I really, really need some cheering up

[TechBear_Seattle]

From http://www.americablog.com/2008/05/hillary-obama-and-mccain-on-ca-gay.html

Hillary, Obama and McCain on CA gay marriage decision

Obama statement:

"Barack Obama has always believed that same-sex couples should enjoy equal rights under the law, and he will continue to fight for civil unions as President. He respects the decision of the California Supreme Court, and continues to believe that states should make their own decisions when it comes to the issue of marriage."

Clinton statement:

"Hillary Clinton believes that gay and lesbian couples in committed relationships should have the same rights and responsibilities as all Americans and believes that civil unions are the best way to achieve this goal. As President, Hillary Clinton will work to ensure that same sex couples have access to these rights and responsibilities at the federal level. She has said and continues to believe that the issue of marriage should be left to the states."

McCain statement:

?

I read these statements as: Both Obama and Clinton think the California Court are wrong, nevermind that the decision was based very firmly on long-standing constitutional principles. Both still oppose equal marriage and instead favor Jim Crow, separate-and-inherently-unequal "civil unions," never mind that ALL legal marriage in the United States already is a civil union and that the religious institution that is coincidentally also called marriage is wholely irrelevant to the discussion. Both promise "access" but say nothing to support full equality under the law.

My distain for both candidates has already moved into disgust and is quickly growing into outright hatred. Please, anyone: say something to cheer me up, as I will no doubt be forced to vote for one of these two hateful people.

[gateley]

1. I read both their statements as being "politically safe" --

I would LIKE to believe that they both, in their hearts, feel marriage is your right, but it's disappointing that they won't come out and say it.

So here :hug: - doesn't help much, but I DO feel for you and understand your frustration.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

2. There's one salient fact you're overlooking

Marriage is, and always has been, a state matter. There is, never was, any Federal marriage law.

So, the statements are just protective weaseling that they both need to do. In fact, the statements actually say nothing, since, as I said, marriage is a state matter. And California just put that state in the same column as Massachusetts. Fine company, I'd say.

[TechBear_Seattle]

4. DOMA is *not* a federal marriage law?

Goodness golly, and all these years I thought it was. It was signed by another Clinton, you know.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

6. Defense of Marriage Act

is not a Federal marriage act. It simply reaffirms the states' rights in deciding what their marriage laws will be.

Bubba was a first-rate whore, wasn't he?

[TechBear_Seattle]

13. It is a law passed by Congress and signed by the President. It is all about marriage

How does that not make it a federal marriage law? It does "affirm" anything, except contempt for the US Constitution (here is a clue: look up "full faith and credit clause" in the Wikipedia.)

[Tangerine LaBamba]

16. No, you're focusing on the wrong issue

The law simply affirms that the matter of what constitutes a legal marriage is reserved to the individual states. Full faith and credit is hard to apply in a matter like this, thanks to the Defense of Marriage Act.

[TechBear_Seattle]

23. You are appallingly ignorant of that law

DOMA has two parts. These are:

1. No state or other political subdivision of the US can be required to treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as a marriage, even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another state.

2. The Federal Government will not treat same-sex relationships as marriages for any purpose, even if concluded or recognized by one of the states.

Please explain to me how this "simply affirms that the matter of what constitutes a legal marriage is reserved to the individual states" in light of the fact that federal law grants more than 900 rights, priviledges and protections solely on the grounds of marriage, and that the rulings of US federal courts and the US Supreme Court have recognized an additional 500 or so rights. What President Clinton did when he signed this FEDERAL MARRIAGE LAW was explicitly prohibit gay people from sharing in these federal rights by right of marriage, even though millions of straight people continue to have access to them.


Edited for clarity.

[MountainLaurel]

10. So the rules about immigration and taxes are up to the states?

Great -- I need to let my friend know that he can sponsor his foreign-born partner of 6 years as a "fiancee" once they move to California.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

11. Huh?

Sorry. I don't understand what you wrote.

[MountainLaurel]

19. You're talking about marriage being a state matter

But there are a metric fuckload of reasons why it is a national concern: immigration and taxes are two of them.

