong about Obama's position on the California amendment. But I think reader "avee" has hit the nail on the head about what's behind the confusion. He writes:
One or more commenters claim that Obama has spoken out against the amendment; neither blogger Steve nor I can find any such statement.
[Obama] has said that marriage is only between a man and a woman, and that state's should decide. He has also suggested that he doesn't have a problem with what's happening in CA. That double-talk does not amount to speaking out against the amendment....
UPDATE. On July 1, Obama finally issued a statement opposing the California anti-gay marriage amendment. Good. Now let's see how enthusiastically he speaks out against it (if at all) while on the campaign trail.
And yes, McCain is backing the admendment. Bad boy. But he's not getting all the campaign support, including voter registration/mobilization and mass solicitation of gay donations, being orchestrated by HRC and friends, is he? That's why Obama is being held to a higher standard, and why his long delay in coming out against the amendment was not acceptable.
47 Comments for “Gays Remain Cheap Date for Obama”
posted by Richard on
As an Independent, I really feel that you are off the mark here.
Under our current electoral system, most voters are a ‘cheap date’ because their is often little competition or meaningful choice.
Until gay partisans start talking about real campaign law reform, their complaints about the Democrats or Republicans will often ring hollow.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Obama is certainly not perfect on gay issues, as I have pointed out here on IGF. However, he is a good deal better than McCain.
One complaint about Obama that came from gay Clinton supporters was that Obama is supported by Illinois state Sen. James Meeks (D), an anti-gay Baptist minister. (This complaint is odd coming from Hillary supporters, since Clinton?s own anti-gay supporters included Bishop Eddie Long of Lithonia, Georgia. But we’ll set that aside, because Hillary lost.) As The Washington Blade reported on April 11 of this year, Obama has challenged Meeks on his homophobia. Rick Garcia of Equality Illinois witnessed an incident in a stairwell of the Illinois state capitol when Obama was in the state senate, where when Obama and Meeks engaged in a ?heated, animated conversation? over a gay rights bill that Obama co-sponsored. Obama was ?speaking very forcefully,? reports Garcia, who says Obama didn’t know he was there.
Here is a link to a page on Obama’s campaign website dealing with Obama’s positions on LGBT Rights:
http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/lgbt.pdf
posted by avee on
Yes, clearly Obama is better on a range of gay rights than McCain (although it seems McCain spoke out stronlgy against the federal marriage admendment, and Obama, while opposing it, did not).
Steve has a good point, though — Obama is getting enthusiastic support and fundraising aid from the big LGBT groups, and he can’t bring himself to speak out against the California amendment?
LGBT groups aren’t even trying to play hardball with Obama. If you give away milk for free, why would anyone buy the cow?
posted by Richard on
Yet, LGBT-right groups really have little choice.
Remember, we only have two meaningful choices. Given current opinion, among heterosexual voters, this means two imperfect candidates.
posted by D/\'UMP on
Why would Obama waste his breath condemning the amendment? The amendment is doomed to failure, with or without his support. Speaking about it in any specific terms would be lose/lose for ObamaTeam.
posted by Jack on
Obama has spoken out against the amendment. Additionally, when he was asked if he had a problem with the California Supreme Court decision, he said No.
He has stated that it is a State issue. He is not from California, so he is not going to waste his time on what he has said over and over and over is a state issue. For him to get involved in a state issue would show him to be a hypocrite.
While I wish that we could get a national viable candidate who would be marriage inclusive, it is not going to happen for at least another decade.
posted by Ray Harwick on
It’s probably my age, but I no longer trust any politician who doesn’t say were they stand. We had the same problem with Mary Bono Mack in the Palm Springs area. We “heard” she was a supporter of gay rights but she would never say so publicly. She was finally forced to show her hand when an public uproar in the local newspaper revealed that several contributors to the Human Rights Campaign were ending their support to HRC when they endorsed Bono Mack for congress. Bono Mack finally “came out” and right in the pages of the local newspaper.
But Obama and Hillary Clinton? All during their campaigns my husband and I talked about the fact that neither of them would support marriage. Well, now we’re married in spite of them and neither of us, still, can decide which one we’d vote for. We just plain tired of whispered rumors that some candidate is “pro gay”. For Obama, this may very well mean the absence of a punched hole or even a dimple on the card next to his name. “None of the above” is preferable to giving a vote to someone who doesn’t think I’m a citizen.
posted by tristram on
Your real point being ? Maybe that we should vote for McCain? or ‘sit this one out’? And deliver the Supreme Court to the Scalia – Thomas crowd for the next 30 years?
posted by Bobby on
So the candidate for “change” is really the candidate for “more of the same.” Maybe his new slogan should be, “No we can’t!”
Tell you this, Obama, for “more of the same” I can vote for McCain. At least he won’t raise my taxes to pay for so-called “free” health care.
posted by Attmay on
Obama’s “change” means beginning the change from a free country to one where all citizens, gay or “straight,” are slaves of the state.
A country where a company can have “windfall profits” confiscated by force if it’s politically expedient.
A country where skin color trumps individual moral character, intelligence, and ability (which Barry has precious little of).
A country where the military is too weak to fight an armed robbery at a Burger King in Tuscaloosa.
Why would any gay person want that?
