Am I a bad gay? My take on Obama - the big picture.

[Meldread]

I think I might be a bad gay! I am supporting Obama.

I've supported Obama since his convention speech, because I knew the night that I heard that speech that he was a man who could transform politics in America. He could really shake things up. When he announced that he was running for president I was happy. From the outset, I have been anti-Clinton and I never felt (and still don't feel) that John Edwards could beat her in the primary.

Obama is proving to be all that I had hoped he would be and more. I know about everything that happened, and why he's disliked, but I am looking at the big picture. First and foremost, the Clinton's threw us under the bus in the 90's. I still have tire tracks on my back. They promised they wouldn't and they broke that promise. I have no reason to believe that Hillary would be any different, and every reason to believe that she could possibly even be worse. The Clinton's were more successful in passing anti-gay legislation than the Bush Administration - they got DOMA and DADT passed. Bush never got his Constitutional Amendment.

Whether or not Obama will stand behind us when the time comes... I cannot say. I believe he will, but I cannot say with absolute certainty until the time comes. I do not believe he will do to us what the Clinton's did in the 90's but even if he did - I am looking at the bigger picture.

I see Obama as a man who can transform the Democratic Party. I see him as someone who can do for us what Reagan did for the Republican's. He can bring in millions of moderate Republicans who are sick of their party and millions of Independents. He can bring them here - in Our Party. They may not agree with us or like us, but a increase in the Democratic Party's power is an increase in our own. It is irrelevant if they are behind us or not, because we are in every level and position in the Party.

We are in Congress. We run their campaigns. We are advisors. We hold a great deal of power, and that power will only grow, and as it does we can then begin focusing on our agenda of equality whether or not we have the desired level of support or not. We can begin getting more of our people elected because there will be more of a base to draw from. We can begin furthering our entrenchment within the Party, and at the end of the day I believe that Obama will best serve us in our long term goals of permanent and sustainable equality. Simply because if we work hard enough we can implement it ourselves - through electing allies and our own.

If America can elect a Black President, that is one barrier broken making us one step closer to electing a Gay President.

[Drunken Irishman]

1. Thank you.

[gaiilonfong]

2. I think you are a brave, thoughtfull

I am also gay, and I support Obama!

Believe in yourself, and always go with your thinking and feelings.

[David__77]

3. I'm gay and for Obama too!

He'll do much to further the rights of lesbian and gay Americans!

[dsc]

4. You are fact challenged

DADT was a defeat. It wasn't Clinton's policy and was forced upon him. You have every earthly right to your opinion but you don't have a right to your own history. We will not pass ENDA or hate crimes without a President who uses the bully pulpit to make it happen. Given Obama's track record, I don't think he will. I admit I could be wrong. Since he is likely to be our nominee, I surely hope I am.

[Maven]

5. "He can bring in millions of moderate Republicans..."

And then what, the Democratic party becomes a party that caters to moderate Republicans? Moving even more center-right? Isn't that what we criticize the Clintons for? How do you think social progress will happen if the president is so scared to disturb the "unity" with bigots that we are the ones who are constantly expected to give in?

"An increase in the Democratic Party's power is an increase in our own." Don't be too sure.

Sometimes a big tent can be too big. You can't make change while pleasing everyone--some people's ideas will win, and others will lose. There is nothing courageous to me about a political candidate who sings "Shiny, Happy People" to get elected. That's not leadership.

I don't want a Democratic version of Ronald Reagan as president. Reagan kept on a happy face and ignored the thousands and thousands dying of AIDS across America. I want someone who projects a direction in policy (other than "let's be friends") and whose confidence and ability to articulate that policy earns enough support to make real progress regardless of whether said progress offends those who stand in the way.

To me, that candidate is not Barack Obama. You're not a "bad gay" for supporting him, just a little misguided I think about the best way to move forward. If he's elected, I don't expect Obama to actively assist those who work against us, but I don't expect him to do much to counteract them. After all, he doesn't want to exclude anyone, ya know?

[Meldread]

8. Simple.

"How do you think social progress will happen if the president is so scared to disturb the "unity" with bigots that we are the ones who are constantly expected to give in?"

The true bigots will never side with the Democratic Party. Ever. They are the rotten core and soul of the Republican Party. The Republicans made a deal with the devil when they courted evangelicals and they are reaping those rewards with Huckabee. For the first time in a long time, the Republicans are fracturing while the Democratic Party is uniting.