[TechBear_Seattle]

22. Not to mention...

Veteran benefits
Social Security
Medicare
Inclusion for federal home and education loans
Visitation in federal prisons and hospitals
Priviledges and benefits given to spouses of federal employees, including soldiers

All in all, federal statute recognizes more than 900 rights, priviledges and benefits granted solely on the basis of marriage. This count does not include rights, priviledges and benefits recognized by virtue of rulings handed down by federal courts and the US Supreme Court; those would add in more than a five hundred more.

That certainly does not sound like an exclusively state issue to me.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

29. Oh.....

you're talking about "concern." I was talking about how the laws work. Two different matters.

Of course it's a matter for national discussion, but, in practical terms, it's decided as a state matter, like California and Massachusetts have. The perception may be that it's a nationwide issue, but the reality is that this is a battle that, unfortunately, will have to be fought over and over again, at the state level.

[dbackjon]

21. Except that to get Federal Benefits, the Government has to recognize it

The 10-mile wide hole in Obama's BULLSHIT.

[Zuiderelle]

43. A straight person married in any of the 50 states has the same federal rights anywhere they go.

It's absolute bullshit to keep pretending that it's a state thing. They are FEDERAL BENEFITS that we are being denied by not being allowed to marry. And the states that DO allow marriage will STILL not have federal benefits as a result for those married citizens, unless they are straight.

Yes, they were both weaseling. As most people seem to do on this subject.

[LisaM]

3. Straddlers........

I can't really say anything to cheer you up, because I agree with you. Although I have a favorite between the two candidates, neither are as liberal as I would like. Despite all the calls for Democrats to be more progressive, we ended up with two centrist candidates.

I WILL say, that I do not believe that the right wing has the cache to make a national wedge issue out of it this time. The voters are too scarred, and I believe that any candidate who tries to run on this will get laughed out of the room. To that extent, we've come a little way since 2004.

Back in 2004, I was so mad after the election I called the Ohio Republican party. Some women with a chipper little voice answered, and I asked her if she thought that over 200,000 lost jobs in Ohio, over 1000 dead in Iraq, and up to 100,000 dead Iraqi civilians was all balanced out by ONE gay marriage? There was silence on the other end and I said, "you people are corrupt" and hung up. I'm sure it did not good, but it made me feel better.

[xchrom]

5. i can't talk about this bullshit anymore -- i'll just enjoy the gain made today.

[bliss_eternal]

9. ...and if I may share that enjoyment.

I'd like to say Congratulations....

:toast::bounce::party:


....and it's about damn time! ;) I cried from pure joy when I saw the news on msn front page!
Still a lot of work to do, but this is progress...hooray!

[TechBear_Seattle]

20. Oh, I'll enjoy it too

Its just that I start to feel despondant when we make gains in fundamental human rights over the clearly stated objections of "our" party.

[DarkTirade]

7. I read it as 'both are pandering to the both sides and hoping that it won't offend everyone'

as pandering to both sides often does.

[Warpy]

8. It seems to me that "separate but equal" generally happens first

as in racially segregated schools and women's colleges. Once people have gotten used to the idea that black kids can learn to read and write and women can shine in higher education and gays/lesbians have committed long term relationships and that separate is inherently unequal, full equality happens. It is a process that everybody who isn't a rich, white, Christian, heterosexual male has gone through and most of us are still going through.

Just know that time is your ally in this fight. Stupid prejudices held by a majority are not overcome overnight. It usually takes generations.

Remember, women still don't have equal rights. The amendment was never resubmitted. We are still struggling, too.

[mitchtv]

12. i'd have preferred "no comment"

one step foward two steps back. Partner and I will wait for the Nov election.

[Duncan Grant]

14. Equivocating platitudes are *so* presidential.

Sounds like you're having the appropriate reaction, imho.

This is an unconscionable failure to offer real leadership. Simply put, they are complicit in the oppression of gays and lesbians. Any effort to rationalize and justify this issue betrays a "pragmatic" acceptance of second-class citizenship for gay and lesbian people.

I'm disgusted, too. I have to wonder about people who aren't.