“And deliver the Supreme Court to the Scalia – Thomas crowd for the next 30 years?”
God forbid we have a Supreme Court that has a concept of individual rights (as opposed to group rights). After the Kelo decision and their upholding of Campaign Finance Reform
posted by avee on
One or more commenters claim that Obama has spoken out against the amendment; neither blogger Steve nor I can find any such statement.
He has said that marriage is only between a man and a woman, and that state’s should decide. He has also suggested that he doesn’t have a problem with what’s happening in CA. That double-talk does not amount to speaking out against the amendment (which, contrary to one ignorant assertion above, has an excellent chance of passing, according to polls and precedents).
posted by Richard on
The next President will be Obama or McCain. This leaves Americans with only two viable choices.
As a minority, gay Americans are faced with (1) not voting, (2) voting for McCain (who opposes us at every step), (3) Obama (who shows lukewarm support on some issues), or (4) wasting our vote on a candidate who cannot win; Nader, Bar, etc.
For example, If McCain wins, the Supreme Court will probably become more hostile to the rights of gay citizens — possible even getting rid of Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas.
Neither McCain or Obama will weaken the armed forces. Furthermore I doubt that there is too much difference in when they will exit Iraq.
A private company should not be above the law and the founding fathers would largely be horrifed at the power given to such entities.
Justice Scalia and Thomas do not believe in individual rights when it comes to gay Americans. Period. Furthermore then rulings on election law reform issues are largely divorced from any concern about individual rights.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
It really is a lot easier for gays in Nov than maybe some of the laughingly partisan “independent” gays here contend in the comments thread… we can choose to sit it out like the hardline farRight wing types have seemingly decided to in Nov when it comes to McCain ‘cuase he doesn’t cut it for them… or we can choose to waste our vote on Obama who can’t quite seem to embrace gays and gay civil rights but will play coy with us in the hopes that gayDemocrats will sufficiently fill the air with white noise (no pun) and drown-out Obama’s lack of demonstrable support of gay civil rights.
The truth is that BOTH Obama and McCain think marriage is ONLY for one man, one woman and that states are rightly charged with regulating other forms of unions.
Obama attended, supported and was mentored for 20+ years by a man who is a raging homophobic bigoted racist. And the gayDemocrats want us all to ignore that fact now that Obama has tossed the Rev Wright under the Obama bus.
Sorry, gays shouldn’t be the new class sitting in the back of the Obama bus. Because of Obama’s race and strong leadership in the black community, he should be REQUIRED by gayDemocrats to strongly denounce the CA initiative, pledge to work with political leaders in all states to move toward enlightened gay civil rights and stop treating gays like the parriah of politics… and making us, like the muslims, sit on the back of the bus -quiet, non-demeanding and ready to pull the voting lever for him when told.
And gayDemocrats here have the guts to complain about McCain? At least we know where he stands on issues far more important to gays than those the gayLeft instruct gays are on the PC “gay agenda”.
posted by Richard on
It is really very cute when gay partisans — Democrats or Republicans — try to act like they are Independents. Even sillier when they question a proven independent’s identity.
Gay Republicans want to (1) make Obama seem worse then he is — on gay issues — and make McCain seem better. They are, after all, partisans first and gay second.
Gay Democrats want the reverse. Different record, same old basic tune.
The truth? McCain record on gay rights is objectively horrible. The only thing he seems willing to oppose is the FMA, but he does not even show much interest in civil unions or dp.
He opposes legislation such as the ENDA, PPIA, and the HCA. Time and time again he simply opposes gay rights. He supports judges who opposes Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas.
Obama’s record is objectively better then McCain, but it is really, at best, average. He supports certain gay rights issues, opposes others and will probably appoint better judges then McCain.
Both Obama and McCain have some really odd, if not obnixious people who support them. Both have religious supporters, if not political allies, who have said racist or bigoted things.
But we know where both candidates stand based on their voting record and official statements.
posted by Clay on
All due respect to Michigan-Matt, Obama’s longtime mentor, Rev. Wright, far from being a “raging homophobic,” has a documented record of positive outreach into Chicago’s gay community. See Newsweek…
http://www.newsweek.com/id/123604/page/1
or Google, where it took me 30 seconds to disprove your assertion with facts.
posted by Richard on
MM is a gay partisan of the GOP sort. I have met many gay partisans who are GOPers and Democrats.
They tend to care more about promoting their party, rather then gay rights.
They also tend to be very, very hostile to Independents.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Richard, I have been very open and upfront about my partisan leanings… they are solidly GOP… and, coming out of the progressive Ripon wing of the Party, they also tend to be more moderate than those currently in vogue at the Party. You, on the other hand, have created a fiction for yourself in claiming to be an independent or non-partisan gay; you are neither.
Further, you can hardly claim that I am not interested in true gay civil rights -and you wisely don’t do that but you slyly and ever so cutely try to imply that by offering I care more about the GOP than gay civil rights. I just don’t care for your version of the gayLeft, gayDemocrat agenda of civil rights.
Contrary to what you THINK my opinion of Independents might be… I have long maintained that McCain was a great choice for the GOP –even tho’ many GOPers didn’t pick him (I liked Romney more) and he’s been advanced as largely a GOP candidate of choice by political independents voting in state GOP primaries -even going back to 2000.