The fact of the matter is, in order to win elections, you need votes. Period. That means you need a majority. It also means, the more people you gather, the more differences you will have among them. That is just a fact of life - a fact that exists outside politics as well. We may have to work with some people who oppose gay marriage in order to get Universal Healthcare Passed, but then we may also have to work with those who oppose Universal Healthcare to get gay marriage approved. You move forward by forming coalitions and that is what a political party is - a giant coalition of voters.

In my opinion our goal as Gay Americans should be focused on what we want, and what we ultimately need to achieve it. Sometimes that may mean we have to temporarily align with those that we do not particularly agree with on every issue. However, I do challenge anyone who disagrees with me to find another person who agrees with them on every single issue, then find enough of those people to actually win an election and bring about the changes we desire.

At the end of the day weakening the Republican Party and strengthening our own Party can only benefit us. Additionally, I do not see much difference between Obama and Clinton when it comes to gay issues and I am more inclined to trust Obama than Clinton, simply because she and her husband have a past that is less than stellar on our issues. Naturally, no matter who wins, we'll have to end up supporting that person, but I am glad that Obama at least mentions us from time to time in a non-gay crowd.

[Maven]

10. "true bigots"

You seem to think there's a dichotomy between egalitarians and outspoken haters when in fact there are many shades of bigotry in between. There is a lot of latent homophobia even within our own party, and certainly among those moderate Republicans you welcome into our coalition. Then there are those who recast their hatred as "love," and disguise their efforts to oppress us as a rescue mission--you know, all those "good and moral" people Obama praised post-McClurkin.

Whether or not you gather more or less people into your "coalition" means absolutely nothing if you water down all your ideas in order to deepen the well. It doesn't mean choosing a candidate who agrees with you on every single issue. It does mean choosing a candidate with the moral courage to express a clear point of view even when it comes to "controversial" issues. That's how you get people with divergent viewpoints to align behind a particular cause--leadership. It does us little good to "align" with those who work against our own interests!

And by the way, you might not like everything Bill Clinton did GLBT-wise--I certainly don't--but he deserves some credit for publicly welcoming us and acknowledging our issues at a time when doing so posed far more political risk. DADT was a shitty compromise, but it was an improvement on what came before and Clinton did make the effort to get the ban lifted completely. Obama may "mention us from time to time in a non-gay crowd" (my, what low expectations you have), but Clinton actually put us on the agenda. I don't think HIllary would do more for us than Obama, but I don't think she would be any worse for us, either.

[Meldread]

13. The bigger picture.

"I don't think HIllary would do more for us than Obama, but I don't think she would be any worse for us, either."

That is more or less how I feel when it comes to them both on gay issues. I don't think Obama could possibly be any worse than the Clintons, thus it more or less nullifies any substantive issues I have regarding that issue. I think Obama becoming President will at the very least finally end the white heterosexual male Presidential line. This in the future opens up the possibility of a gay President in the distant future. That is the very least that I am hopeful for, but I expect much more.

I firmly believe that we should be looking at and learning from the evangelicals. They have an agenda and they have infiltrated every level of government to bring it about. We should do the same. Giving us a larger majority, even if we disagree vehemently with some of them on key issues, still gives us a majority. That makes it easier to implement the things we want to get passed, and even more importantly block the evangelicals from passing things against us.

At the end of the day, I ultimately feel that we will be victorious no matter what happens. Social evolution is on our side. It may take 5 years, it may take 10 years, or it may take 25 but ultimately we will win. Our goals though, should not be just on getting what we desire, but ensuring that once we've won that our victories can't be challenged. The only way to do that is to build a majority large enough to begin bleeding out all the vile and venom that the evangelicals have spent an entire generation creating.

We need LGBT people in all positions of government and authority. We need LGBT people on school boards so that we can successfully get more GSA's in public schools. We are fighting a cultural battle. Our war will not be won with the pen of a politician. It just won't. Our war is generational. We may never be able to convince many people to accept us as equal citizens, but if we encourage more younger people to come out, and encourage children to accept them then we effectively begin reshaping the culture with each new generation. We have already started and we are winning.

It is my firm belief that an Obama Presidency will only speed up this process as it will weaken our enemies - the evangelical Republicans - while empowering us.

[dsc]

14. are you ever going to correct the historical error in your post?

It would be nice. DADT wasn't a Clinton policy.

[Meldread]

15. There is no historical error.

DADT and DOMA passed under Bill Clinton. That is a matter of fact and public record. They spin it now when they have to deal with us, but we're the ones that have to live with the consequences of it. Not them. One of the primary reasons I sided against Clinton early on was punishment for those policies, but also for Bill Clinton's advice given to John Kerry that he should go to every small town in America and voice his support of the amendments against gay marriage on state ballots back in 2004.