[Beregond2]

15. Hateful?

How old are you? Do you have any idea what a miracle it is that presidential candidates can even make these statements? Just yesterday, in historical terms, it was illegal for gay people to even gather together in one place. When they tried, they were jailed, their names were made public, and their lives were ruined. And now, one of the nation's most populace states has legalized gay marriage, it has become impossible for an anti-gay bigot to run for the Democratic nomination with any hope, and you are whining about semantics? Grow up. Your attitude disrespects the heroes who made your petulance possible.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

17. Viva Stonewall!

Your point about age is very well taken. I think the younger generation today, bless them all, often don't have a thorough understanding of what went into building so much of the world they wonderfully take for granted today. Young women are realizing, I hope, that Roe v. Wade was a hard-won decision and will always require dedication and constant vigilance.

Remember LBJ and Walter Jenkins? That was only a bit more than four decades ago, a generation, and look how far we've come. That the state of California's Supreme Court (well, it's in San Francisco, so what do you expect? <joke>) came down with such a decision today is cause for great celebration, but it does not in any way negate what went into making it law. That is, years and years of work and dedication by good people who refused to give up.

Our free world requires an awful lot of work.

[TechBear_Seattle]

25. And for decades, we have had to do it alone

That is what makes this whole thing so f-ing frustrating. The Democratic Party demands our money, demands our votes, demands our unswerving obedience... and then tells us to fuck off because we will be getting absolutely nothing in return.

I guess I'm irredeemably stupid for thinking that this will ever change.

[MNBrewer]

26. If only those damned whippersnappers

properly appreciated what we old folks did for them. They should stop whining and let the old ones lead the way...

Why I remember back before there was even Will and Grace on the TV. It wasn't like it is today, with gay folk all over the airwaves...

Geez.

[mitchtv]

39. um, from what I can see

the old ones are still leading. Time for the younguns to man the barricades

[davidinalameda]

42. there was always Paul Lynde

[mitchtv]

48. Half of these kids here never saw him

or Charles Nelson Reilly either

[TechBear_Seattle]

24. I see this as much more than "semantics"

Clinton and Obama consistently use the language of the bigots. Obama has, on more than one occation, given speeches that would have been perfectly at home in meetings of Exodus International and other hate "ministries."

I'm sorry, but if it walks like a homophobic bigot and quacks like a homophobic bigot and very publicly and repeatedly looks like a homophobic bigot, what conclusion should I make? That it is a duck?

If the Democratic candidates are going to repeatedly and publicly denigrate my desire for fundamental human rights, fine. If they think that homophobic bigots are more important to their success than the support of the GLBT community, fine. They can all rot in Hell together as far as I'm concerned: I demand my rights as an American and as a human being, and if the Democratic Party is unwilling to help, then that is their loss, not mine.

[NorthernSpy]

46. the CA ruling could be overturned by referendum in November...

Mass turnout by young Obama voters will be needed to keep that from happening.


Trying to weaken Obama's candidacy (accusing him of expressing the views of a hate ministry?) is woefully counterproductive.

[Duncan Grant]

27. Let us speak of heroism and respect since that's how you predicate your insult.

The heroes of my movement (and I'll proudly include myself among them) are boldly courageous. We don't prevaricate. We don't equivocate. We are not silent. During the height of the pandemic, we created a public health miracle while simultaneously caring for our impossibly sick friends and lovers. We embodied profound cultural change. Some might say, heroic.

So after years of death, trauma, government negligence, and public indifference I find I have a particularly low threshold for paternalistic (and yes, petulant) insults like yours -- even though they're directed at the OP. As a hero, he has my permission to speak as boldly as he pleases (not that he needs it).

Furthermore, I believe Harvey Milk, Larry Kramer, Harvey Fierstein and ACT UP would reject any effort to let Senators Clinton and Obama off the hook for their complicity. The statements offered by these candidates are essentially as old as the ones we heard during the 2000 campaign -- and now is the time for real leadership to emerge on LGBT issues.

More of us should be emboldened enough to demand it.

