Hillary vs Obama: Gay Rights

[Turin]

A friend recently sent me the following article: Obama Tours with Gospel Singer Asshole. My friend is a rather single-issue voter and so the two Democratic candidate's record on gay rights is very important to him. I've pointed out to him than Hillary doesn't exactly have a stellar record on gay rights herself. For example, her compliments about another anti-gay preacher's work for equality. He simply gushed about how much Hillary has "supported the LGBT community," albeit without specific examples.

Obviously I'm realistic enough to realize that neither candidate is going to come out and say "hey, let's let gays marry!" (for example), particularly in this country during a presidential election cycle. But upon doing some research, it seems like organizations like the Human Rights Campaign feel like Hillary is some kind of anointed saviour of the gay people.

What has Hillary Clinton done to actually deserve this reputation? Is labeling Obama as anti-gay any more fair than labeling Clinton anti-gay? I mean, she's running largely on her husband's record and that includes instating Don't Ask Don't Tell and signing the so-called Defense of Marriage Act.

[Darth Wong]

What has Hillary Clinton done to actually deserve this reputation? Is labeling Obama as anti-gay any more fair than labeling Clinton anti-gay? I mean, she's running largely on her husband's record and that includes instating Don't Ask Don't Tell and signing the so-called Defense of Marriage Act.

It's funny how she seeks to cash cheques on her "experience" of being married to Bill but somehow escapes any associated responsibility for any of his mistakes.

[Big Phil]

A friend recently sent me the following article: Obama Tours with Gospel Singer Asshole. My friend is a rather single-issue voter and so the two Democratic candidate's record on gay rights is very important to him. I've pointed out to him than Hillary doesn't exactly have a stellar record on gay rights herself. For example, her compliments about another anti-gay preacher's work for equality. He simply gushed about how much Hillary has "supported the LGBT community," albeit without specific examples.

Obviously I'm realistic enough to realize that neither candidate is going to come out and say "hey, let's let gays marry!" (for example), particularly in this country during a presidential election cycle. But upon doing some research, it seems like organizations like the Human Rights Campaign feel like Hillary is some kind of anointed saviour of the gay people.

What has Hillary Clinton done to actually deserve this reputation? Is labeling Obama as anti-gay any more fair than labeling Clinton anti-gay? I mean, she's running largely on her husband's record and that includes instating Don't Ask Don't Tell and signing the so-called Defense of Marriage Act.

I've noticed this trend before - gays tend to be strong single issue voters, to the point of voting against their best interests (Ralph Nader, anyone?) in some cases. Why is this? It's not like black people vote entirely on civil rights issues, hispanics on immigration, or soldiers on defense spending, after all.

With regard to your friend, he sounds like an uneducated dumbfuck to me. I can't say that I've heard either Barack or Hillary elucidate a position on gay rights, and labeling Obama anti-gay is on par with calling John McCain a liberal (or a Democrat, as Faux Noise did yesterday). Maybe it's because he's black, and gays assume black people hate all gays?

[Turin]

With regard to your friend, he sounds like an uneducated dumbfuck to me.

Well, he is from West Virginia.

I can't say that I've heard either Barack or Hillary elucidate a position on gay rights, and labeling Obama anti-gay is on par with calling John McCain a liberal (or a Democrat, as Faux Noise did yesterday). Maybe it's because he's black, and gays assume black people hate all gays?

The thing is, I have heard their positions on gay rights, and as far as I can tell, they're identical: pro-civil unions, pro-gay-adoption, rescind DADT.

[Big Phil]

I can't say that I've heard either Barack or Hillary elucidate a position on gay rights, and labeling Obama anti-gay is on par with calling John McCain a liberal (or a Democrat, as Faux Noise did yesterday). Maybe it's because he's black, and gays assume black people hate all gays?

The thing is, I have heard their positions on gay rights, and as far as I can tell, they're identical: pro-civil unions, pro-gay-adoption, rescind DADT.

That's what I assumed - if Obama were to come out opposed to gay rights, it'd be front page news. Which means your friend, at a minimum, and the gay community at large, perhaps, are insane?

[Alyrium Denryle]

What has Hillary Clinton done to actually deserve this reputation? Is labeling Obama as anti-gay any more fair than labeling Clinton anti-gay? I mean, she's running largely on her husband's record and that includes instating Don't Ask Don't Tell and signing the so-called Defense of Marriage Act.

