Why do we have to do this every night on DU

[npk]

Posters from the GLBT forum are upset, unless you are in their shoes and are fighting for something as hard as they are, you cannot possibly know what it feels like. So some offer criticism of President Obama, and it may be harsh criticism, that may seem "knee jerk" but that is to be expected. Why do we have to start flame wars almost every night on here. Let posters from GLBT forums vent. Jesus can we try and be more civil.

on edit: spelling

[flvegan]

1. This could be epic.

:popcorn:

[d_b]

8. + f'n juan

[Javaman]

105. I think you are right. Pass some over will you?

:popcorn:

[Neecy]

2. Thank you. Well said.

[Forkboy]

3. I'm amazed at how many people who claim to support gay rights...

..can't find it in themselves to understand why they might be so sensitive about this. For most of us, it's just an issue we encounter on DU or a few other places, or maybe we know someone who is gay. But this is their lives, all day every day, and they're being treated unfairly, unequally, and it should bother us all, and we should try a lot harder to understand where they're coming from. At the end of the day we have rights that they don't, and it's wrong and hurtful to millions.

[npk]

6. That's what I as trying to say. You said it better

You don't have to agree with everybody on here, but you can show some respect and understanding.

[liberalmuse]

4. Hell yeah.

When I read the news the other day at work, I was just sick. I wanted to lash out. I'm still angry, but will not hurt the cause of civil rights by behaving badly when the dear people directly affected by this horrible turn of events are behaving beautifully. It's kind of petty to jump on those in GLBT who are very upset. This is their LIVES. It is our lives, too, because if one segment of the population is oppressed, we all suffer. Jesus, I wish people would stop being so goddamned sanctimonious. It's easy to point fingers when you can marry and have kids, or be who you are without being jumped on and beaten up by people who hate you simply because they don't understand you.

[Seldona]

77. My thoughts on this echo your own.

You just articulate it better.

[ZombieHorde]

5. 5th rec. nt

[sibelian]

7. It's probably meant in fun.

Well, fun for the people who are posting the rude stuff, anyway. Not so much fun for the rest of us.

[Bluenorthwest]

83. Sadists have a different idea of 'fun' than most of us

Bullies are always having fun when they bully.

[Starry Messenger]

9. recommended.

[Lisa0825]

10. I am staying out of it because I know I cannot possibly

understand the extent of their feelings.

I am still hopeful that times, they are a'changin, but that means little right now when feelings are so raw.

[AlbertCat]

145. understand the extent of their feelings.

I have been gay my whole life. I was called "queer" in the 2nd grade! I have been beaten up, bullied, my work and possessions vandalized, I've been refused membership in school clubs and on teams, ridiculed in public, in front of those who's respect I wanted, family and friends (and not had any of them come to my defense). I've overheard my father curse me and spew hatred for gays, and my mother sneak around and manipulate things so I wouldn't "embarrass" her. And I am not offended by Obama's statement. In spite of it all, I don't have a chip on my shoulder or a crown of thorns on my head.

Not about that.

In spite of set backs, I think the "gay agenda" is generally going in the right direction.

Now being an Atheist is a far worse experience in many ways. The crap I must listen to and put up with these days is almost on par....worse in a different kind of way... with the gay crap I endured in the '60's and '70's. I will put a chip on my shoulder for that! Atheists don't even exist for many people....like gays in the 19th century! It's not even a subject for discussion in many circles. We need some "Atheist Pride"!

Where were the protests for making the Mormon and Catholic and Evangelical churches get off their tax exempt status since they are obviously political machines now? Where are the protests about making us all pay for "faith based" anything? When is Obama gonna articulate the central role of religion in terrorism, Middle East tensions, even torture! Who was decrying the dangers of the religious anti-science roadblocks for all kinds of good, useful, and even life saving stuff? What good is Gay Marriage if we can't breath the air or stand the climate? Religion is halting ALL of these things!