[Zuiderelle]

44. Hear Hear! "More of us should be emboldened enough to demand it."

:thumbsup:

[galledgoblin]

18. just keep hammering them on it

if I let each and every setback on issues close to my heart stop me, then I'd never get out of bed.

sometimes I don't.

but if you and I don't keep working, keep poking, keep questioning, keep badgering and bothering and keep doing whatever works to let people know that issues will not just go away, then they WILL go away and nothing will change.

I personally think that equal status for gays will happen within 20 years, and we'll at least get civil unions within the next eight of the (God willing) democratic presidency.

it's not going to happen overnight. nothing in politics ever does, and as someone likely to end up working in government, I can't express how frustrating that can be.

we'll see other issues addressed first. this damn war, climate crisis, hungry and poor Americans come first under the progressive priorities.

but once the huge issues are back on the right track, once democratic politicians have the popular support to give republicans the finger, then we'll see our due.

[Beregond2]

28. I see nothing

denigrating whatsoever in the platforms or words of either Clinton or Obama regarding gay rights. I wonder what would satisfy you. Of course they have to parse their words somewhat. Of course they cannot unequivocally endorse gay marriage at this stage of the game. That's life. Change is incremental, but it has still been phenomenally fast. The progress has been tremendous, and to accuse these two, who are light years beyond the opposition in this area, of somehow betraying gay people with these words is unconscionable, not to mention self-destructive. Sure, keep pushing for everything we should have. But don't fail to give credit where credit is due. The nominee has to win in more places than San Francisco and New york, and it is vital that we win.

There are other issues at stake. What difference is it going to make if we have the right to marry, if the economy goes tits-up and the environment falls apart around our ears? You dare to attack the Democrats because they have, so far, not delivered every single thng you want, when the entire future of the human race may well depend on the outcome of this election? How selfish and myopic can you be?

As for all that stuff about Obama sounding like a homophobic bigot... I'm guessing you are one of those gay men who freaks at anything that remotely smacks of religion. Educate yourself, and you might find out that all progressive movements in this country have had strong religious components, including the gay rights movement. The Friends (Quakers) were calling for gay rights in the sixties, and the Metropolitan Community Churches were an outgrowth of that movement. You musn't assume that religion is always the enemy. Maybe I'm jumping to the wrong conclusion, but I can't imagine any other reason why you would make such a bizarre statement.

You think I wasn't there through the AIDS crisis? I lost every friend I had, the love of my life, and lived with the terror of being positive myself. I know what was achieved and I know what it took. I also know that if those people who died were alive today and they could hear gay people complaining about their greivances at a time when they are achieving marriage or it's near-equivalent in many states, and the whole future of the planet is at stake, they would slap the crap out of us, and rightly so. And I know Harvey Milk would be the first in line.

It is one thing to be staunch in your pursuit of equal rights. It is another to be paranoid and self-destructive.

[Duncan Grant]

30. Do you understand the "context" of the ruling on gay marriage?

FYI: yesterday's ruling

"In contrast to earlier times, our state now recognizes that an individual's capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual's sexual orientation, and, more generally, that an individual's sexual orientation - like a person's race or gender - does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights..."

The "states' rights" position of Clinton and Obama are both ludicrous and cowardly. Why should a majority of voters in any state be allowed to deny or withhold the legal rights of gay and lesbian people/couples? Clinton and Obama seem to be avoiding that question altogether while offering platitudes about their commitment to gay and lesbian couples. It's a failure of leadership (and if you know anything about the history of the "states' rights" argument - you'll be doubly insulted).

The inequality is clear to all who are paying attention. LGBT people (and in this specific instance, gay and lesbian couples) should not feel compelled to ingratiate themselves to "conventional wisdom" or to the dominant political culture -- as you seem to suggest in your posts. Gay and lesbian couples should never accommodate or be subservient to ignorant, bigoted, and/or uninformed citizens of their state - never. Especially in matters of legal rights and personal freedom.

