GLBT once again listed on Whitehouse.gov

[FreeState]

Welcome back... its been a while!:)

http://www.whitehouse.gov/agenda/civil_rights/

This is the list of GLBT priorities that were listed on Obama's transition website. Its nice to be included once again on an official government website... now lets make sure we pressure every politician to make the list a reality - except with full equal marriage laws:)

Support for the LGBT Community

"While we have come a long way since the Stonewall riots in 1969, we still have a lot of work to do. Too often, the issue of LGBT rights is exploited by those seeking to divide us. But at its core, this issue is about who we are as Americans. It's about whether this nation is going to live up to its founding promise of equality by treating all its citizens with dignity and respect."
-- Barack Obama, June 1, 2007

Expand Hate Crimes Statutes: <snip>
Fight Workplace Discrimination: <snip>
Support Full Civil Unions and Federal Rights for LGBT Couples: <snip>
Oppose a Constitutional Ban on Same-Sex Marriage: Pre<snip>
Repeal Don't Ask-Don't Tell: <snip>
Promote AIDS Prevention: <snip>
Empower Women to Prevent HIV/AIDS: <snip>

[beaglelover]

1. YEAH!! (nt)

.

[AntiFascist]

2. Until the Federal government accepts full marriage equality...

that battle must be fought in the courts.

[The Doctor.]

3. Yep, definitely a ground war.

And once it's fought, and it will be won, we have a guy who will not hesitate establish nationwide recognition with the stroke of a pen.

At that point, he will have a mandate.

[Jim Lane]

4. I disagree. Not the courts.

The battle should be fought state-by-state in referenda and through bills in the legislature.

Prop 8 got only 52% of the vote. Add in two years of their voters dying off and ours becoming eligible to vote, plus people finding out that they know someone who's GLBT, plus people noticing that Massachusetts hasn't disintegrated, and a win at the polls in 2010 is probable.

Some states, of course, will take longer than others.

Once most states have marriage equality, it can become national policy. That's the way it worked with the reversal of the longstanding ban on interracial marriage.

[AntiFascist]

5. Prop 8 may very well get overturned in state supreme court...

we will find out after March. The CA marriage ruling has already set precedents by declaring that marriage is a Fundamental Right and that sexual orientation is a (protected) suspect classification. This ruling has already been cited in the Connecticut marriage ruling. As more states adopt this, it could ultimately be taken to the Federal Supreme Court.

[Orsino]

6. Fight it anywhere you can find it, folks.

I don't much care which front falls first.

[dsc]

7. baldly false

Loving vs Virginia ended the ban on interracial marriage and no state, not a single solitary one, ended interracial marriage bans via initative or referendum.

[Jim Lane]

9. Read my post more carefully and you'll see I'm correct.

I wrote about changing the laws "in referenda and through bills in the legislature" (emphasis added). I wasn't limiting it to referenda. That procedure was much less common in the United States forty years ago.

My basic point is that there was no nationwide prohibition on such bans until they had fallen in many of the states. I was opposing the strategy of focusing on the federal level. With regard to how to proceed in the states, legislative action remains an important option, but the referendum is also an option that wasn't available for the proponents of legalizing interracial marriage.

As for the choice between tactics that are based, directly or indirectly, on appeals to the public (referenda and legislation) and those that are not so based (lawsuits), my preference is for the former. A court decision that goes too far beyond where the general population is won't be a stable victory, as the California experience demonstrates. It's better to emphasize getting broad public support. It's true that some (not all) of the states that allowed interracial marriage did so by court decisions, but I suspect that most of those decisions came in states where the "anti-miscegenation" laws no longer had much of a constituency.

[tbyg52]

8. Hooray!

:bounce:

[Strong Atheist]

10. Woot! nt.

[The Brethren]

11. "Support Full Civil Unions

and Federal Rights for LGBT Couples" Hypothetically, I wonder what the average voter would think if at some point over the next 4 years....just in time for the next Presidential election, if a new bill was passed that reversed voting rights for certain Americans?

That is, according to the new law only members of a certain race or ethnic group - such as white, black, Asian, had complete voting rights. In other words, only this group could vote on all political levels including the Presidency. The remaining Americans had "union voting rights". Meaning, they could vote on any level except the Presidential election because their votes are not equal and are limited.

Likewise, a similar bill could be passed removing "Marriage" as a legal option to straight or gay couples; retroactive. However, all couples could legally use the option of Civil Unions - with their limited rights.

With either scenario I have no doubt....what so ever, that if either of these bills actually passed the crap would hit the fan nationwide. The group might even shake from the uproar. LOL And realistically a political would be crazy to even touch such bills.

My political priorities are simple -- equal rights for same-sex couples as are afforded to straight couples. Whether each gay couple chooses to use those options, they're nonetheless a legal option if they use them.

[Neecy]

12. there's one politician we have to pressure....

And that's Harry Reid. I trust Pelosi because her District won't allow her to run and hide on these issues, but Reid is the true wild card. Our strongest supporter, Barbara Boxer, doesn't chair any committees that could bring any of this to the floor. So we're dependent on Reid - a Mormon, and I don't say this out of religious bigotry but because he's going to be getting pressure from both camps - to get some of this legislation passed. And honestly, I'm not sure he's strong enough to push for it.

Obama can overturn DADT by Executive Order, but he's said he'd prefer to see it changed through the legislative process so it can't be overturned by another EO. Fair enough, but what will he do if Reid can't or won't get it through the Senate? That'll be a defining moment - he could take the easy way out, blame the Senate and wait for his second term. Or he could stand by us and issue the EO.

I'm not going to get excited because of words at this point. I'll get excited when I see something concrete, and I'm not holding my breath.

[The Brethren]

13. Re: DADT and the Exec. Order,

I'm glad you brought that up. Right now, I am not feeling all that confident in Obama whatsoever regarding our community. However, if Reid doesn't push to overturn it, I would like to think Obama would use his power and do so. To me, this is all like a flip of the coin to project how either politician will act.

I'm with you, I'm not holding my breath either. I'll believe things politically when I see them happening.