[Ohio Joe]

11. Well...

We have to make sure the mods keep busy :D

ok, ok, seriously. I'm not gay so I can't claim to REALLY know what they are going through. I know this though... Civil rights have to be for everybody or they are not worth shit. If your sitting back and not doing what you can to make sure everyone has the same rights, your part of the fucking problem.

[cliffordu]

12. KICKED AND RECC'D

[patrice]

13. Everyone has a right to his/her feelings. If you don't share it, you can still understand.

Do not expect that which you do not give to others.

None of this is rocket science.

The manner in which you treat others IS how you will be treated by them: bigotry begets bigotry; ridicule begets ridicule; anger begets anger, until someone decides to stop being a victim and start changing themselves and, hence, others. I'm not saying it works 100% of the time, but it, by a damn site, works more than 0% of the time, which is what we have going on here right now.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

14. K&R

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Maru Kitteh]

25. Obama hasn't done one good thing. He's just like Bush - maybe worse.

In fact, if Bush and Hitler had a baby, that baby would be Obama.





See? The flip side of the tune you're playing sounds just as dumb.

[Greyhound]

46. If you stop after the first sentence, you speak the truth.

The best we can say for the great Democratic hope so far is that he isn't McSame.

Wow, what an endorsement.

Now go ahead and list all the wonders he has performed...

[Name removed]

66. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[AlbertCat]

147. If you stop after the first sentence, you speak the truth.

Yes...Obama is EXACTLY like Bush in every way! :eyes:


I'll say it again...


If by Sept 11 thousands of innocent Americans have not been murdered in one day, then Obama is doing a hell of a lot better than Bush.

[kenfrequed]

81. Textbook strawman

You present a text book strawman clothed in stylish ad absurdem swimwear. Let us try to stay somewhere near the facts on this one.

[AtheistCrusader]

108. It was a over-the-top response to a over the top post

to show how silly it was. The original has been deleted though, so it looks out of context.

[TheWatcher]

27. SHUT UP TERRORIST!!!!!!!!111111

Stay where you are and slowly step away from the Computer.

A Strike Team will be dispatched to your residence within 15 minutes of this Post to whisk you away to a re-education center for your own protection.

This is Not an Assault! This is Not an Assault!

[Toasterlad]

28. !!!SERIES!!

[ecstatic]

55. Cute. Did you pick that up

on Capitol Hill Forum before it got shut down? :shrug:

[WI_DEM]

76. See this is one reason why there are flame wars--this poster knows this is just flame-bait.

[rucky]

16. I think there's a basic lack of understanding between people who use this board differently.

Some are more conversational in tone - they react, they use bad grammar, they toss off commentary in a conversational tone.

Others write as if they are publishing when the press "send" - and they read & scrutinize everything else the same way. For them, this is where opinions go on the record, and they have to be backed-up to be valid. Feelings don't count. Google is your friend.

Personally, I see the people here as friends first - from all different backgrounds. You can usually pick up from the language when someone's genuinely pissed, or if they're just stirring drama. People are pissed. We should back-up our friends. I think if we were all face to face, we wouldn't be having half the conflicts we do here.

[npk]

18. I try and do the same

Some people do post replies just like they would do if they were talking on the phone to their best friend. I am kind of the same way. I also recognize the difference, like you said, when someone has clearly taken the time to post something that is well thought out and concise. When somebody post something that I disagree with, but it's clearly a heated topic, I try and back off and let them finish their point later in the thread. But some of the things that were being posted tonight and over the last couple of nights, were just mean and you could clearly tell that the poster was trying to bait somebody into a argument. I just don't like that. Someone tonight sent me a nasty PM, that I want repeat or call the member out on because I know the person was upset. Supposedly they have put me on ignore anyway. But that poster posted a very offensive reply. I thought it was way past the point of venting frustration. Maybe that person ways trying to make a different point, but the way it was done was just wrong. I still sympathize with the poster and understand they are angry. Either way I agree face to face people would be a lot more understanding and there would be a lot less conflicts.

[ProfessorGAC]

97. Great Post, Rucky

You really hit a homer on that one! Nicely said.
GAC

[Chulanowa]

17. I would be bothered less...

If more fingers were pointed at the California Supreme Court. I mean what makes it so that all this bitching is being directed at Barak instead of the people who actually decided the case?





Oh. That's right.

[Starry Messenger]

19. I don't get your point.

This is a national board. I did see some posts criticizing our CA supremes yesterday but they sank. Our common ground here on DU is the President. I think those threads get more currency by virtue of the fact that he was here today in CA and some of us, gay and straight were hoping he'd have more to say on this.

[Chulanowa]

21. Of course we wish he'd say more

But he can't overturn the California Supreme Court's ruling. So why shoot so many spitballs at him, instead of them? He can't do anything about it. Want to spit them at the guy over DADT? Hell, done that myself, that's something he can have an impact on. But he can't just reach down and slap this ruling aside. Hoping he says something, anything, is definitely legitimate. being frustrated that he hasn't is also legitimate. But I've seen so many posts here from people behaving as if it's somehow all his fault, and that's ludicrous.

Now like the OP notes, people are angry, and rightly so. And I realize that angry people don't always behave completely rationally, so, I've tried to keep my nose out of it, even when some of the comments are head-slappingly stupid. But honestly, to my eyes, it does look awfully peculiar that the five white (and one Asian) folks who just gave a giant "fuck you!" to the gay community are getting a free pass, no mention, no anger, while the black guy who, while not exactly engaged also can't do much about it, is catching all the damn blame.

[Missy Vixen]

23. He supports it by his silence

He also encourages it by his stated lack of support for gay marriage. Civil unions don't get it done.

I told so many people before the election they'd be disappointed; I'm not exactly thrilled to be proven right.

[Chulanowa]

42. Oh yes, of course

Support by silence.

So what does that argument say about all the fine folks who are choosing to not say a damned thing about the people who actually made the rulings on the case?

[LeftyMom]

157. There's already talk of recalling them/working against their re-election.

:shrug:

There aren't 8,000 threads about that because nobody's really arguing against it, let alone doing so as vehemently as certain people on DU fight and kick and scream about any criticism of Obama, no matter how well deserved it may be.

[Starry Messenger]

29. Well I can only speak for myself.

I've made plenty of OPs taking on the Mormons and the Yes on 8 supporters. They are in my journal a few pages back. I also made OPs talking about the "Obsession" DVD made and sent out by the RW to affect voter's opinions about the whole "Obama is a Muslim" crap. I helped expose Ashley Todd for the racist faker she is. Search my posts and journal. Despite all of that, I got accused of being a racist when I criticized Obama for the choice of Warren for the Inauguration. :shrug:

Obama can halt the firing of gays from the military who are necessary for the war effort. This has been demonstrated by several posters here. The CA supremes can do a few things too but they did not. Hopefully we can get another prop on the ballot in 2010.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

51. He doesn't get a pass from me because he hasn't done one single fucking thing for gays

and well, as for the environment, his policies suck on that as well.

It has nothing to do with him being black.

[Chulanowa]

59. Question for you then.

Who do you think would have done better for you guys? Clinton's positions are identical to Obama's, and McCain... Well, I don't think I need to even go there. No, Obama hasn't done all he can. I readily recognize that and don't blame anyone who's irritated or angry at him failing to do what he can. He's disappointed me on a decent handfull of points as well

What stumps me is the people who are angry about him not doing things he can't do. I'm also stumped by the people who would rather be angry at him, than the motherfuckers who just gave a big middle finger to the GLBT community of California.

Now the explanations I've gotten on this thread for this very strange phenomena are pretty unsatisfactory. The best answer I've gotten to it is Missy's "he supports it with silence". Problem is, that's still not an answer to my question. Even if I were to accept that as true, shouldn't the six judges who made the decision and were not silent catch more blame anyway? But... they're not.