I'm disappointed to see these derivative arguments about the economy and the future of the planet -- as if I'm supposed to feel guilty for standing up for myself. That form of hand-wringing is simply rhetorical grandstanding (or cowardice - I can't be sure). My life, my legal rights, those of my husband, and other gay and lesbian people are important. We have a valid and urgent argument. Your scornful reproach does nothing to diminish that.

edit: pl

[mitchtv]

40. I see nothing in their statements at all

too bad they couldn't have said "congratulations, or How nice for them" instead of the bullshit that they said?. It wouldn't have hurt anyone. I know why they didn't and I don't like it one bit. Spineless Democrats.

[Zuiderelle]

47. Say what? "a time when they are achieving marriage or it's near-equivalent"

Near-equivalent? Not in this country. A state civil union doesn't give one single solitary federal benefit. And it's the federal benefits that are our right as equal American citizens to enjoy.

I think it's odd that you would think Harvey Milk would be satisfied with this pale imitation that doesn't come even slightly close to the benefits of straight marriage. I think he is rolling over in his grave wondering why we are still fighting for basic rights.

[mitchtv]

31. Batten down the hatches

we are gonna be in for a bumpy ride the next few months. The "democrats" will start insisting we are gonna cost them the election, after folding on every single issue, and having a majority. The resistance will be hardest from our own. So don't be getting on to the front of the bus just yet , kiddies, you might just get tossed underneath. My fiance' of 31 years and I are going to wait to see if we prevail in the constitutional amendment to stop equality in November. Why couldn't they have said "how wonderful for them"?
Since when are civil rights dependent on a state's whims?

[Tyo]

34. Do you think that the Democrats will ever face up to the fact

that the number of setbacks they have suffered because of their lukewarm-at-best support for gay equality pales when compared to the number fights they have lost because of the cowardice, opportunism, and lack of principle that characterize the clusterf*ck they call a political party?

[NorthernSpy]

You missed this part: Obama "respects the decision of the California Supreme Court"

That means that he views the decision as the last word on the issue, at least as far as California is concerned. Which is a position that does carry political risk, given that there will apparently be a referendum aimed at overturning the decision on the ballot in November -- along with the Presidential election.


Interestingly, Hillary doesn't say anything about accepting the judgement of the Court on this matter. She just reiterates her belief that civil unions are the "best" option.

[Tyo]

33. In other words, he doesn't believe in it

and if it had been up to him the ruling would have been different, but he'll live with it. Good to have that kind of support from the Democratic front runner.

[NorthernSpy]

36. that's a bizarre reading of his statement...

... especially considering that that it would have been safer for him not to mention the ruling at all, much less take a quotable position on it. You'll notice that Clinton said NOTHING about the ruling.


By the way, how do you plan on defeating the referendum, come November?

[Tyo]

37. How so?

Obama has clearly stated that his religious beliefs do not allow him to support marriage equality for gays. His mentioning the ruling was a safe and easy way for him to appear pro-gay. At the same time by saying that he accepts, not agrees with, not supports, but simply accepts the ruling he manages not to offend the sensibilities of the fundie wing of his supporters.

No longer being a resident of CA I'm not sure how I will try to fight them off. My friends and family down there are already firmly in our camp.

[mitchtv]

41. Nice that he respects the CSC rulings

when a lawyer says something like that, it sounds like he's not happy about it, otherwise he'd congratulate them. He'd be better off keeping his mouth shut with that atitude. I plan to get married and contribute heavily against the Holypolys

[Zuiderelle]

45. Oh fer crying out loud. Hillary at least said that she would fight for EQUALITY. Where does

Obama say that. They are both sucking royally on this issue. Don't pretend that Obama is any better than Hillary, when his language is even less supportive of our equality.

[DU GrovelBot]

32. ## DON'T DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v4.1
==================



This week is our second quarter 2008 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Whatever you do, do not click the link below!

[cavebear]

35. Cheer up, Techbear

Be glad you're not stuck in a foreign country watching what little hope you have of returning home get nibbled away by folks with either no clue or no concern for how this issue affects anyone but themselves.

[Jamastiene]

38. I'll do the best I can do at cheering you up while I choke on these exhaust fumes.

:hug:

[meegbear]

49. HUGS!!!

:hug: