Gay Backlash against President

[Captain_Nemo]

http://www.kfoxtv.com/news/19874315/detail.html

WASHINGTON -- Tension is rising between the gay community and President Barack Obama. As a presidential candidate, he promised the community he'd repeal a law banning open service in the military and do away with a federal marriage law. But as president, Obama hasn't taken steps to do those things; and some gay donors are getting bitter, disillusioned and disappointed. It sets a tough backdrop as the president greets gay advocates at the White House Monday for gay pride month events.

The Democratic constituency is particularly angry about a legal brief the White House Justice Department filed in support of the Defense of Marriage act. The brief not only supports the act, but uses cases involving incest and pedophilia to justify states' denying same-sex marriage rights.

In response, some gay political donors boycotted as the DNC held a major fundraiser this week in Washington that included Vice President Joe Biden. Others protested outside the event.
"I think this was a wake-up call for the administration, they did not expect this kind of backlash from the gay community and the gay community has a voice," said Mitchell Gold, a gay rights supporter, author and business owner. Gold attended the fundraiser and said he's hopeful the administration is getting the message and preparing to act.

However, when asked on Friday whether Obama would be making any substantive announcement on same-sex marriage or the "don't ask, don't tell" policy at Monday's gay pride event, spokesperson Robert Gibbs said no."

Check out this ad:
http://news.lavenderliberal.com/2008/02/29/face-it-queers-obamas-just-not-that-into-you/

[xchrom]

1. recommend

[MannyGoldstein]

2. Until The Gay Community Is Prepared To Vote For A Third Party...

They will be of no interest to Democrats once they're elected - because it's inconceivable that the gay community will vote Republican.

[imdjh]

5. I'm ready, and now is the time to start working on it.

Waiting until 2012 won't do, because gay people and other civil rights supporters will feel the same way in 2012 that we did in 2008: What choice do we have?

We have a choice. We already know that NO CANDIDATE of the Democratic Party running for President is going to stand up for us. We are apparently too big a liability. So the only weapon we have is to throw the election to teach the DNC and Obama a lesson. It will be painful, but so is what we have now.

[Captain_Nemo]

8. Pro-Choice women are a liability to the Dems too: President appointed Anti-Choicer Kaine

to head the party!!!

[ruggerson]

9. nah, they're already skeered they're gonna lose us a cash cow

the ball's rolling.

[Toasterlad]

26. This Gay Man Will Vote For Whoever Offers Us True Equality.

I don't care if they're Republican, Green, Libertarian, or what. No Democrat - or any other candidate - who is not 100% in favor of equal rights for gays will ever get my money, time, or vote again...period. And every gay person I know feels the same. And I will work towards ALL gay people feeling that way.

Straight people have been holding our rights hostage for decades. No longer will we vote against our own best interests for the sake of "party unity" or to elect the "lesser of two evils". Barack Obama and the Democrats have sent us a message: "Your rights are not our concern. We will uphold existing prejudicial laws and make no real effort to improve your lives. YOU DON'T COUNT."

It's time the party of Not Yet found out just how much we DO count.

[Prism]

29. There will either be a reconciliation or a divorce at this point

The LGBT community is held to the Democratic Party by the sheer force of belief that Democratic politicians are willing to see our equality through.

Once belief is shaken, once people believe that is no longer the case, the community will bang out into many different directions. I know too many LGBT individuals who would be Green/Republican/Libertarian if it weren't for the fact the Democratic Party was their last, best, only hope imaginable.

The recent dissatifaction and protests have declared the moment. This is it. This is the Democratic Party's chance. Either they do what they've promised for the past 15 years, or they do not. If they do not, all bets are off, the LGBT leadership's apparatus will devour itself alive, and quite a bit of gay money, votes, and support will find another home.

It's all down to President Obama. Either he sees us and understands us, or he goes down in history as the president who alienated the gay vote once and for all.

My entrance and continued loyalty to the party is born of a complicated mixture of liberal ideology, a union family, and LGBT hope. However, I find myself on a threshhold. If LGBT rights are not seen through, I will never see another Democratic politician through as long as I'm alive. I fought like hell for Obama. I've voted for him more than 99% of this board (being of Illinois and Chicago's south-side). If he doesn't catch us, we will throw him.