Now, as for you continued assertions that you are somehow not partisan, well that’s pure deception.
Your comments here, when not mindless restatements of others’ thoughts, tend to side with Democrats and almost always take issue with GOPers.
You’re hardly an “Independent”… and, in fact, your effort to hide behind that label while tossing brickbrats at anything GOP or most postings by StephenMiller is intellectually dishonest on your part. Not unusual.
Playing political chicken instead of standing up for your beliefs is never a model trait in society… especially in blogland where you have every expectation of safety from your anonymity.
“very, very hostile to independents”, is it? I must have been wildly insane when I wrote that “…the ONLY hope for the GOP in 08 will be in our capacity to woooooooo unaligned independents into voting for GOP candidates….”
Richard, you are such a tool for Democrats you don’t even realize it 75% of the time. And that’s a demerit or shame you take with you when you hide behind that curtain (or closet door) by claiming you’re an independent.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Clay, I don’t doubt you might want to think that Rev Wright is pro-gay… which would be really SOMEthing because the black religious community and its leaders have a long history in being rabidly anti-gay… but wanting him to be so is far short of what Rev Wright actually is and has said…
For instance, when GayWired reported “Rev. Jeremiah Wright Defends Tuskegee Experiment, Anti-Gay Comments”
http://gaywired.com/Article.cfm?Section=66&ID=18859
Or when Sen Clinton went on FoxNews’ OReilly show and called the Reverend’s comments about HIV being brought into the black community by gays and the government were “offensive and outrageous”… and not just to gays, mind you but fellow Democrats, too.
http://polijamblog.polijam.com/?p=1334
Now I know, BarryO gay supporters have to defend their guy from any attack… first, claim he didn’t have a relationship with the bigoted, racist, homophobic Rev Wright… then claim Wright is misunderstood… then spin it that it’s good BarryO is standing by his 20+ year religious and social mentor because that proves BarryO will stand by gays when times get tough… and then cheer BarryO when he tosses Wright under the bus and repeatedly drives over the carcass. It’s like picking the flavor of the day at ice cream parlor… not much thought, go with the flow, if it works, sell it.
Frankly Clay, if you had been reading IGF you’d know that Rev Wright’s supposedly pro-gay efforts at Trinity amounted to little more than shopfront sales as several gays involved with the Church and intimate with the Church’s gay outreach efforts have pointed out here.
It wouldn’t have taken you 30 seconds of GoogleTime, either.
posted by Canuk on
Obama is a “cheap date,” perhaps.
Yet John McCain is no date at all! He actively supports apartheid level marriage ballot initiatives, ones that would invalidate even private contracts between individuals! Only a party hack could delude themselves enough to say he’s not as cynical and evil towards gays as his employee Carl Rove. Sorry “adviser.”
Let me guess, Michigan Matt also thinks Carl Rove is an upstanding individual, his cynical strategy of launching anti-gay initiatives Rove could’ve cared less about to scare fundamentalists out to the ballot-box and vote GOP was good politics; that breaking the law in pursuit of a campaign to deceive and lie to the public about a war was the right thing to do, rather than criminal. He probably also shares the opinion that torture is appropriate as long as your victim is brown. Or abusing the Justice department as a tool to gin up lies for destroying the careers of people in the other party, like Governor Siegelman.
I’m surprised Michigan-Matt only named the victim of his bile “Barry” rather than Hussein, promoting the “he’s not really black” canard, rather than the “he’s a terrorist” lie.
Go GOP! The party that is quite happy to be home for and to praise opportunist racists, homophobes, and traitors to their Republic! The party with a religious test, contrary to the constitution (as Michi-Matt points out vis Rev Wright). The party that worships before the altar of individual rights, but only for straight (looking or acting) white people with country club memberships.
posted by Clay on
Michigan-Matt, I don’t want to get into a flame war with you, but the GayWired link you provide above provides no direct or indirect quote of anti-gay remarks by Rev. Wright, while the “Fixed” News link is a combination of Hillary rhetoric and O’Reilly vomit, neither of which is reliable as evidence. Can you provide any examples of homophobic statements by Wright? Or am I supposed to take Bill O’Reilly’s word for it?
posted by GayinNYC on
McCain may not be the best friend to the gay community, at least he’s not acting like he is, all the while stabbing us in the back. Through his alliances with anti-gay figures like McClurkin and Meeks, it’s clear that Obama thinks that the gay community is either too dumb to notice or too dumb to care that he associates with such foes of the gay community. Perhaps it’s the idea that the gay community will, by default, vote for him simply because he’s the Dem nominee. Using the fear of a McCain presidency and the potential for conservative SCOTUS appointments, Obama has effectively taken a page from the Republican playbook to prey on the fears of liberals — abortion, gay rights — the same hot button issues the Republicans used to put GWB in office. And like moths to a flame, the LGBT community is biting, hook, line and sinker. Fools. Obama doesn’t need the gay community vote to win in November, but he definitely needs the black community — without them, he’s toast. As the piece above states, the black community is vocally and vigorously opposed to gay rights. If they make it clear he’d lose them, the LGBT community would be under the bus with Rev Wright, TUCC, Obama’s white grandma, and everyone else he’s tossed under there.
posted by RIchard on
MM;
I am very open and upfront about being an Independent. I am more then willing to confront — what I believe — are problems with both major parties and — when its appropriate — even some minor parties.