It's funny how she seeks to cash cheques on her "experience" of being married to Bill but somehow escapes any associated responsibility for any of his mistakes.

Confirmation bias. People love bill for some reason, and conveniently forget his past missdeeds. I say fuck clinton. I can imagine the conversations those two had before Bill signed those abominations.

"So hon, what do you think I should do? We promised the gay people when we got elected that we would treat them like human beings"

"Throw them under a bus"

So fuck her. She wont change a damn thing, just continue to use our vote and then fuck us without our consent.

I've noticed this trend before - gays tend to be strong single issue voters, to the point of voting against their best interests (Ralph Nader, anyone?) in some cases. Why is this? It's not like black people vote entirely on civil rights issues, hispanics on immigration, or soldiers on defense spending, after all.

That is because black people are not legally inferior anymore, hispanics that can vote dont have to worry about immigration issues, and soldiers joined the military often times because they do have other issues at play in their lives.

If I get hit by a car tomorrow, were I seeing someone, they couldnt even enter the hospital without having to beg my family for permission. My family would give it, but what about theirs? If they were injured, what if their family didnt approve? I can be beaten, tied up and dragged through cactus behind a truck, and if I am lucky enough to survive,. the fuckers that did it might be charged with attempted murder. Might. If it happened in this state to a black person there would be protests in the street, and someones getting charged under the hate crime statutes.

If something like what happened in jena happened, here, with a group of highly provoked gay people beat up a straight guy after months of the justice system not charging them when they beat us (oh wait, that happens anyway) there wouldnt have been any protesters. No national media attention. If anything people watching the blurb in the 6 PM news or reading the paper would think "them queers got what they deserved"

In my state, it is flat out illegal for sex wed programs to mention homosexuality as anything other than evil.

I have to worry about being discriminated against in the workplace as well.

Do you get it now?

That's what I assumed - if Obama were to come out opposed to gay rights, it'd be front page news. Which means your friend, at a minimum, and the gay community at large, perhaps, are insane?

Oh yes... a little edgy about our legal equality, or lack thereof... indeed.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Wow... that one was typo laden. this is what I get for writing posts early in the morning while doing physics...

[Big Phil]

That is because black people are not legally inferior anymore, hispanics that can vote dont have to worry about immigration issues, and soldiers joined the military often times because they do have other issues at play in their lives.

And gay people don't have other issues? What about the economy? What about education? What about national defense, or the environment, or traffic, or crime?

If I get hit by a car tomorrow, were I seeing someone, they couldnt even enter the hospital without having to beg my family for permission.

You know, the same is true of any non-marriage heterosexual relationship, don't you? If my brother's girlfriend were to be hit by a car, he would have no legal rights to be at the hospital or to make medical decisions for her.

I'm also fairly sure that in some states (Massachusetts, for example), civil unions are recognized, meaning that gay couples can make decisions for each other in the same manner as straight married folks. That's not the same as recognizing civil unions nationally, which is the ideal solution, but your situation currently is no different than that of any straight, unmarried couple.

I can be beaten, tied up and dragged through cactus behind a truck, and if I am lucky enough to survive,. the fuckers that did it might be charged with attempted murder. Might. If it happened in this state to a black person there would be protests in the street, and someones getting charged under the hate crime statutes.

Oh really? The guys who murdered Matthew Shepard are currently serving life sentences.

If something like what happened in jena happened, here, with a group of highly provoked gay people beat up a straight guy after months of the justice system not charging them when they beat us (oh wait, that happens anyway) there wouldnt have been any protesters. No national media attention. If anything people watching the blurb in the 6 PM news or reading the paper would think "them queers got what they deserved"

The people thinking "them queers got what they deserved" are the same ones who charged the Jena 6 with felonies and locked them up in prison for six months before anyone outside of Jena noticed. Gay people aren't the only ones who get a raw deal.

Do you even realize the stupidity of this example? Six black kids get charged with felonies - no white kids are even talked to sternly - and you think this is an example of racial equality and justice? You think the Jena 6 are an example of how wonderful race relations are in this country?

I have to worry about being discriminated against in the workplace as well.

In what way does this make you special?

Oh yes... a little edgy about our legal equality, or lack thereof... indeed

You have every legal protection under the sun, except for the right to marry or maintain a civil union, which both Obama and Clinton support. As for the various examples you posted, I'd certainly like to see some statistics showing that gays are being beaten and killed across the country with everyone turning a blind eye to it or cheering it on.

[Turin]

That's what I assumed - if Obama were to come out opposed to gay rights, it'd be front page news. Which means your friend, at a minimum, and the gay community at large, perhaps, are insane?

Oh yes... a little edgy about our legal equality, or lack thereof... indeed.

I think Sanchez's point is that there's nothing to be "edgy" about in this case, because both candidates are equally "meh." Civil unions isn't a particularly good stance, for example, although I'll take it as better than nothing.

[Turin]

Oops, nevermind, that's not what he was saying. It is what I was saying.

Sanchez, what makes gays "special" in terms of workplace discrimination is that it's still legal in many jurisdictions.

[Metatwaddle]

I have to worry about being discriminated against in the workplace as well.

In what way does this make you special?

It's illegal to discriminate based on race or sex or disability, but sexual orientation is only protected in 13 states. That doesn't mean that subtler forms of discrimination don't happen based on the other things I mentioned, but at least victims of those can sue.

You have every legal protection under the sun, except for the right to marry or maintain a civil union, which both Obama and Clinton support.

...and the right to serve in the military without being in the closet, and the workplace discrimination rules that I already mentioned, and the right to adopt as a couple in some states.

[Alyrium Denryle]

And gay people don't have other issues? What about the economy? What about education? What about national defense, or the environment, or traffic, or crime?

Pale in comparison. I am not a single issue voter, not by any means. But at the same time, if someone says all the right things on education etc then tells me that the constitution does not apply to me, that I am somehow less than them, I cannot vote for them. You dont know that that is like, to have someone get up ans say that you are inferior, subhuman, and evil, then get cheered on for it. You have not had to watch your own lobbying groups cynically use the prejudices of your state in order to defeat an abomination that would make you a first rate second class citizen. Then have a victory... for all the wrong reasons. You dont know what it is like, literally being brought to tears looking at a poll and realizing just how very much the population of your home town despises you. Watching your human rights get voted on.

You know, the same is true of any non-marriage heterosexual relationship, don't you? If my brother's girlfriend were to be hit by a car, he would have no legal rights to be at the hospital or to make medical decisions for her.

Except for the little problem that your brother and his girlfriend have the option of getting married at any time. And frankly, both of their families are more likely to approve of their relationship enough to let them see eachother.

There are families that upon finding out that their child had a same sex partner, will leave, rejecting them in the hospital bed and leaving instructions to not let the partner in. Guess who gets to suffer or die alone.

I'm also fairly sure that in some states (Massachusetts, for example), civil unions are recognized, meaning that gay couples can make decisions for each other in the same manner as straight married folks. That's not the same as recognizing civil unions nationally, which is the ideal solution, but your situation currently is no different than that of any straight, unmarried couple.

Yes moron, it is. because the straight couples get to make the choice. We cant. Not unless we live in Massachusetts. And even than it is not recognized by the feds or other states, so if we... oh, I dont know, TRAVEL, we are fucked. Oh, then there is that little matter of commonlaw marriages. If a straight couple lives together long enough, they are considered legally married even if they never go to a court house. We dont get that.

Oh really? The guys who murdered Matthew Shepard are currently serving life sentences.

Yeah, and the "gay panic" defense has worked in court to get sentences reduced a few times. You think Matthew Shepherd is the only case? I have a friend from high school, his name was Mark. You know how he died? He was tied to a chair, and had a plastic bag fastened around his head. Does that scream murder to you? It does to me, but it apparently didnt to the cops.

Fuck you

The people thinking "them queers got what they deserved" are the same ones who charged the Jena 6 with felonies and locked them up in prison for six months before anyone outside of Jena noticed. Gay people aren't the only ones who get a raw deal.

Never said we were. But you can feel free to incinerate strawmen if you like. I am saying that we get an even more raw deal in this country than anyone else. Sorry asshole, hate to break it to you, but I HAVE been attacked, I HAVE been beaten, I have been the victim of every sort of hate crime short of attempts on my life, and those were only narrowly averted. Every time I reported attacks, guess what happened? Nothing. You know, the school systems around here are obligated to report sexual assaults to the cops... apparently not when a gay student is the victim. Oh, and let us not forget the punishment of the gay student for having the audacity to call the guy who shoved him against a brick wall a bastard, while letting he who committed battery off scott free. I can go on and on. Friends kicked out of their homes, driven to drugs, being assaulted in bars, having dead animals placed in cars, or being sent to ex gay camps.

I reiterate. Fuck you

Do you even realize the stupidity of this example? Six black kids get charged with felonies - no white kids are even talked to sternly - and you think this is an example of racial equality and justice? You think the Jena 6 are an example of how wonderful race relations are in this country?

Thanks for missing the point you stupid fuck. My point was that this injustice garnered national attention. There was a protest in the town that was larger than the fucking population. But you dont see protests against what happens to gay people, especially gay teenagers on a daily fucking basis. You dont see politicians being broken because they said something bad about gay people, nope. But if they say something about black people you hear a flushing sound. Sure, there is injustice against black people, but it not systemic, and when it is committed by the system it is localized. Not for us. It is system wide, done by the system, and no one gives a shit.

Dont believe me, check out a population of homeless youth in a large city in the US. Look at the proportion that is gay. I promise, you will weep. i know I did.

In what way does this make you special?

Because anti-discrimination laws exist at the state and federal level for every other demographic group you elephant sucking gerbil rapist. There are 17 states that grant us protection. And the feds dont. They protect everyone else. Maybe you should do some research before you open your fucking trap.

You have every legal protection under the sun, except for the right to marry or maintain a civil union, which both Obama and Clinton support. As for the various examples you posted, I'd certainly like to see some statistics showing that gays are being beaten and killed across the country with everyone turning a blind eye to it or cheering it on.

No. No we dont. And here are the stats you requested. Lifted from my blog, with references.

In a recent study conducted in New York State, 78% of the sampled gay/bisexual youth reported experiencing verbal abuse. 11% reported physical abuse, and 9% reported sexual abuse. These averages are heavily skewed toward males with 15% of males compared to 7% of females reporting physical abuse by their peers, and 14% of males reporting sexual abuse compared to 5% of females. I have not told many people this, but in the 9th grade I was assaulted with a soda bottle in the lunch line, someone assaulted my rectum with it, thankfully I had pants on...

Males reported being victimized my males (94%) and females reported being victimized by both males (56%) and females (44%)

In the following I will directly site the study.

"All youth reported being upset by their first SOV(Sexual Orientation Violence) experience, with 73% reporting being very or extremely upset. Examples of verbal SOV experiences and when they occurred were (a) Male, at 10: “My mom was screaming at me, calling me a ‘fucking faggot’ and ‘cocksucker.’ I just cried and cried.” (b) Female, at
17: “Mom ‘went off’ on me, called me a ‘dyke.’” (c) Female, at 18: “A 50-year-old man, a religious fanatic, called me evil, and said that me and my girlfriend were ‘nasty,’ and called our relationship an abomination.” (Grossman et al 2006)

"Most youth (89%) reported being very or extremely upset at the first occurrence. Examples of physical SOV were (a) Male, at 17: “I was a wrestler, and another wrestler didn’t like my being gay, so he beat me with a stick and broke my nose.” (b) Female,
at 8: “I was beaten up by older girls. They dragged me along the floor, banged my head on the monkey-bars, kicked me, and punched my stomach.” (c) Male, at 16: “Some older boys threw a basketball in my face because I wore a pink shirt." " (Grossman et al 2006)

All sexual attackers were males

"Sexual SOV started at 13.5 years old for youth reporting it, with events occurring earlier for males (13) than females (16). All reported sexual SOV acts were committed by males. Of males and females who experienced sexual SOV, 27% were victimized by friends, 26% by acquaintances, and 15% by strangers. The locations most frequently reported where the first SOV occurred were: 34% at home and 13% in public settings. Nearly all youth (97%) reported being very or extremely upset by this first sexual
SOV experience. Examples of sexual SOV were (a) Female, at 18: “I was in a conversation at a party and mentioned that I was bi. One of the guys took me into a private room and forced me to have sex.” (b) Male, at 9: “My stepfather raped me a lot and tried to fist me. I bled so much I had to go to the ER and get 16 stitches.” (c) Male, at 16: “I told an attendant in a hospital that I was gay, and he forced me to give him a blowjob.”" (Grossman et al 2006)

9% of GLB youth meet the criteria for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.

A review of multiple studies also indicates a problem.

25-50% Bisexual and Lesbian girls reported being sexually abused, compared to 10-25% of heterosexual girls.

The rate of sexual abuse of boys is well under 10% however 25% of bisexual males and 20% of gay males in these surveys reported being sexually assaulted. When the numbers are age-adjusted non-heterosexual girls are twice as likely to report being sexually assaulted or abused, while non-heterosexual boys are 5-10 times more likely. (Saewyc et al 2006)

Are you angry yet? Because I am frothing at the mouth. I can cite study after study, and multipel case files. Gay and Bisexual youth are more likely to be verbally [hysically, and sexually abused by their family and peers than straight youth. They are more likely to be kicked out of their homes (18-21% of homeless youth identify as GLBT and considering they make up only 2-6% of the population at large...), they are more likely to be addicted to drugs, they are more likely to become prostitutes and they are MANY times more likely to attempt suicide or have suicidal ideation. I am going to come right out and say it. This is fucking disgusting. These kids have been failed in every conceivable way. Their parents abuse or reject them, and I don't know what is worse. The schools and teachers fail these kids because they either aren't there to stop the abuse or don't care. The entire safety net system we have in place to help these kids has failed them and they are left crying in the dark with nowhere to go and no one to turn to. On the streets it is even worse. The statistics are so unfathomably sad I wont show them, just reference the study and post a summary.

Whitbeck, Les B., Chen, Xiaojin, Hoyt, Dan R., Tyler, Kimberly A., Johnson, Kurt D. "Mental Disorder, Subsistence Strategies, and Victimization Among Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Homeless and Runaway Adolescents". Journal of Sex Research: Vol 41 issue 4 Nov 2004

They are more likely to engage in sexual survival strategies (IE exchanging sex for money, food, or shelter) they are more likely to be sexually abused by adult "caretakers" and they are more likely to be physically abused while on the streets. They are more likely to meet the criteria for depression, PTSD, and Suicidal Ideation. Half report at least one suicide attempt (compared to a third of heterosexual homeless and runaway teens)

On the flip side, they were less likely than heterosexuals to meet the criteria for conduct disorders, and gay males were less likely to abuse alcohol and drugs than heterosexual runaways and homeless. I wish I could say the same for lesbians but their likelihood of abusing drugs and alcohol is almost double that of heterosexual females.

Saewyc, E, et al. "Hazards of Stigma: The Sexual and Physical Abuse of Gay, Lesbian,and Bisexual Adolescents in the United States and Canada." Child Welfare; 2006, Vol. 85 Issue 2, p195-213.

Grossman A, et al. "Childhood Gender Atypicality, Victimization,and PTSD Among Lesbian,
Gay, and Bisexual Youth" Journal of Interpersonal Violence; 2006, Vol. 21 No. 11, p1462-1482

Would you like more? I can give you more, all I have to do is go on Web of Science and search for anti-gay violence.

[Big Phil]

It's illegal to discriminate based on race or sex or disability, but sexual orientation is only protected in 13 states. That doesn't mean that subtler forms of discrimination don't happen based on the other things I mentioned, but at least victims of those can sue.

I didn't realize discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation wasn't illegal nationally (other than the military). That would make it a bigger issue than I thought.

You have every legal protection under the sun, except for the right to marry or maintain a civil union, which both Obama and Clinton support.

...and the right to serve in the military without being in the closet, and the workplace discrimination rules that I already mentioned, and the right to adopt as a couple in some states.

I can understand (up to a point) why gays single issue vote so strongly, but not why they vote against their interests. Voting for Nader in 2000 and 2004 resulted in Commander-in-Chimp, and set gay rights back at least a decade, thanks to the Supreme Court appointments Shrub made. Gore and Kerry may not have been exactly "pro-gay," but at worst their appointments would have been neutral on the issue.

And it still makes no sense to me why Hillary is preferred over Barack, when their positions on the issue are identical.

[Darth Wong]

I can understand (up to a point) why gays single issue vote so strongly, but not why they vote against their interests.

Plenty of poor people voted for Bush even though that was obviously against their interests. I think they just didn't understand what would happen.

Voting for Nader in 2000 and 2004 resulted in Commander-in-Chimp, and set gay rights back at least a decade, thanks to the Supreme Court appointments Shrub made. Gore and Kerry may not have been exactly "pro-gay," but at worst their appointments would have been neutral on the issue.

Strategic voting requires foresight and logical thinking skills, neither of which are necessarily common.

And it still makes no sense to me why Hillary is preferred over Barack, when their positions on the issue are identical.

My guess: she's located in New York and members of her campaign have probably been actively courting the many gay and lesbian advocacy groups which are located there. A drop-in and handshake shouldn't really matter more than policy positions, but human nature is funny that way.

[Alyrium Denryle]

It's illegal to discriminate based on race or sex or disability, but sexual orientation is only protected in 13 states. That doesn't mean that subtler forms of discrimination don't happen based on the other things I mentioned, but at least victims of those can sue.

I didn't realize discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation wasn't illegal nationally (other than the military). That would make it a bigger issue than I thought.

You have every legal protection under the sun, except for the right to marry or maintain a civil union, which both Obama and Clinton support.

...and the right to serve in the military without being in the closet, and the workplace discrimination rules that I already mentioned, and the right to adopt as a couple in some states.

I can understand (up to a point) why gays single issue vote so strongly, but not why they vote against their interests. Voting for Nader in 2000 and 2004 resulted in Commander-in-Chimp, and set gay rights back at least a decade, thanks to the Supreme Court appointments Shrub made. Gore and Kerry may not have been exactly "pro-gay," but at worst their appointments would have been neutral on the issue.

And it still makes no sense to me why Hillary is preferred over Barack, when their positions on the issue are identical.

Where are you getting that bullshit about voting against our interests? Show me stats that say we disproportionately voted for Nader in 2000. Do it or shut the fuck up about it.

[Illuminatus Primus]

My guess: she's located in New York and members of her campaign have probably been actively courting the many gay and lesbian advocacy groups which are located there. A drop-in and handshake shouldn't really matter more than policy positions, but human nature is funny that way.

Not to mention, anyone who knows her history ought to know that if a corporation cuts off donations due to her wanting to force them to give couple benefits to gays, she'll roll over. Look at health care - look at EVERYTHING.

[Frank Hipper]

Where are you getting that bullshit about voting against our interests? Show me stats that say we disproportionately voted for Nader in 2000. Do it or shut the fuck up about it.

No shit!

Not only have I never encountered a single GLBT group advocating Nader, not to mention any GLBT people advocating him, the HRC in the past has warned against voting Nader for the exact same reasons Sanchez is spouting!

Where the hell is this coming from?

[Pint0 Xtreme]

I've noticed this trend before - gays tend to be strong single issue voters... Why is this? It's not like black people vote entirely on civil rights issues, hispanics on immigration, or soldiers on defense spending, after all.

Gee, is the notion of a highly discriminated minority group voting strongly on issues regarding their rights more than other less discriminated minority groups such a stretch of the imagination?

[Big Phil]

snip

AD - I was going to respond post by post, but then I decided it would be a waste of my time. Your response was... interesting, to say the least. You and I agree (presumably) that gays should be allowed to marry (legally at least) at a national level, and discrimination protection should be expanded to gays.

But it's interesting that because I questioned some of your statements you jumped down my throat and called me an asshole, and this is what I see on a national scale on sexual orientation issues. Certain groups (gays in this case) make enemies of those who would happily ally with them, simply because they're not going to get 100% of what they want, but only 50%. The end result, of course, is conservatives get elected and gays get negative 50% of what they want - things get worse.

To your post about voting for Nader, did you realize that 25% of gays voted for Bush in 2000, and 4% for Nader? One-quarter of all voting gays in this country voted for a man who spent the next eight years taking away the rights they'd gained. That's what I was referring to in voting against their interests. The margin of victory in 2000 and 2004 was so slim that gays, Greens, and others voting for Nader (instead of Gore or Kerry) ended up fucking them over.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m ... i_67921224
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-67921224.html

[Stravo]

Criticizing homosexuals for being single issue voters when it comes to their civil rights is a bit like chastising blacks in the 60's about voting only on the issue of Civil rights. In this political/social environment homosexuals are being told to their face that they are not equal to the rest of us. They are the new blacks of America's second class citizenship. How anyone, especially a black person or a minority, can just stand there and advocate denying equal rights to another human being based on their sexuality boggles my mind.

Just on a practical level if you substitute the word "Black" "Hispanic" "Asian" "Irish" "Poor" for "Gay" in the sentence "Gays should not be allowed to be married. They could have civil unions but marriage is a divine institution." I think you would have a riot on your hands. Why oh Why is it any damn different in a logical mindset?

[Alyrium Denryle]

But it's interesting that because I questioned some of your statements you jumped down my throat and called me an asshole

Of course I jumped down your throat. Consider what is in my post. Then consider me sitting at my desk and reading you essentially saying "I dont get it, gay people arent shat upon any worse than anyone else, why are they single issue voters?" then see you had not even done your research on anti-discrimination laws, and had the gall tell me, the guy who has to be careful what state or municipality he moves to or who he works for. Of course we get pissed. Should we have to compromise on our humanity? because that is pretty much what you are asking. That we should only hold politicians to support some of our issues, you know, like being considered actual citizens under the 14th amendment. Because the way we are treated, you would think there was a hidden clause at the end where it talks about equal protection. A clause that says "with the exception of queers" maybe Nickolas Cage can find it with some lemon juice and his breath.

To your post about voting for Nader, did you realize that 25% of gays voted for Bush in 2000, and 4% for Nader? One-quarter of all voting gays in this country voted for a man who spent the next eight years taking away the rights they'd gained. That's what I was referring to in voting against their interests. The margin of victory in 2000 and 2004 was so slim that gays, Greens, and others voting for Nader (instead of Gore or Kerry) ended up fucking them over.

And let's put that ALL on us shall we? Oh of course, lets neglect a probably equal number of gay people voting for the lolbertarian and taking votes away from the GOP. And lets ignore the fact that the number voting for nader equals a whopping statistically insignificant .24% of the population. Maximum. You can just as easily blame dwarfs, raw fooders, and members of PETA.

Oh and then the ultimate sillyness. A disproportionate number of gay people DIDNT vote for Bush. Do you happen to have the numbers in 2004? I would love to see those. Bear in mind, it isnt as if up until that point the democrats had done shit for us. The current president at the time, probably in consultation with gore... no definitely in consultation with gore, signed DOMA, and DADT. Oh, and lets see how many times the Employment Non-Discrimination Act DIDNT make it through congress. Of course, one could blame the GOP Congress... except that we have been trying to get that passed since the 70s and have had to reduce the protections it offered (which were identical to those of the civil rights act) down ONLY to employment related protections.

At any rate, i am rambling again. but there are any number of reasons why 25% would have voted for Wonderchimp. Maybe not all of us ARE single issue voters. I mean, there are gay republicans (especially closeted in the senate) for a reason.

You dont get to have your cake and eat it too

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

Ah, I saw this little flap about a month ago. I think it's just about made up for by this stunt. It takes big titanium-nitride-coated balls to say what he does in a Baptist church, even King's old digs. Bravo Obama!

My theory on what happened is his meeting with McClurkin drew fire, and Obama did something unprecedented. He listened and tried to make amends, something unheard of in politics these days.

[Dahak]

Amazingly, I never considered "gay rights" stuff when deciding for which party to vote. This is one of the least interesting things for me. I prefer to vote for a party that is aligning with my general interests and ideas.

[Imperial Overlord]

Amazingly, I never considered "gay rights" stuff when deciding for which party to vote. This is one of the least interesting things for me. I prefer to vote for a party that is aligning with my general interests and ideas.

What is the legal status of gays in Germany? Because if you're more protected than the US, that makes a lot of sense in that many of your rights are established and protected and you don't have nearly the same kind of pressure to be a single issue voter. Not all American homosexuals are single issue voters, but its easy to understand why so many of them are.

[Dahak]

Amazingly, I never considered "gay rights" stuff when deciding for which party to vote. This is one of the least interesting things for me. I prefer to vote for a party that is aligning with my general interests and ideas.

What is the legal status of gays in Germany? Because if you're more protected than the US, that makes a lot of sense in that many of your rights are established and protected and you don't have nearly the same kind of pressure to be a single issue voter. Not all American homosexuals are single issue voters, but its easy to understand why so many of them are.

Well, it's "more protected". I can "marry" my boyfriend, for instance in a civil union. Still some differences to a real marriage because our conservatives still want to seperate it from the normal marriage, but I guess it is just a matter of time until they be more open. We have gay party leaders, heads of governments, gays in all fields of social life.

Stil, in some areas, the more rural parts and a lot of Eastern Germany, being gay is still a bit of stuck with some negative feelings.