And it will be oh so ugly.

[Mari333]

35. I have gotten into online brawls about this

dems angry with me for even *suggesting* that I will vote Green, or Independent, depending on the candidate's position on LGBT issues. They cannot begin to fathom that I would do that, 'perform a Nader' as they call it, but I would.
If a Republican ends up in office because people either stay home, or vote for someone who represents ALL Americans, then so be it. the Dems dont seem to get it, unless it hits them right between the eyes. I lived thru Bush, I can live thru anyone. It might take some mighty hard knocks on some of these DINOs to wake the Dem party up.

[Toasterlad]

56. "I lived thru Bush, I can live thru anyone." - EXACTLY

We are arguably WORSE off on a federal level now with Obama than we were under Bush, thanks to the DOMA brief and its undermining of all crucial pro-gay court decisions. It's past time that gay people looked out for their own interests, and left the Democratic party to sink or swim on it's own. They've ignored us for decades; it's time they reaped what they've sown.

[Deja Q]

33. So the Log Cabin Repubbies finally disbanded?

Who knew?

(I know that's a one-liner, and I don't think they disbanded, but there are those who do. Not me. Not a republican and have no intention of doing so ever again, given their past history.)

[Cherchez la Femme]

51. Who threw whom away?

And whine all they want but never forget it will be nobody's fault but the DNC's & Obama's -- their own.

edit: & let the Repukes they're pandering to pick up the LGBTQ & PFLAG slack.
Yeah right :rofl:

[imdjh]

3. I feel betrayed.

I know I feel betrayed because I feel the same way that I felt on election day when Prop 8 passed, and Amendment 2 passed. Democrats voted against gay rights. I still don't know what to do about that, but to borrow another poster's term, being a "Log Cabin Democrat" is no longer an option.

[Captain_Nemo]

6. I am Pro gay and Pro women's rights. To me, the two go together, but....

why do you feel betrayed?

I remember when Candidate Obama stood on a stage with Donnie McClurkin. And I remember when he invited Rick Warren to the inauguration. He never even attended a Gay Rights march (Hilary attended many and in New Hampshire attended a Gay fundraiser - not so for Candidate Obama.)

I also remember Candidate Obama using a lot of religious words and kowtowed to the religious right around abortion (pulling pro-choice language off of his website because it "offended" a religious right guy. Now, when I heard that I thought "he is not so 100 % pro-choice."

And now he has appointed a pro-lifer, Alexis Kelley (who doesn't even believe in contraception) to be in charge of faith based money to women's health care. I was not surprised given his wishy washiness on abortion language.

So, gay people had even more concrete evidence- Donnie McClurkin.

So, please, I want to know why do you feel betrayed? Anger, I understand. Betrayal? I am not following.

[sfbabe3]

Backtrack Betrayal Barack

What about DADT?
What about DOMA?
Wishy washy go with the wind don't take a stand.
Then there was the support by his supporters of Prop. 8.
He may be catering to centrist voters--but they are skeptical of him now. Indies are leaning Republican now.
I guess the enchantment is wearing off.

[Captain_Nemo]

13. Indies going Repuke. That's the last thing we need. Oh well, when you promise something it's good

to deliver.

[sfbabe3]

12. Backtrack Betrayal Barack

What about DADT?
What about DOMA?
Wishy washy go with the wind don't take a stand.
Then there was the support by his supporters of Prop. 8.
He may be catering to centrist voters--but they are skeptical of him now. Indies are leaning Republican now.
I guess the enchantment is wearing off.

[imdjh]

17. Maybe I just feel duped and it feels like betrayal.

I was for Hillary, seriously for Hillary. Up to the last moment and beyond for HIllary. But when she conceded, I switched to Obama, bumper sticker and yard sign and all. I can't say that I would be any more pleased with Hillary at this point, because I don't know where we would be.

During the primary, people kept telling me that I just didn't get the wave and the power of Obama with the young and the hip. I guess I thought that if the young and the hip were behind Obama there must be a good reason. Maybe there wasn't. Maybe they were only for him because it was young and hip to be for him. Surely all the young and the hip, from SF to NYC, from Oahu to PR were for a candidate who was for civil rights.

Candidates need to say stuff to get elected. At least up to this last election, they needed to say, "marriage is for a man and a woman" but we had reason to believe that this was stuff people say to get elected. After all, no president was ever elected saying, "I'm going to give civil rights to a disfavored group."

If as you say, he never really was for equal rights for gay people, then fuck him anyway. I will not vote for him. I will work against him regardless of who is running against him in 2012. I will work to see that he loses the primary if that is possible.

[Captain_Nemo]

19. HIllary was so pro-women and pro-Gay I fought like hell for her. Yes, doing the Dem thing is

commendable. Women's rights are female. Gay rights have a femaleness about them too. Women and women together (female x2 and men and men together certainly don't continue the male dominance theory of our society.)

There is a backlash against us. We are a threat.

During 2000 Gore was ridiculed as weak. And Gore, fought for our earth. Gaia. Female again. He was skewered in favor of the Cowboy.

We saw the same male dominance and female hating in this election.

[imdjh]

36. I don't like coalition government, but it has its plusses.

If we had a coalition government, then we would have multiple parties, and the leading parties would have to negotiate with us. If we had a coalition government, there would be promises made, "Join with us and we will do this for you." What we have now is, "Where ya gonna go, faggot? With the Republicans? Ha, you'll vote for us anyway so stop your ineffectual whining."

We can't change our form of government, but we can make it clear that we are willing to suffer setbacks to move forward. Right now, we only strategize in the forward motion, and as such we are given defeats along the way which are not strategic. We're not in control. This is understandable, because we have people who feel that they need to get this done and over with because they will be too old to care later on. Obviously, we need to think in longer terms, perhaps beyond our own benefit as well.

If the Democratic Party will not deliver in the next year or so, then we need to start thinking about a strategic setback- a loss to the Democratic Party which will demonstrate our power, conviction, and that we are just as selfish as other voting blocs. Our generosity has been taken for granted, and we have allowed ourselves to be taken advantage of.

[Touchdown]

22. You are right. I knew about all that, and pissed off about McClurkin.

But... sometime during the fall, I dared myself to believe in him. It happens to the best of us.

[Captain_Nemo]

23. Keep fighting. I am.

[DURHAM D]

32. Exactly - no betrayal by Obama for women or gays.

He made it very clear.

It seems a lot of people were ignoring reality.

[imdjh]

37. Then why the fuck did we vote for him?

It would have been much smarter to elect McCain and watch a Republican actually have to deal with the mess left by George Bush. Instead, we promoted our candidate as the best we had to offer and he's going to lose in 2012, leaving a nation not yet recovered, and Republicans are going to get to claim to have saved the US from a Democratic disaster.

[Brooklyns_Finest]

43. South Pasadena

I was going to say something really snarky to you, but I noticed you live in South Pasadena so I will bite my tongue. I love South Pas. I used to live in ALhambra and then moved to Pasadena. I am now in the Bay area (ALbany) and HATE it. I wish my job would transfer me back to So Cal.

[Cherchez la Femme]

52. Are you serious?

"smarter to elect McCain"?!

No, Obama was never for same-sex marriage (even to the point of his image and quote being used as advertising for Prop H8) and he not only insulted us with McClurkin and Warren along with completely ignoring gay's (do you recall that gay newspaper that ran an article of questions to the candidates with Clinton's answers and just blank space for Obama's, because he refused to even be interviewed by a gay paper?)

but

he at least *promised* repeals of DADT & DOMA, along with the assurance that he was 'our fiercest advocate' and would wear his lil old bully-pulpit right out for us.

McCain would have NEVER supported us in the least bit.


Personally, I didn't believe this 'fierce advocacy' but I worked at the local office to get him elected anyhow.
'Give him a chance, post-election', I thought. 'Maybe things WILL change.'

They sure did, but in the opposite direction.


However, come next election, I will only vote for not just someone who speaks nice words but who has it in their platform that equal civil rights are for EVERYBODY --gays, women, all of humanity-- and that they WILL ensure that.


No more excuses. No more mere words and empty promises (belied by contemporary acts), but action alone.


But it never would have been McCain and the Republican party. To vote for him for gay rights would be straight-jacket worthy.

[Toasterlad]

55. Wrong Place

[donco6]

41. You've got a point.

And I remember people here yelling about it. I didn't get on board until Rick Warren. It's been downhill from there. But yes, there was plenty of warning. I guess I just didn't want to see it.

[ruggerson]

42. Frankly, we faced huge hostility here over Donnie McClurkin

the usual suspects were in high gear trying to obfuscate its importance.

[Toasterlad]

58. There's a Difference Between Surprise and Betrayal.

If I'd believed in Obama - ever - I'd be surprised AND betrayed. Since I never believed in him, I am not surprised by his inaction on gay rights (actually, that's not quite true...I AM surprised a bit by just how much he's working AGAINST us; I thought he'd be merely indifferent). However, the man PROMISED us certain things, which he clearly has no intention of delivering. He PROMISED to be a "fierce advocate", and he is clearly the opposite. Going back on his promises is a BETRAYAL of anyone who voted for him.

Barack Obama betrayed every single gay vote he received, whether or not he surprised anyone.

[elleng]

4. Watch what we think/say he 'promised.'

Someone here wrote about this recently.

Here it is:

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/McCamy%20Taylor/417

[imdjh]

7. I don't give a damn what he did or didn't promise at this point. Or his weasel words.

Or any of the other whores in DC. Right now, I think they should all be sent to Siberia.

[Deja Q]

34. Why not do it?

Seriously. Why just think it if the politics are so hurtful?

A comparison, my job is hurting me emotionally. I've gone back for more education and am impressing people. I'll show I am capable and worthy of the job, even if my employer knows me so well already. They've promoted and moved people for less... much less...

[ruggerson]

10. yeah, it was a completely dishonest post

as far as gay issues are concerned.

[Captain_Nemo]

11. THIS is a dishonest post? This is an article and an ad.

[ruggerson]

14. look again at to whom I was replying

[Captain_Nemo]

15. Oh, I see. Yes, I went to that post.....I understand now.

[ruggerson]

20. I love it how someone posts an outright lie here

such as "gay people thought Barack Obama was in favor of legalizing same sex marriage," and then later on other people actually reference the post as if, because someone typed it, it has any relationship whatsoever to the truth.

[kevinbgoode]

25. Exactly. And it's even more insulting for them to think the gay

community doesn't KNOW what he promised. It's just another damn way of trying to treat us like second-class citizens.

Yeah - we're angry, and we have every right to be angry at this Administration, AND this country.

[Prism]

28. Half of chess

Is simply flinging your pieces on the board.

Once that's all done, well, en garde.

[rpannier]

16. I think he's refering to elleng's link

[Captain_Nemo]

18. Yes, I see that. Thanks.

[Chulanowa]

21. But completely honest

As far as what the president actually said is concerned.

Not that this has ever perturbed anyone on DU, I suppose.

[ruggerson]

24. but that was not his point

he made up a fiction: that gay people, in general, thought Obama had promised to legalize same sex marriage (when the reality is, all politically aware gay voters knew that none of the major candidates were brave enough to take that position) and then he bats down the very lie that he creates, that he attributes to others, with quotes from Obama.

And then people reference the post days later as if something profound had been written.

It's all very Alice in Wonderland.

[Chulanowa]

27. Incorrect, whether you are talking about Elleng's post or the journal he linked

Elleng is responding to this fiction from the OP article - "As a presidential candidate, he promised the community he'd repeal a law banning open service in the military and do away with a federal marriage law." and McCamy Taylor's journal post simply addressed all claims regarding "Obama's broken promises" on a wide variety of subjects.

Neither says a damn thing about "gay people claim..." or the like. That's something you are making up to stoke your own outrage and excuse attacking someone who's pointing out something you don't like.

[ruggerson]

30. The journal she linked to

is titled "Some Folks Think Obama promised....."

and #2 is

"To legalize same sex marriage,"

I don't know a soul who thinks Obama promised to legalize same sex marriage.

It's not that I don't like it, nor is it outrage, it's just a bold faced untruth.

So, I'm not quite sure why you're defending the linked OP.