Myself, I figure if someone hauls off and hits me in the face, I should be more upset at him, than at the guy who didn't jump up to help me. Sure the second guy's a bit of a prick, but he didn't just bust my nose. Getting my face busted and then turning my anger on a bystander just doesn't make any sense

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

60. Clinton wouldn't have given a microphone to McClurkin or Warren

And I think she would have pushed on DADT, who knows when the fuck we'll ever get that. And, I don't think she'd feel compelled to announce how she's against gay marriage every time a state legalizes it.

Hell, Obama has even took most of the stuff pertaining to gay rights down off his webpage. That shows right there how much he cares.

Personally, I don't think he's comfortable with gay people in the slightest.

[Chulanowa]

63. You may be right

But we both know that a campaigning politician is very different from an incumbent politician. I'm not going to pretend to be able to look into alternate universes here, but I think Clinton would probably stumble around on this issue as much as Obama. I'm also still not certain that if she had been the nominee, we would even be able to talk about a "President Hillary Clinton"... But, again, that's poking my nose into alternate universes.

I don't think Obama is comfortable with the GLBT community, either. Nor do I think he's antagonistic. Unfortunate fact is, a lot of otherwise good people of his generation simply have no clue how to approach the situation. Once again. I can clearly see he has a lot of room to improve in this area, no dispute.

But proposition 8 is not his fault. he does not deserve the majority of the anger being thrown at him about that. The judges who ruled on it do deserve that anger, but it really looks like nobody's interested in taking a break from the obama pinata to have a few whacks at the California Supreme Court one.

Maybe Obama just has better candy in him.

[Starry Messenger]

86. If you go back a few pages you will see the reactions.

There are threads on the Supremes from Tuesday when the court ruling went down. Obama was actually in California yesterday, so he was the topic under discussion. It isn't rocket science. It's the nature of a threaded forum where the topics move up and down from minute to minute, let alone day by day.

[riderinthestorm]

88. Clinton gave benefits to her State Dept same sex couples. She's already done more for GLBT couples

than Obama. While you can get into any kind of theoretical argument over how much Clinton may have done as president, I posit that she's already stepping up to the plate to the degree she can.

Obama has been seriously disappointing to the GLBT community - from the appointment of cabinet members, inaction on DADT, speaking out against gay marriage every time state referendums come up etc. etc. It's not just Prop 8 - it's an entire slew of issues. Obama's silence over Prop 8 is simply the straw that broke the camel's back in my opinion.

I'm not gay but I firmly agree with the GLBT community that they have a lot of reason to be angry and definitely support their speaking out, daily PLEASE! on this issue. Clearly there are plenty of DUers who don't get it. I say let the venting continue until everyone does.

[EFerrari]

114. The country, and DU as a microcosm, has come a long way imo

since the days when marriage v. civil unions was seriously argued. I sure didn't know the stakes at that time and I bet a lot of straight progressives didn't, either. The discussion seems to have been productive because there are gains being made all over the country. People are "getting it" and a rate that seems surprising in Rush Limbaugh's America.

Prop H8 itself probably pushed the discussion along and that backlash is exactly what those mofos deserved.

[Divine Discontent]

90. sadly... excellent post. I don't think he allows himself to accept that it's not a choice

I hate saying that, but it seems like that's the case. I believe he doesn't think GLBT people should be hurt, fired for being it, or anything stupid, because he's not mean like that, but I can't help but think like you, that he feels uneasy around Gay people (men OR women, and probably even more so those who are ambiguous). I don't even think about his sexuality (first time right here), because he's married and has kids - but, everyone has a unique sexuality. He could have had bisexual feelings at one time earlier in life, and he chose not to follow them because he felt it was wrong (he wouldn't be the first that feels JUST like that, I know two men who live that way, and judge GLBT because of their choice to not follow their attraction to another guy), and thereby might think it's all a choice and people are just 'screwed up'. Who knows... I have no idea what he feels however, and all I have to officially go on are his actions - he has allowed an anti-gay singer/preacher blather on about being healed from his being gay by God, while at a rally for the Obama campaign, he has made an off-color joke about getting an HIV test WITH Michelle when Joe said at the NAACP debate that people shouldn't be afraid to go get a test and that he & Barack had went (and half the audience chuckled - Sharpton didn't! good man) and been tested, and Barack had to make the wise-crack that, woh, I'm not gay, 'I went with MICHELLE', he has asked a blantantly anti-gay preacher to give the opening prayer at his INAUGURATION - he is against Gay marriage despite being of a mixed race, which in many states would make him an outcast and treated with contempt if he made advances on a white women - and still - he is very methodical in his tepid support of GLBT issues.


Sigh.... not what I was hoping for. I regret wanting him over Hillary when John dropped out.

[OhioBlue]

155. Well, there's more to every comment than

what we see and there is context and narrative in a person's mind that we can't always know. We can guess, but we don't know.

as far as his HIV test comments go... I have a guess as to what he meant just like you.

He was tested with Michelle on a trip to Kenya. He did this publicly when he was a Senator to use his celebrity to encourage Kenyans to be tested. We all know about the AIDS epidemic in Africa. We all know how important testing is and how reluctant many are to take the test. He did this as a public service and the health workers that were interviewed in the documentary stated that it was very important and would help their efforts.

So - the HIV epidemic in Africa may be the context in which he was thinking. My guess is that he made the comment about going with Michelle as more of a comment about not being someone who is unfaithful to their wife. I thought that b/c of recent scandals about politicians cheating on their wives.

[jaundicedi]

144. Kucinich, andb Gravel for starters.....

...you know, the real liberals that they made damn sure were marginalized at the beginning of the campaign. I am speaking here as a straight who has seen President Obama turn his back on the people who supported him on the Patriot Act, on warrantless wire taping, on torture, on war crimes in general and has seen him appoint more Bush cronies than progressives to government posts so far. I know that it is still early, but just for example, why the F#@k is the School of the Americas still open? You know, the place where we teach banana republic secret police how to torture union leaders?

[liquid diamond]

161. Well I'm sure your bitching and moaning won't encourage him.

I'm curious to know which gays here voted for Obama. Let's here it and explain why. At anytime during the campaign did Obama say he would immediately strike down DADT and become a fierce advocate for gay marriage? I believe you knew what you were getting when you went into the booth on 11/4/08.

[Toasterlad]

31. I Think the Point Is That None Of the Justices Are Black, But Obama Is.

Apparently, the gays are only mad at Obama cause we're all racists...even the black gays. Shit. I know they left something out of the agenda. Fuck. I didn't spend all this money for hair product to start wearing a hood everywhere. And...seriously...with the white robes? How fucking more unflattering could they be? Could we at LEAST get a rainbow pattern on the cuffs and at the hem?

Honestly.

[Starry Messenger]

33. Oh Toasty.

:hug: DU is nuts. This week has been horrible. Hell, evidently Lt. Choi and his supporters are easily mistaken for Armenians.

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

75. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[QC]

79. Announcing that you have alerted is also against the rules.

Do not say that you are hitting the alert link to report another member. -- http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules_detailed.html

[Chulanowa]

48. No. Read my later posts

There are certainly legitimate complaints against Obama in this. He could do more, and he isn't. But the fact is, he can't do what's apparently expected of him. He can't just declare equal marriage, even if he really wanted to. And yet for some goofy-ass reason, he's catching all the blame for proposition 8.

It kind of reminds me of after the results came in on Prop 8... and suddenly California's black voters caught the blame. Remember that, Toasterlad? Hell, I think that particular sack of bullshit was being thrown around here on DU for about a month. I sure as hell remember.

So let's see. Californian blacks catching all the blame for Prop 8, and now the black president catching the blame for the decision of a mostly-white panel of judges.

Do you want to explain to my wide brown ass exactly why I have no call to think this looks a mite peculiar?

[Toasterlad]

171. I'd Be Happy To.

First of all, Obama is certainly NOT "catching all the blame" for Prop 8. As others have pointed out, there were (and are) many people blaming the CA justices for it, in addition to the people of California themselves, who, let's face it, are REALLY to blame. Obama is catching shit because of what he promised to do, and what he isn't doing. Many people are (legitimately) upset with him over Prop 8 because he could have come out after the ruling and made a statement in defense of equality, and he chose not to do so...just as he has refused to comment on the recent successes in Iowa, Vermont, Maine, and New Hampshire. California is one more opportunity Obama had to step up to the plate, and he again chickened out.