It is difficult to see how we can push forward our policies if we reward the Clinton's by giving them a pass on these issues. Additionally, I realize that it was Bill, but Hillary is running on Bill's record while he was in the White House and it is clear that they are a team. They work together. I see any vote cast for Hillary (or vice versa for Bill) as a vote for the other.

However, in the end it's ultimately irrelevant because neither Clinton nor Obama are substantially different on gay issues. That was my key point - if they are not substantially different I am looking toward the bigger picture: Who can benefit the gay movement the most by being elected President? I proposed that it was Barack Obama and stated my reasons for it.

[dsc]

16. your post said it was CLINTON'S IDEA

which is false. Which you now admit.

[Meldread]

18. I never said it was Clinton's Idea. Here is a direct copy and paste.

"The Clinton's were more successful in passing anti-gay legislation than the Bush Administration - they got DOMA and DADT passed. Bush never got his Constitutional Amendment."

How is that incorrect? Under Bill Clinton both DOMA and DADT were passed into law. I fail to see how it is in anyway historically incorrect or where I said it was his idea.

However, for the record: I do not think it was Bill or Hillary's idea, or that they particularly liked throwing us under the bus. However, it is a matter of fact and public record that they did not fight for us when we needed them. (Or if you want to be generous to them, you could say that they did not fight as hard as we wanted them too.) In the end we now have DOMA and DADT which continue to be a problem for us today.

You could argue, as they argue, that it was a step in the right direction. That they did the best they could under the circumstances. However, with that same argument you could also argue that we should not fight for gay marriage but should instead accept Civil Unions since the majority of America supports gay Civil Unions so long as it isn't called marriage. It's achievable and it's supported by the public. Why don't we? Because we want full marriage.

Even if you explain all that away, it still does not explain why Bill Clinton advised John Kerry in 2004 to campaign in every small town across America against us. In the end that just proved to me where Bill stood when it came to our issues, and while I feel Obama made a mistake, I have to ask: Would Hillary have done the same thing, and would Obama follow in the foots steps of the Clinton legacy? I do not have the answer to either of those questions, but as I said in my previous post they are ultimately moot.

Why? Because they are ultimately irrelevant. Obama is either no better or no worse than the Clintons when it comes to gay issues, so then I believe it is important to look at who provides us the most benefit as a movement. To me that is Barack Obama. I have explained why in detail.

[dsc]

19. they got DADT passed

since they couldn't have voted for it (Presidents don't vote on legislaton) the only other thing that can mean is it was their idea. Words have meaning, even when typed by you.

[Meldread]

20. Sigh, there is no reason to get personally hostile toward me, but...

...since you want to break it down.

Here is the situation:

Bill Clinton made a campaign promise to allow gays to serve openly in the military. He attempted to do it, and met with opposition. So a compromise was crafted - Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

Bill Clinton could have continued fighting for us. He did not NEED the Congress, because he could have done it through Executive Order. That is how racial segregation ended in the military, through executive order by Harry Truman.

You've still ignored DOMA and his advice to John Kerry back in 2004.

[dsc]

26. that is totally, utterly false

Sodomy is illegal in the military code of justice which can only be altered by Congress. Without that change there is no way that a gay man or woman could serve openly unless he or she were committed to chasity. I would guess a Catholic priest who happened to be gay would work but that would have been it. Clinton couldn't be Truman in this regard because Truman, thank God, didn't have to deal with codified (by law) segregation. Incidently, my dad was in the army back then (1953-1955) and while the army was officially desegregated, on trips the army forced them to resegregate in vehicles while traveling through the South. The troops would desegregate themselves after one or two stops (those who liked cards in one truck, those who liked dice in another, etc) but the army officially, 5 to 7 years after desegregation, catered to the South's laws.

[ruggerson]

28. Apparently you are not too well versed in history

When Clinton indicated that he was going to issue an executive order allowing gays to serve openly in the military, he was immediately met with overwhelming opposition in both congress and from the Joint Chiefs. And it wasn't just republicans, it was people like Sam Nunn and most of the southern Democrats who objected vociferously.

Before this occurred, the rule banning gays was not actually a statute, but merely a regulation.

What this coalition of bigots did was threaten Clinton that they would make a LAW banning all gay people from the military, if he tried an executive order.

So, rather than risking the situation becoming even worse, he hammered out a compromise with them - DADT.

You wrote "he could have done it through Executive Order." Sure, but had he done so, Congress would have immediately passed a statute making his order moot. That was the ENTIRE point of the controversy.