Any sane person who listened during the primaries last year and the general election knows that Obama didn't promise to legalize same sex marriage. To the contrary, he stated that marriage is "between a man and a woman."

So no one was expecting him to push for marriage equality.

What he did say was that he was against enshrining discrimination in the constitution and he wanted DOMA repealed.

[Chulanowa]

31. Yup, it's sandwiched between "Prosecuting Bush" and "Decriminalizing Pot"

And you didn't state that the journal says "some people claim..." you stated it said "gay people in general claim".

You're calling "some people think" an untruth, because you have the luck to not know anyone who thinks thusly? Anecdote vs. Anecdote, you assume yours is the absolute truth?

I'm not so much defending the journal as I am pointing out that you are wrong in your assertions.

[ruggerson]

40. fer pete's sake

I was paraphrasing him. My point stands. His OP is based on a dishonest and misleading premise. I'm glad you're not defending it.

[Chulanowa]

45. No, you weren't.

To paraphrase, there would have to be some indication that he was singling out gay people, as you claimed. There wasn't, therefore you weren't paraphrasing. Your "point" whatever it is, is severely undermined by your own dishonesty. Why should I care what the pot is calling the kettle here?

[ruggerson]

46. I never claimed he was singling out gay people

just the opposite: I wrote the post was dishonet "as far as gay issues are concerned." (see #10) This discussion would have more value if you didn't make assertions that are not truthful.

[donco6]

44. I know of NO ONE who claimed Obama promised same sex marriage.

So we asked for examples of where that had happened, and THAT poster couldn't come up with one. So, yes, it was a lie.

[imdjh]

39. Mealy mouthed. You can't be for discrimination and against discrimination.

He said he was against discrimination. Did he not? Well you can't be for discrimination and against discrimination.

He stated that marriage was between a man and a woman. There is no lie there, and no position. Marriage is between a man and a woman. That does not preclude marriage being between two men or two women. So the definitive statement made wasn't the observation that marriage is between a man and a woman, it's that he opposes discrimination.

We didn't listen to him say "marriage is between a man and a woman" but hear him say, "I support marriage for all." We're not delusional. What we heard him say was an inoperative observation followed later by a commitment to ending discrimination.

[Cherchez la Femme]

54. We?

Are you speaking of LGBTQ's?
That poster/author is "we", represents "we"??! :wow:


Besides, that is one of the biggest collection of strawmen I've seen here, it's Free Republic worthy.

Downright laughable.

[elleng]

59. 'We' is all of us, everyone, all Dems, all Prez O's supporters.

.

[WeDidIt]

38. IF the GLBT community joined with healthcare advocates and anti-war

in a coalition of those disappointed in Obama, it could destroy the Democratic Party.

[AntiFascist]

47. This sounds like a powerful idea...

but I certainly wouldn't want to "destroy" the Party, better to return it to the basic values for which it should stand. That also goes for the government in general.

[Taverner]

48. Or wake them up

[Juche]

49. GLBT voters make up about 10% of democratic voters

Not only that but liberals (aka most of the kinds of people on places like DU, I think a good deal of GLBTers would be classified as liberals) also make up about 40% of democratic voters. So they are pissing of a huge chunk of their base to win over reagan democrats.

Not only that but liberals tend to be among the best informed, most active supporters. We are more likely to donate money, knock on doors, discuss politics with neighbors and correct misinformation with friends and family, etc.

If the dem party really wants to lose the best thing it can do is piss off and alienate unions and liberals. Do that and they lose not only millions of votes but almost all of their fundraising and grassroots volunteers.

[Divine Discontent]

50. he's just going to sing one song! he's just going to give one prayer!

[LWolf]

53. Yep. Who knew?

:eyes:

I did, for one. Who was listening?

Almost nobody.

[Divine Discontent]

57. I shoulda backed HRC after JE dropped out, but she was being so negative

but maybe I shoulda seen why! ha

[Toasterlad]

60. Don't Be Fooled. Obama and Clinton Are Two Sides of the Same Coin.

They're both all talk, no action. I seriously doubt things would be any better under Hillary. For one thing, I doubt a word of that DOMA brief would have changed.

[rucky]

61. How could they not expect a backlash from the gay community?

They expected one, but calculated the political cost/beneift.