In my experience gay partisans — Democrats or Republicans — care far more about scoring partisans points then advancing gay rights. You seem to be no different.
To try and dodge what can be a serious and intelligent debate you launch various lies and personal attacks against me and what I believe.
You even try to defend yourself with the notion that you care for ‘true’ gay rights. Translation? You care more about promoting your party then gay rights. The fact that you love Romney should illustrate this point.
McCain is no Independent. He likes to pretend that he is, (and he can pretty darn close in 2000) but it is all smoke and mirrors.
You seem to be most comfortable when you are telling outright fibs. I have been criticial of both major parties, but you like to pretend that I favor one party.
I talked about the legal precedence with regards to election law, and you accused me — without any evidence — of seeking to abolish the Electoral College and letting illegal immigrants vote.
Your accuse me of being in the closet, another lie.
When I fail to engage in your blind, partisan workship of all things GOP, you accuse me of being a Democrat. Oddly enough, Democrats often do the same thing when I fail to blindly worship all things DNC.
Gay partisans tend to be very, very, very hostile to Independents. Both sides may claim to want us as voters, but they do not respect us.
posted by Richard on
Isn’t it more honest to argue that because of how our particular two-party system works, we are basically forced to be a keep date?
Instead of gay partisans — Democrats and Republicans — trying to score partisan points and act holier then art thro, why not actually look at our electoral system and how it can be changed?
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Richard, “To try and dodge what can be a serious and intelligent debate you launch various lies and personal attacks against me and what I believe.”
Now, why is facing up to your continued and patently insecure attempts to hide behind an “independent” label a dodge of serious debate.
You’re the one, Richard, who uses the gay partisan smear as a way to discredit anyone who holds a contrary opinion to yours… you’re the one who attacks ala CharlesWilson when anyone holds you to account on those silly and sometimes blithe statements you LOVE to make… and you have the gall to accuse anyone here of dodging serious debate? LOL!
Now, quit trying to hide behind the independent label, come out of the gayDemocrat closet (that’s the only hypothetical closet I think I connected with you, no?) and come into the light of honest, fair, open debate.
And, as for your spurious claim that I put you in the closet… get a life, Richard… it was a figure of speech so apt for your special condition… hiding behind the independent label while mostly slamming anything GOPer, any GOPer, anything Bush, etc.
Gay partisans, like me, are NOT hostile to independents. I’m more inclined to give you some grief because you choose to ignore the reality of your actions and statements while seeking cover under the seemingly “independent” label… like I said earlier Richard, McCain is reaching out to real Independents, he’s securing that base solidly for November and it was largely independents crossing over into the GOP primaries that gave him the GOP nomination… imagine the howling screams of outrage from the Democrats if independents had “dared” tell them who should be the farLeft’s candidate? You could have heard them howl all the way to International Court in the Hague.
Yeah, you’re no independent, Richard. You’re a mainstream Democrat liberal of the first order… you just don’t have the courage of conviction to admit it.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Canuck, for the record, Mr Rove’s first name begins with K, not a “c”, but I wouldn’t expect Canadians to get anything right except socialism and surrender.
I am not a fan of Mr Rove’s; never was, never will be. But I think you’re wrong about his use of the FMA… it was a small teeny part of a larger strategy to draw “values” voters into the Bush ranks and it (sanctity of marriage) worked very, very well with other values issues like patriotism, the value of hard work, service to community, reliance on religious and social groups in the community to work on the tough issues rather than the federal govt stepping in with money and mandates.
And, as you well know Canuck, Mr Rove didn’t do anything illegal about the WOT or campaigns leading up to the effort to free Iraq or Afghanistan or bring Libya into UN compliance or deconstruct NK’s nuke armament systems or… well, you get the idea. Unless you’re awaiting the liberal’s pipe dream of holding an impeachment trial and seeing Mr Rove frogmarched out of the Capitol after pulling a “cowardly John Dean” on his boss -btw, it ain’t happening, dude.
As for this “I’m surprised Michigan-Matt only named the victim of his bile “Barry” rather than Hussein, promoting the “he’s not really black” canard, rather than the “he’s a terrorist” lie”…
I didn’t know that BarryO’s early use of his name was no longer in vogue… the candidate’s wife refers to him as Barry… his white grandmother referred to him as Barry… he called himself Barry in college… he even called himself Barry when he was working with all those labor goons and corrupt liberal officials in Chicago in his “community service days”… I guess when he was cleanin’ up his credentials he thought having a name that sounded like a brother was more important that having name that sounded like a frat boy who drank Schlitz while snorting cocaine.
Sorry, Canuck… gayDemocrats have sold the gay community down the tube once again… they did it with MikeyD, they did it with SlickWilly and AlBore, they did it with Reporting4DutyKerry and now, without missing a beat, they’re doing it with BarryO.
And you’re the little helper, aren’t you?
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Clay clucks “or Google, where it took me 30 seconds to disprove your assertion with facts.”
No, Clay, you didn’t. NOw go take the 30 seconds and type in “NPC.org” and go to the archives section… ask for a copy of Rev Wright’s speech and Q&A period… CSpan was running his appearance through last week… if you watch CSpan… it was enlightening.
Homophoic, racist and bigot: BarryO’s mentor of 20+year… before BarryO tossed him under the bus.
posted by Jim on
I hope you will take notice of Barack’s letter this weekend to the Alice B. Toklas LGBT Democratic Club. In which he states:
“As the Democratic nominee for President, I am proud to join with and support the LGBT community in an effort to set our nation on a course that recognizes LGBT Americans with full equality under the law. That is why I support extending fully equal rights and benefits to same-sex couples under both state and federal law. That is why I support repealing the Defense of Marriage Act and the “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” policy, and the passage of fully inclusive laws to protect LGBT Americans from hate crimes and employment discrimination. And that is why I oppose the divisive and discriminatory efforts to amend the California Constitution, and similar efforts to amend the U.S. Constitution or those of other states.
For too long, issues of LGBT rights have been exploited by those seeking to divide us. It’s time to move beyond polarization and live up to our founding promise of equality by treating all our citizens with dignity and respect. This is no less than a core issue about who we are as Democrats and as Americans.
Finally, I want to congratulate all of you who have shown your love for each other by getting married these last few weeks. My thanks again to the Alice B. Toklas LGBT Democratic Club for allowing me to be a part of today’s celebration. I look forward to working with you in the coming months and years, and I wish you all continued success.”
This kind of statement is simply unprecedented from a Democrat nominee for President. Not only is it is exactly the kind of direct repudiation of the California ballot initiative that you and Postrel have demanded, it also contains, in the closing paragraph is, a beautiful gratuity. It is simply inconceivable that Bill Clinton or John Kerry, in the midst of a contested campaign for President, would congratulate gay couples on their marriages.
There is more that he can, and should, do. I hope that he will make precisely the same statements more loudly, more publicly, and more pointedly (another of his lectures to black congregation?). I expect that he will and I will be disappointed if he doesn’t. But for now, he has done something good, something that no one in his position has done before.
posted by Clay on
Michigan-Matt, the link you provide is to the National Petroleum Council. I assume you mean NPR.
Why is it so difficult for you to simply provide a quote or reliable journalistic summary?
I notice your responses are getting steadily more personal. I think that kind of attitude is unnecessary and counter-productive. One side of mature adulthood is the capacity to deal with being disagreed with, questioned, even criticized. Lashing out is what children do when they’re challenged. With all due respect, it’s unmanly behavior and surely unworthy of you.
I have simply stated that your assertion of Wright’s “raging homophobic” attitudes and statements has not been supported herein by evidence. I assume you’re confident of that assertion, so why not simply provide some?
posted by Richard on
MM and Bobby, assuming that they are two different people, are both in need of some serious professional mental health care services.
MM seems to believe that if he repeats a lie enough times (i.e. Richard is not an Independent) then it must be true.
MM seems to believe that personal attacks are more important then a civil, in-depth discussion about serious, often complex, issues.
MM seems to believe that it is better to socre partisan points and help his own political party, then to advance gay rights.
I am an Independent. I do not affiliate with either political party. I oppose Democrats and Republicans who do stupid things, and I support them when they do smart things. I care more about advancing gay rights, then scoring partisan points.
If you harsh and bile-filled treatment of Independents is any indiction of what your pal McCain is doing, then he is certainly about serious about courting us.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Clay, thank you for pointing out the error in my conduct and thank you additionally for giving me free advice on how personal attacks are unseamly, unmanly and unworthy.
Kind of like when you wrote: “Hillary rhetoric and O’Reilly vomit”… yeah, you’re the beacon of reason and balance, manly and worthy, eh?
The NPC source was the National Press Club… the link I provided left off the word “press” -the correct link is NPC.press.org- but I would imagine anyone familar with MSM headlines and someone like you who is a BarryO supporter would have been able to steer through that mistaken reference since we were discussing Rev Wright’s homophobic comments (which he reiterated before the NPC appaearnace of week before last), Sen Clinton’s outrage at same and the context of C-Span coverage of same.
No?
Or, more likely, it was that you weren’t honest in your intent to explore and learn and it was more of the usual game playing on your part.
Like when I referenced the GayWired news story –if there is a more sympathetic pro-gay news service, I’d be amazed– and you chose to ignore it and focus in on FowNews and Bill O’Reilly… how special, how convenient of you. No? Just like when you ignored the point that IGF commenters here have pretty well dismissed the notion that Trinity had a gay outreach program worthy of notation… again, ignoring your baseless claim getting punted and instead focusing in on Bill OReilly’s veracity. “Quick, look over here”.
So, Clay, not to seem ungrateful to you for your free advice and insincere playful games of trying to take the highroad when your own recent conduct puts you squarely on the road of hypocrisy… my free advice to you is to clean up your own act first, before sticking that dirty finger in someone else’e eye… ok?
npc.press.org -archives. You’ll get Rev Wright’s own homophobic words haplessly tossed in your lap. If you really are interested in learning… which I strongly doubt.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
By the way Clay, even your net-pal Richard isn’t taking your free advice to heart “MM and Bobby, assuming that they are two different people, are both in need of some serious professional mental health care services.”
Hey Richard, I don’t know Bobby… never met him… don’t need a sockpuppet either to make my point. Bad attempt at smearing there.
As for needing mental health services, I think that’s a low blow and you –of all people here– should be ashamed of using that slam as a smear. I don’t need mental health care service as a 13 yr partnered spouse, father of two sons, strong community leader and well-placed professional approaching the pinnacle of his career… but I do know that many in our community suffer from mental illness and do profit from skilled medical attention and therapy. You owe them an apology, Richard… for using their misery and illness as a convenient whipping boy for your partisan gamesmanship. Shame on you.
If I were you, I wouldn’t toss that slam around in a community with a legendary attachment to mental health needs like ours has… unless you really are as unfeeling, disconnected and awash of reality as your comments indicate.
I’ve made it clear to you that I don’t think you’re an independent… worse, that you’re a gayDemocrat hiding behind the thin veneer of claiming to be an Independent so that when you slam GOPers, you think readers here will grant you some special dispensation.
You’ve “claimed” I’m a gay partisan… I’ve been saying that all along so that “claim” of yours is nothing more than proof you doing the old soap ad schtick “people believe independents 40% more than gay partisans” nonsense. It isn’t soap sales, Richard… it’s politics and policy. Partisan is perfectly acceptable… especially with all these BarryO supporters pleading with gays to support and stand by their man no matter what he says about marriage being only for a man and a woman.
I really wish you would decry both Democrats and GOPers when they do something wrong in your judgment… it’d be refreshing because you only want to beat on GOPers… again, proving the point that you’re really not independent.
You made the claim that gay partisans hate independents… I said you’re nuts. McCain’s candidacy is due, in large measure, to independents and moderate democrats crossing that GOP partisan line and voting in state after state GOP primaries. In some states, like New Hampshire, that portion of the vote was over 22% of all votes cast in the GOP primary.
Until the left MSM got BarryO and Sen Clinton, the left MSM was all about underscoring how bipartisan, party bucking, maverick and independent McCain was in the GOP… like them, your side can’t tolerate that image lingering so it’s now time to paint McCain as a solid GOPer… in fact a 3rd Bush term is how your side spins it. And that’s why you’re now trying to distance McCain from the label your side put on him for 20+ years… politically independent, policy maverick, unaligned GOPer.
So, try listening to your net pal Clay -even if he was grossly insincere and duplicitous. Personal attacks like the ones above get you no where… CharlesWilson proved that to a nauseating degree here recently.
And please, Richard, don’t mistake yourself for an independent anymore… as you did here
“If you harsh and bile-filled treatment of Independents is any indiction of what your pal McCain is doing, then he is certainly about serious about courting us”
because it wasn’t harsh, you’re not an indeependent, we were taking about you not independents in general, and McCain isn’t commenting here… it’s me.
What bothers me most about your act is that there are lots of gayDemocrats who play this game out repeatedly in elections… you’re not that special. Be fair in your criticism of both parties (don’t just claim it… do it) and maybe the rest of us can take some kernel of merit in your opinion… and no longer deeply doubt your “claim” of independent.
posted by DUMP on
From the Washington Blade:
“Rick Garcia, political director of Equality Illinois, the Chicago-based state gay rights group.
?Trinity has been among the strongest supporters of LGBT rights,? Garcia said. ?I have the highest regard and admiration for Rev. Wright.?
Gay Chicago resident Ronald Wadley, a member of Trinity United Church of Christ, said Wright enthusiastically backed suggestions by gay church members to create a gay and lesbian singles ministry as part of the church?s existing ministry to heterosexual singles.
?We call it the same-gender loving family ministry,? Wadley said. ?It?s a ministry that was formed to allow people to have an outlet to reconcile their sexuality with their spirituality,? he said.
?He has always been supportive on gay issues,? Wadley said of Wright. ?He has a stance that we all go by, under the credence of John: 16 ? that we are all created by God.?
Wright could not be reached for comment for this story. Spokespersons for Trinity United Church of Christ, including the Rev. Otis Moss II, the new pastor, and the Rev. Stacy Edwards, an official with the church’s community ministries, did not return calls by press time.
?He stuck up for me?
Bishop Kwabena Rainey Cheeks, pastor of Washington?s Inner Light Ministries, which has a mostly black gay congregation, said Wright has given him strong support and encouragement in Cheeks? role as an openly gay minister in the 17 years that the two have known each other.”
MichiganMatt = Epic Fail
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
From the Washington Post:
Barack Obama is a member of Chicago’s Trinity United Church of Christ. Its minister, and Obama’s spiritual adviser, is the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. In 1982, the church launched Trumpet Newsmagazine; Wright’s daughters serve as publisher and executive editor. Every year, the magazine makes awards in various categories. Last year, it gave the Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. Trumpeter Award to a man it said “truly epitomized greatness.” That man is Louis Farrakhan…..
And yet Wright heaped praise on Farrakhan. According to Trumpet, he applauded his “depth of analysis when it comes to the racial ills of this nation.” He praised “his integrity and honesty.” He called him “an unforgettable force, a catalyst for change and a religious leader who is sincere about his faith and his purpose.”
Such as these.
And also, isn’t it interesting that DUMP left out a hyperlink to that story? Maybe it’s because of what else is in it.
Yet not all gay members at Trinity agree with that assessment, according to Rev. Irene Monroe, a religion columnist for gay media and a doctoral candidate at Harvard Divinity School. Monroe said some gay members of Trinity expressed disappointment over Wright?s response to a controversial 2005 decision by the United Church of Christ?s national governing body to endorse same-sex marriage.
About 80 percent of the church?s General Synod voted to approve a same-sex marriage resolution giving all United Church of Christ congregations authority to perform same-sex marriages. The resolution explicitly allows each church to decide on its own whether or not to endorse or perform such unions.
Monroe said Wright spoke out against the Synod?s position, which she said prompted ?LGBTQ parishioners to leave? the church.
She points to an article written at that time by Wright in The Trumpet, his church?s magazine, calling the same-sex marriage issue a distraction that diverted attention from other, more important issues such as health care and poverty.
Amazingly enough, the paid Obama puppets parroted Obama’s line — until, of course, Obama threw Wright under the bus for telling the truth about Obama, that Obama was nothing more than an opportunist who had agreed with Wright’s remarks, but couldn’t say so for political reasons.
posted by DUMP on
What is incriminating in the quote you pulled? I would have referenced it in my post if it was of any importance. Are you taking the position that a person can’t have a nuanced stand on an issue in regards to a wide array of civil rights positions? You are an odd little man, N.Dall3Zilch.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Are you taking the position that a person can’t have a nuanced stand on an issue in regards to a wide array of civil rights positions?
Ah, I see; so now opposing gay marriage, supporting Louis Farrakhan’s hate rhetoric against gays, and driving away gay parishoners is not homophobic or hateful; it’s merely “nuanced”.
Not that this is surprising; after all, gay Democrats and liberals fully endorse and support state constitutional amendments, the FMA, and discrimination against gays by their Democrat massas. It’s not a shock that they endorse and support behavior by Obama supporters that they call homophobic and hateful elsewhere.
posted by DUMP on
Please provide a citation that details where Wright has opposed gay marriage (HINT: You won’t be able to find it). You can’t just make things up, N.Dall3Zilch. The truth is important even if it contradicts your warped world-view.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
And here we go again:
About 80 percent of the church?s General Synod voted to approve a same-sex marriage resolution giving all United Church of Christ congregations authority to perform same-sex marriages. The resolution explicitly allows each church to decide on its own whether or not to endorse or perform such unions.
Monroe said Wright spoke out against the Synod?s position, which she said prompted ?LGBTQ parishioners to leave? the church.
She points to an article written at that time by Wright in The Trumpet, his church?s magazine, calling the same-sex marriage issue a distraction that diverted attention from other, more important issues such as health care and poverty.
?Are 44 million Americans with no health care insurance less important than ?gay marriage?? he wrote. ?Why aren?t Black Christians in an uproar about that? Maybe I?m missing something!?
In a column slated to be published this week in the gay press, Monroe said Wright?s comments in the church magazine highlighted what appeared to be his decision to break ranks with ?his liberal denomination to stand in solidarity with a more conservative black church position.?
Again, not surprising, DUMP; Democrat gays like yourself, as I pointed out above, support, endorse, and give tens of millions of dollars to people who support discrimination against gays, oppose gay marriage, and support enacting laws and amendments banning it. It’s not the action; it’s the political affiliation of the person carrying out the action that matters to you.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Sorry DUMP, but like lots of those terrible people that Richard claims are “gay partisans”… you too are just a tad too intent on protecting your client candidate and keeping the gay vote solidly on the Democrat Masta’s plantation… Rev Wright wasn’t pro-gay, he refused to even simply “annoint” gay couples in his church, his outreach ministry failed for –guess what– lack of funding some 4 months after the big announcement (what, there was no announcement to Church followers at Trinity of Rev Wright’s outreach efforts to the gay community… I wonder why, hmmmm) and as noted above, he refused to lead the Church elders toward adopting true pro-gay language in the UCC’s compassionate statement on gay ministries.
Yeah, he was pro-gay… sure he was… quick, look over here… “Obama likes us, he just can’t say so”.
And if Rev Wright was so strongly pro-gay, as you and others here improperly claim… then why aren’t you outraged at BarryO tossing the Rev’s retiring butt under the Obama Bus and them reversing the bus repeatedly to drive over your pro-gay pastor once again… and again… and again?
Kind of a catch-22 situation for all you pro-gayDemocrats who can’t quite deliver Obama into the gay civil rights camp, no?
As for your silly nonsense about proving BarryO opposes gay marriage… what part of “I oppose gay marriage….” as he said in the townhall meeting in Columbus IN in April don’t YOU get? He opposes gay marriage and will so until it means he might lose some votes on Election Day and then he’ll flipflop change in a nanosecond and embrace gay marriage.
DUMP, you gotta get with the gayDemocrat message: “BarryO can’t support us now because it’ll mean he will lose in Nov but just wait and we’ll get what we want… just like with SlickWilly (DADT, DOMA) and all the rest of the pretenders we promised would help gay civil rights once they made it to office… like the current Congressional leadership.”
Oh yeah, help is on the way. Surrrrrre.
posted by DUMP on
Gay Democrat? Sorry pal, you’ve got the wrong guy. I’m still waiting for a citation of Wright’s anti-gay leanings. You weren’t just making it up, were you? So far you’ve produced nothing but hearsay and vague innuendo. Certainly if Wright is anti-gay you’d be able to come up with SOMETHING. The last time I checked, gay marriage WAS an incredibly un-important issue in the face of African-American poverty and general health-care inequality. There is nothing in your postings here that supports your inane theory of Wright being anti-gay. Please get back to me when you have something a little more concrete (you know, like a quote from Wright or this seemingly incriminating THE TRUMPET article). Please have at least a few facts to back-up your insane rants.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
BTW Richard, DUMP and Clay… the earlier IGF piece discussing how quickly and ignorantly the gayLeft Democrats ran to protect Rev Wright (before BarryO tossed his butt under the Obama bus) is here:
http://www.indegayforum.org/blog/show/31478.html
And BarryO’s letter to the highly partisan, pro-Democrat Toklas group can be found here
http://www.calitics.com/showDiary.do;jsessionid=A137F0D9DF0634D9CA5743D847143E94?diaryId=6307
I think the failure to embrace gay marriage is profoundly absent from BarryO’s letter –a letter that gayDemocrat activists have been invoking as proof he loves us, he cherishs us, he’ll help us when he can…. nonsense except to those working feverishly hard to keep the gay vote locked down on the Democrat Plantation.
posted by DUMP on
Good idea MM, change the subject. Great debate strategy.
Michigan Matt = Continued Epic Failure
posted by jason on
As to Obama “finally” releasing a statement on the California initiative, he released this on May 16, 2008:
“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.”
Get your facts straight, Stephen. It would be nice if you’d update the post to clarify that it was your own ignorance and poor research skills that led you to believe that Obama had not commented on the California initiative before this week.
posted by Richard on
MM;
Why should anyone believe what you have said? You have made up several outright lies about me and you wwant people to believe that you are honest? decent? LOL!
Smearing? It could only, possibly, be a smear if you hate Bobby. Yet, you two appear to have very similar political beliefs, very similar online comments and demonstrate a similar need for a professional to speak with.
To suggest that mental health resources are shameful is simply a new low, even for you. A number of people, including LGBT people, have sought or need mental health resources and would be better off if they got them.
In my career, I have treated a number of people for mental illnesses. Many had or claimed to have a sucessful career and family life. Such things are certainly good, but they do not make you immune to mental health problems.
Yes, you have made several things “clear to me”. (1)
]You are a gay partisan who hates and fears Independents. (2) You often outright lie when discussing serious issues. (3) You believe that mental illness is a shamefull issue.
I have often, here and elsehwhere, been critical of Democrats and Republicans when they do something this is stupid, silly or outright bizare. Unlike you I care more about gay rights, then scoring partissan points, spreading rumors or lies, or promoting silly partisanship or prejudice.
Obama’s and Mcain’s record on LGBT-rights issues are very, very clear. McCain has not really shown himself to be an Independent, Obama still has a ways to go, but at least is trying.
Naturally, you want to claim that McCain is an Independent, even when he is not. You want to cover up his record.
posted by Bobby on
Richard, don’t confuse Michigan Matt with me. We’re not the same person. For starters, he writes a lot more than I do.
And he always argues with facts rather than emotion. Emotion is my style, it’s the one thing in common I have with the far-left.
What else makes us different? Michigan doesn’t like the religious right while I consider them essential for republicans.
Michigan liked McCain before he won the nomination while I didn’t like any of them except for that guy from Colorado, the one who’s accused of being an anti-Hispanic, close the border, english only bigot? I like him, he was the only true conservative.
Also, if I vote for McCain is because I hate Obama, not because I like McCain. I think McCain is the lesser of two evils. The status-quo vs. socialism.
As for the mental health thing, I come from a family full of doctors, at least they have the decency of meeting their patients in person before writing a prescription. Remember when Dr. Phil got ridiculed for giving advice on Britney Spears without even meeting her? Do you really want to be like that quack?
posted by Terrance on
Why would John McCain receive any donations from or via HRC? What in his record would justify loads of gay donations to his campaign? Compared with his likely opponent, how does McCain’s record on gay issues measure up?
Part of the problem is that Republican presidential candidates have to be so bad on gay issues in order to get the nomination that Democrat don’t have to actually do much to look like a much better option.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
DUMP offers: “Good idea MM, change the subject. Great debate strategy.”
Not at all, DUMP; I didn’t change the topic… I responded when you changed it.
Nice try at the mirror, smoke and distraction game… are you on the payroll for BarryO or just voting for him?
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Richard, now that’s some more creative spinning on your part… you brought up the smear and slam about mental health and then, like some gayShylock, you turn around and seek sympathy for treating mental health therapy as a badge of dishonor and shame?
Like I wrote above, you should be ashamed to stoop so low. And to think you now claim to be some type of mental health advocate or therapist? Gheez, dude, you are at the bottom of the barrel.
Our new Dr Phil/aka Richard “MM and Bobby, assuming that they are two different people, are both in need of some serious professional mental health care services.”
I think the problem with you Richard is you want to cling to that cloak of “independent gay” while practicing and acting remarkably like a gayDemocrat. YOu really need a new act, Shylock.