After November's sweeping electoral defeats for gay legal equality-especially the roll back of marriage equality in California-caution is in the air. Reports the New York Times, N.Y. Democrats May Skip Gay Marriage Vote:
After a pledge from New York Democratic leaders that their party would legalize same-sex marriage if they won control of the State Senate this year, money from gay rights supporters poured in from across the country, helping cinch a Democratic victory.
But now, party leaders have sent strong signals that they may not take up the issue during the 2009 legislative session. Some of them suggest it may be wise to wait until 2011 before considering it, in hopes that Democrats can pick up more Senate seats and Gov. David A. Paterson, a strong backer of gay rights, would then be safely into a second term.
In other words, although Democrats finally now control the governorship and both houses of the state legislature, gay marriage is too contentious to bring up, probably until after the next election cycle. But what if the Republicans retake the governorship or the state senate in 2010?
That's also the problem with recent signals from the incoming Obama administration that it won't raise repeal of the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy anytime soon. And if they wait more than a year, don't count on any action too close to the next congessional elections in 2010. But what if Republicans then retake the Senate (and even the House) in Washington?
Caution is understandable, and the Democratic politicians now advocating going slow until there is more popular support for our cause may have a point. That is, if in the meantime a real, concerted effort is made to build a consensus for, say, advancing marriage equality for gay people.
That challenge also is behind the debate over whether the Washington, D.C. city council should pass a same-sex marriage bill. Although the city's electorate is overwhelmingly Democratic, there are "issues." As the Washington Blade reports, Black activists urge caution on D.C. marriage bill:
With blacks making up nearly 57 percent of the population in D.C., black gay activists said gay marriage supporters must redouble their efforts to reach out to blacks and other minorities in the District.
"I don't know if we can obtain the allies to help us defeat a referendum in the District," said Carlene Cheatam, one of the founding members of the D.C. Coalition of Black Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual & Transgender Men & Women. "I'm not worried about our elected city government," Cheatam said. "They are all supportive because they equate marriage rights with civil rights. It's the general population that I'm concerned about."
Cheatam and other black leaders say coalitions and alliances would have to be built between gays and black community institutions, including historic black churches, "to educate the community on why the right to marry is a civil right." (More on outreach to black voters is offered in this New York Times op-ed by Charles M. Bow.)
The danger is that November's electoral disaster will be used to bury efforts to advance gay equality, and that delaying efforts until after the next election cycle means that, once again, our issues can be used to solicit gay dollars for Democrats and their LGBT fundraising fronts in 2010 with the promise that sometime afterward our rights will be addressed by our elected representatives. We've heard that song before, too.
45 Comments for “On Hold”
posted by Bobby on
No gay marriage, no gays in the military, just higher capital gains taxes.
Welcome to Obamaland!
Yes we can’t!
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Bobby, you seem to have missed the “we” in “Yes we can.” It’s wasn’t “Yes he can.” We elected a president, not Santa Claus. He’s inheriting two wars and a great financial crisis. In any case, how does everything get laid at Obama’s doorstep, including decisions by members of Congress or politicians in New York? This is just sillness. It doesn’t acquire a gloss of smartness by endless repetition. As Steve suggests, we need to hold politicians’ feet to the fire, and continue to do the grassroots educational work to build support for our civil marriage equality. The fact that we have an essential role to play does not in any way change the fact that Democrats for all their faults have a better record than Republicans on gay issues.
posted by Bobby on
“Bobby, you seem to have missed the “we” in “Yes we can.” It’s wasn’t “Yes he can.”
—But he’s the leader! The leader we’re supposed to follow and not criticize, the leader who’s supposed to change everything, help the poor, stick it to the rich, etc.
So where’s the change? He already appointed Hillary Clinton as secretary of state! That’s not change we can believe in, that’s more of the same.
” We elected a president, not Santa Claus.”
—Tell that to the millions who voted for him based on his promises.
posted by tristram on
“Caution is understandable, and the Democratic politicians now advocating going slow until there is more popular support for our cause may have a point. That is, if in the meantime a real, concerted effort is made to build a consensus for, say, advancing marriage equality for gay people.”
WE have to make the effort and build the consensus. No more California-style complacency. I really think if that first damn poll had shown us 8 percentage points behind, we would have defeated Prop 8.
posted by Jorge on
This is unacceptable. I think I’m going to have a word with my state representatives, after all.
posted by Carl on
The real problem in NY is that there are 3 very socially conservative and/or power hungry Democratic state senators who have said they will vote for the Republican to be senate president if a gay marriage bill is put up. I think they even want to have a gay marriage ban put on the ballot.
As for DADT…I’d be shocked if anyone actually thought that was going to be raised as an issue. Not after the Clinton debacle.
posted by Pat on
—But he’s the leader! The leader we’re supposed to follow and not criticize, the leader who’s supposed to change everything, help the poor, stick it to the rich, etc.
Yes, Obama should be a leader (although not exempt from criticism), and I’ll give him a chance to lead, just as I did with Clinton and Bush (and, of course, saw quickly that neither of them had an interest in leading).
—Tell that to the millions who voted for him based on his promises.
Anybody who voted for Obama (or McCain) based on what he promised…I got a bridge to sell them.
As for the New York same sex marriage iniative, I’ve heard the same about it being pushed if the Senate finally had Democratic control. Although I understand the pragmatism here, I didn’t here persons saying that they needed more than just a majority, and didn’t talk about trying to defeat the socially conservative Democrats. Further, as Stephen Miller is suggesting, it’s time to stop the promising and not delivering. If these Democrats side with the other party, so be it. It’s time to see the bigots line up on one side, and the supporters of equality line up on the other (maybe a couple of Republicans will leave the side of bigotry and head to the side of equality). And let the chips fall where they may.
posted by Bobby on
“Anybody who voted for Obama (or McCain) based on what he promised…I got a bridge to sell them.”
—A lot of people vote based on expectations. For example, people who voted for McCain expect no amnesty for illegals, no tax increases, no capital gains increases, no public health insurance, no softening on the war on terror, no radicalism of any kind (other than cutting government spending).
People who voted for Obama expect the exact opposite, with some exceptions here and there.
I don’t know if Obama has the Clinton magic. Billy was from Arkansas, he was a southern democrat, he understood how to please the left without pissing off the right too much. Obama seems to be moving to the center with the appointment of Hillary Clinton, but that might be a facade. Slick politicians know how to trick the voters.
posted by Jorge on
The real problem in NY is that there are 3 very socially conservative and/or power hungry Democratic state senators who have said they will vote for the Republican to be senate president if a gay marriage bill is put up. I think they even want to have a gay marriage ban put on the ballot.
Well, there’s nothing I can do about that directly, because they’re not my representatives, but we do have people in NY who are aware of it and trying to pressure them to reconsider. Personally I don’t care who controls the Senate, even if that makes a difference in the marriage thing. But I won’t say that too loudly because who knows if I may be wrong here.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Bobby, you seem to go out of your way to miss the point. Yes, he’s the leader, but being the leader does not make him Santa Claus. Obama’s inauguration is still seven weeks away, yet you insist on writing as if his first term were over (or we had at least reached the midterms) and he had done nothing. You are way overconcluding based on speculation and a predisposition to be utterly unimpressed no matter what he might do. All of which is unreasonable on its face. As to expectations, having made some effort to study the man’s career and his writings, I expected a pragmatic centrist, that is what I wanted, and that is what we appear to be getting. The mere fact that Obama is naming experienced people to cabinet posts does not mean “more of the same”; it means that he intends to actually accomplish something, and he realizes that bringing in a bunch of neophytles as Jimmy Carter did (and Bill Clinton as well to some extent) is a recipe for failure. As Obama says, he will be the guy in charge and the change will come from him. Be as skeptical as you like, but he is not president yet and it’s ludicrous to talk about his failures and broken promises seven weeks before he even takes office.
And one more time: there is nothing magical or sacred about the first 100 days. There are clearly some other priorities for the first few months at least. Yes, if the midterms arrive and nothing has been done on a GLBT agenda despite significant efforts by us to organize and press for it–then those in Executive and Legislative branches who either blocked it or failed to support it will have some answering to do. But I expect nothing ever to be done from now until the end of time based on our sitting back with our arms folded and waiting for politicians to do it all for us. Like it or not, craven or betryal or call it what you will, that is just not how things work or can work or should work. We have a part to play or to hell with us because in that case we are just not serious.
posted by Bobby on
“yet you insist on writing as if his first term were over (or we had at least reached the midterms) and he had done nothing.”
—Well, Obama is acting like his first term just started. What’s the deal with the Office of the President Elect? Why is he making comments on public policy? Why is Bush letting him do things? This is completely unprecedented.
If you wanted a centrist, you should have supported Hillary Clinton. It’s so hypocritical for Obama and his minions to attack Hillary during the campaign and embrace her after Obama wins. This is politics as usual.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Obama has no presidential authority until January 20 at noon. He is in his transition. He shouldn’t make comments on public policy? Why, for goodness’ sake? The fact that the current president has no credibility and has virtually disappeared, and that people are more interested in Obama’s plans, says more about Bush than Obama, and certainly cannot be treated as an overreach on his part.
Since Obama’s policy positions were and are quite close to Hillary Clinton’s, there is no policy-based reason why I should have preferred her over him, nor why I should object to his appointing her now. I thought Obama would be a better leader than Clinton. Obama was more sinned against than sinning in the campaign; he is to be blamed for being tough and fighting back? Nonsense. He has already caused a significant change, including to America’s image in the world, just by being elected. The notion that his failure to abolish politics altogether renders his talk of change phony is a rather desperate bit of illogic.
posted by Bobby on
“The fact that the current president has no credibility and has virtually disappeared”
—He hasn’t disappeared, the liberal media simply refuses to report on the good things he does. For example, there’s the $700 billion bailout which I don’t agree with, but that might save the economy He signed it, the democrats supported the measure, and yet now he doesn’t give the credit? What about the fact that we haven’t suffered another terrorist attack since 9/11? He doesn’t get credit for that?
Bush was always hated by the media, even when he was popular, even when he was reelected. If you want to be informed, visit conservative websites like townhall.com. You’ll see what Bush has done. You’ll see the reasons for waterboarding and all that good stuff that gets information from terrorists to prevent more terrorism.
Obama should take a vacation, relax, chill, once he’s president then he can start dealing with policy.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Take a vacation when he has to put an administration together? The sad thing is that you seem to think this a smart comment.
As to Bush and the bailout, Bush deliberately stepped back and let the Treasury secretary and the Fed chairman take the lead on that.
If I want to be informed, I should visit townhall.com? Are you high? Is that where you also get your information on homosexuality? You seriously support waterboarding? Monstrous.
posted by Priya Lynn on
I’ve got to second Richard. Townhall.com?! You’re quite a piece of work Bobby.
Thanks for your work in debunking Bobby and his type Richard.
posted by gary on
I support waterboarding too. Monstous uh?!…..Lets see…go to to Craig List and see post after post of men begging to be someones “cum dump” and etc. Where is the fucking outrage about that? Individuals killed by waterboarding-zero! Individuals saved by waterboarding-maybe untold thousands! Individuals lives destroyed by barebacking uh…..thousands.. I will stick with the waterboarding.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Gary, what is the source of your claim of no deaths from waterboarding? As to your citation of ads posted on Craig’s List, are you serious? The difference, and it’s a big one, is CHOICE. Torture is a violation of American law. And experts say it doesn’t work. American use of it has fueled recruitment of more terrorists and has harmed our standing in thw world. We cannot defeat terrorism by ourselves; we need international cooperation. Our use of torture makes that cooperation more difficult.
posted by Bobby on
So Richard, you would rather have another 9/11 than to prevent one by using torture? And by the way, American torture isn’t really torture, if you want torture, see how the colombians gather information from drug dealers. That is torture! Guantanamo is paradise compared to most prisons in the third world.
“If I want to be informed, I should visit townhall.com? Are you high? Is that where you also get your information on homosexuality?”
—I don’t miss sex with politics, Richard. I get my gay information from all kinds of sources. And no, I am not high. Townhall has lots of great articles, if you only read about Bush from websites that hate Bush you’re going to get a very narrow-minded perspective. That’s like learning about jews only from stormfront or the Klan.
posted by gary on
Richard,you are right, I have no statistics of terrorists’ death from water boarding, but I do know many US soldiers are water board(ed) as part of their training.I don’t believe we lost one of our own yet. Yes its horrible and that is why it works. Sorry… you pick your outrage and I will pick mine. However your “choice” will cost more lives in the long run.
posted by Attmay on
I support a hell of a lot worse than waterboarding for terrorists. Waterboarding you should save for the religious right.
posted by priya lynn on
Actually waterboarding and other forms of torture don’t work, they just produce more terrorists. Read this from a former U.S. interrogator and his experience with torture versus alternative measures that work far better:
http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2008/12/a_military_interrogator_on_tor.php#more
posted by gary on
OMG…everything “western” to a radical Islamacist “causes” terrorism, weather it be looking crossed eyed at the Koran or the west’s embrace of gay rights. Get a new argument please.
posted by Priya Lynn on
I see the entire article went right over your head Gary. A bit surprising given that it was straightforward and rational.
posted by Priya Lynn on
On second thought, its not surprising at all. Gary’s mind is clearly closed – he’s unwilling to accept the obvious.
posted by Attmay on
Torture works. Just ask John McCain. What would you suggest instead, “Friends” reruns on their prison HDTVs? No more dessert at Guantanamo? Take away their Highlights magazine privileges?
These people are not even American citizens, and they would gladly kill Jews and gays on sight, and I am both, so I’m screwed if they get their way. Their religion is morally and ethically backwards, and they worship a pedophile. The dumbest thing Bush ever said is to call this racist, anti-semitic, homophobic, misogynistic (all things I thought leftists disliked), psychopathic cult a “religion of peace.” And somehow we’re the bad guys?
Or did you not hear about the atrocities in Mumbai? Did you not hear how the Chabad members were tortured before they were killed?
posted by Priya Lynn on
No Attmay, torture does not work. I’ll take the opinion of a highly experienced former U.S. interrogator over your armchair quarterbacking anyday. This guy was a professional, he was there, he did it both ways, he knows what works and what doesn’t. If the solution to every problem was a bigger hammer the U.S. would have won in Iraq back in 2003 and there would be no terrorists left. No one is absurdley proposing reruns of friends, much of the answers are in widely known criminal investigative techniques and in the army’s own field manual. Torture merely provides more recruiting material for more terrorists. Stop beating your head against a wall and you’ll find out it feels pretty good.
posted by Bobby on
It’s not the role of the army to interrogate terrorists, that’s the role of the CIA.
posted by Attmay on
The real recruiting material for terrorists is the Koran. “Mein Kampf” is very popular in the Muslim world, as both Kampf and Jihad mean the same thing: struggle. They got better than they deserved. They are the Nazis of the 21st century, and all non-Muslims (including Jews) are the new Jews. Treating them with humanity they have not earned is cruel and unusual punishment for decent, law abiding, gay and pro-gay people everywhere.
And they’re not fans of gays:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article2859606.ece
posted by Priya Lynn on
Yes, I’d agree with you Attmay, the Koran does recruit its fair share of terrorists. But so does tales of torture at the hands of Americans. Asto “treating them with the humanity they have not earned”, everyone deserves to be treated with humanity until they demonstrate their unworthiness. Many of the detainees being tortured are being held with no evidence against them. That’s inhumane, immoral, and unjust.
posted by Priya Lynn on
Also Attmay, its not news to me that muslims hate and abuse gays.
posted by Attmay on
The burden of proof is on the accuser. You failed, so why don’t you go back to blogstalking North Dallas Thirty.
posted by Priya Lynn on
I’m not sure what you’re talking about Attmay, but if anyone’s got it wrong, its you. I refer you once again to the experienced U.S. interogator, his word is far more authoritative than your armchair quarterbacking:
http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2008/12/a_military_interrogator_on_tor.php#more
posted by Attmay on
You’re also running out of insults and resorting to cutting and pasting. Just keep repeating your lies and wishing for them to come true.
posted by Pat on
Attmay, what lies are you referring to? Experts do say that torture does not produce quality intelligence and information. The U.S. Army field manual says so as well. Maybe there is a CIA manual that says otherwise. Anyway, if torture doesn’t work, then it’s a no-brainer. We shouldn’t do it. The quandary occurs if torture did work on same occasions. So far, I haven’t seen evidence that it works.
posted by Priya Lynn on
I can see it bothers you Attmay that you haven’t got anything to counter the expertise of an experienced interrogator. You hate reality and your anger is consuming you. I feel sorry for you.
posted by Attmay on
You hate reality
Leftists have the nerve to lecture me on reality? That’s rich.
I have nothing but contempt for the left and all collectivist viewpoints. I only tolerate them now because of my support for gay marriage rights.
What you call torture most university fraternities would call initiation. It’s not enough to be uncomfortable or inconvenienced.
posted by Priya Lynn on
Attmay, I’d like to see you be waterboarded against your will with no reprieve and see if you find it “uncomfortable” or “inconvenient”. You’re preposterous.
More evidence of prisoner abuse in Iraq by American personell:
http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2008/12/more_evidence_of_systemic_pris.php#more
posted by Attmay on
You’re preposterous.
And you’re pure evil.
posted by Attmay on
To clarify, you have no problem with alleged torture seeing how you just wished it on me. You’re not anti-torture, just anti-non-leftist. That’s why you’re pure evil.
posted by Priya Lynn on
Attmay, you just claimed what I call torture isn’t enough to be uncomfortable or inconvenienced. You should have no problem with me wanting to see you experience it then to see if your assertions hold true.
posted by Attmay on
Well, you consider it torture and wish to see me subjected to it. Therefore you are a hypocrite, an asshole, and a completely useless human being, just like the people with the “Waterboard Bush and Cheney” bumper stickers. Leftists seem to be anti-war but pro-violence.
Torture is too good for these Jew-murdering gay-bashing terrorist thugs. If it’s torture, then it’s what they deserve. If not, hopefully we can come up with something worse. Like putting their heads in vices (think the movie “Casino”). How about buttrape if they don’t cooperate? If you want gays in the military, then how about buttraping terror suspects?
Or we could just stop terrorism dead in its tracks by nuking Mecca.
posted by Attmay on
And I am only slightly more tolerant of Christianity.
posted by Priya Lynn on
I never said I unconditionally oppose torture, I said it doesn’t work to gather intelligence. There’s nothing hypocritical or assholeish about wanting to see if you’ll change your mind when you experience something you don’t believe is uncomfortable or inconvenient. It is however hypocritical of you to whine about someone wanting you to experience something you consider trivial. Its clear you can’t even swallow your own lies, you want to claim its not torture but then hypocritically get indignant when someone suggests you experience it.
Its clear why you’re so offended by your inability to deal with the reality I’ve presented to you. A new study out of Yale University confirms what liberals have long-known: Offering reality-based rebuttals to conservative lies only makes conservatives cling to those lies even harder. In essence, schooling conservatives makes them more stupid:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dan-sweeney/theres-no-arguing-with-co_b_126805.html
posted by Priya Lynn on
Attmay said “Torture is too good for these Jew-murdering gay-bashing terrorist thugs. If it’s torture, then it’s what they deserve. If not, hopefully we can come up with something worse. Like putting their heads in vices (think the movie “Casino”). How about buttrape if they don’t cooperate? If you want gays in the military, then how about buttraping terror suspects?
Or we could just stop terrorism dead in its tracks by nuking Mecca”.
Thanks for demonstrating just how irrational, hateful, and childish you truly are. Nothing I could have said would have proven it anywhere near as well as you have yourself. How old are you anyway, 12?
posted by Attmay on
I never said I unconditionally oppose torture
Really, Madame Priya? Then in what cases do you support it, other than for your political opponents?