So, your rationale is factually inaccurate. Clinton was boxed in. He had two choices: back down totally or compromise. He chose compromise.

ANd isn't that the position we hear over and over again from your candidate? He will bring people together and compromise to get things done?

You haven't thought this whole thing through too well, have you?

[dbackjon]

23. And before DADT was a total ban on gays in the military

Clinton TRIED to get that ban completely lifted. The very bigots that Obama is embracing are the ones that forced DADT.


And the Very BIGOTS that you want in your big tent are the ones that wrote/supported and forced DOMA on us.

[LonePirate]

6. Obama is no Kucinich when it comes to supporting GLBT issues

Still, he's no Huckabee or Thompson or *, either. If he does become our party's nominee, I will wholeheartedly support him as the alternative is simply not an option. While Obama may not fight to make things better; I don't believe he'll make things worse or demonize the GLBT community like the current occupant of the office which he seeks.

[wellstone dem]

7. You are a bad gay.

But don't worry, there is hope. ;-)

[DarkTirade]

9. That's the nice thing about living in a free country... you can dissent when you wanna. :)

Some here will agree with you, some will disagree with you. But you're entitled to your own (wrong) opinion. :P

I keed, I keed. Seriously though, he's certainly not my top choice, but I'm willing to settle for him if it comes down to it.

[shenmue]

11. Okay, so you don't care about his friendship with Donnie McClurkin, a self-called "ex-gay."

Yes, you just sold out.

:dunce:

[soothsayer]

12. I think it's sweet that any of us can still hope someone will transform politics in America.

Hope you're not too disappointed by the next four years of facism. After that it will get really, really good tho, so hang in!

[GOPNotForMe]

29. How patronizing of you.

[mitchtv]

17. Good luck you are entitled to your opinion

Clinton did not try for Doma and DADT was a compromise forced on him, and if you are old enough you will Know that DADT is better than before. I don't trust Obama never will, he showed no qualms about selling out Gay americans for short term political gain, so we already know what he thinks of us. He also seems already to give away the store to the gop . I hope he enjoys his votes in SC he will never get mine. PS
Sorry you all that are gonna have to wait for your social security a few more years, he's a republican there.A promise to not privatize is not enough , Plus he has a republican atitude about Nuclear power, although he has tried to obfiscate it, as he has with SS,
Further more it was Pesident Clinton not>>The Clinton's <<< as you put it, while quick to point out She wasn't part of his Admin >>The Clinton's << seems to come quite easily when criticizing her

[peacetheonlyway]

21. I hope you enjoy living in the Obama Inspired BIG PICTURE

let me paint the BIG PICTURE FOR YOU...

because I come from the black black (black as african skin black) south.
I worked with Miss Reid a woman who lives in a crack cocaine neighborhood called scottdale and I ran a GAY campaign smack dab in the middle of those mega black churches that preach so much hatred toward gays.

i had a 7 year old son of a preacher's boy say that lesbianism was equated to crack cocaine...

I believe the words were get thee away from the devil, get thee away from lesbianism, get thee away from gays, etc.


and I can tell you right now, that Obama's big picture is a sack of HORSE SHIT painted in pretty campaign slogans.

He cannot say he's for any kind of Gay rights when he puts a man advocating we are IMMORAL or that we need to be FIXED On stage in his southeastern sweep.

bottom line, Obama's big picture leads to gay genocide.

if you don't take this seriously then I can't wait to post on this board years into Obama's leadership when the black churches start asking for the payoff for all those supposed votes in the South and Obama backs down on such SIMPLE legislation and hate crimes or work force discrimination or god forbid we allow gays to adopt or the myriad other really serious issues facing gay people.


I won a campaign in the south without cowtowing to the hateful, bigotry filled black churches that preach hatred and I would expect Obama to speak out the same way Patti Labelle does on any group of people that continue to make another group of people feel unsafe.

[dbackjon]

24. Well said!!

[mitchtv]

27. Wow Thanks,

just thanks:loveya:

[Tyo]

22. Big picture?

The only picture that means anything to me is the one in which Obama is shown seeking the support of an anti-gay bigot and his followers. What's next, Bob Jones U?

Meanwhile the picture you are painting is the same one we've been looking at for years. The one that doesn't have us in it.

[dbackjon]

25. The big picture is that Obama's embrace of bigotry is FAR more dangerous to our communtiy.

[David Zephyr]

30. Nice sentiments. There's obviously a lot of hate here.

Some of it has racial undertones, too.