I remember the Prop 8 black voter debate VERY well...and as I recall, there was plenty of overreacting on BOTH sides of that issue. There was a LOT of feeling in the air, obviously, but at the end of the day, reasonable people did not blame "California blacks" for Prop 8...they blamed the California blacks who voted YES, in addition to all the OTHER Californians who voted yes.

I'd like to believe that you don't REALLY believe that people are giving a pass to California's Justices because none of them are black, and attacking Obama because he IS. As you said yourself, there's plenty to attack Obama for. I don't consider it reasonable to believe in any way that gay people - who come in ALL races, btw - are attacking Obama because he's black. Frankly, I find such a suggestion insulting: it's dismissive of all the LEGITIMATE reasons to attack Obama's cowardice on these issues.

I hope my wide white ass has explained it sufficiently for you.

[Number23]

26. Damn!! You just laid it all out there, didn't you???

:wow: :wow:

I mean what makes it so that all this bitching is being directed at Barak instead of the people who actually decided the case?

Brother, that is the question of the year.

[Starry Messenger]

30. Maybe because he promised to use the bully pulpit to help?

:shrug: also see my post #29

[Number23]

32. I understand that and I don't even PROFESS to understand Obama's thinking on this

But your answer still doesn't address Chulanowa's question. And in my opinion, it is a VERY pertinent question.

[Starry Messenger]

34. Which question?

why no more spitballs at them? I thought I had addressed that with my comments on the national and international nature of the board. No on one here really pretends to care what happens in CA state legislature. I've met very few people here who even understand what prop 8 was about. It would be hard to imagine anyone else straight taking on an international or national interest in our CA supremes.

edit: sorry multiple typos

[Number23]

35. (sigh)

The question of Chulanowa's that I HIGHLIGHTED IN MY POST.

I mean what makes it so that all this bitching is being directed at Barak instead of the people who actually decided the case?

I don't mean to be grumpy. I'm sure that you are doing your best. This whole thing is making my toes itch. I appreciate your willingness to discuss this. Maybe I'll just go watch "Nigella Bites" and leave all this to people with oceans of patience, of which I have never been one.

[Starry Messenger]

37. I'm sorry.

I honestly thought I had answered. My toes are itchy too and I am sleepy here in the PST. G'night.

[Number23]

41. Night,night Starry...

If Nigella makes a particularly yummy recipe, I'll post it to you. :)

[AlbertCat]

148. The CA Supremes are so lame!

Their ruling screams "Oh bejesus! We don't want to deal with this!" So they came up with some fucked up "You can only marry between these dates and times" stupidity....trying to uphold BOTH sides, and neither. Spinelessness in action! The pretzel logic ruling will, however, keep the debate alive and actually force it to come up again (their plan?)....but not in their court! Pass the buck, Chuck!

[EFerrari]

36. Because he has his own part in this problem.

[Chulanowa]

50. Could you be a little more vague?

I almost caught a glimmer of a point there. Perhaps you could throw in some euphemisms, maybe even an obtuse metaphor or - be still my beating heart - a few Latin phrases?

[EFerrari]

58. You sound too exhausted to take in anything more specific.

And I've gone on at length in other threads. Take or leave it :)

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

49. I don't understand the point of the pictures (with captions)

Please explain.

[Chulanowa]

52. The captioned picture...

Is the current bench of the California Supreme court. All of them except Moreno ruled in favor of denying equal marriage to gay people.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

56. Yes, I'm aware of that

I don't understand the point of putting their picture and Obama's pictures together with captioning. The only way I can see is that you're saying, he's catching flak just because of racism, which is just bullshit.

[Chulanowa]

61. No, I'm saying it's why he's catching MORE flak

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, there's plenty of reason to put the iron to Obama's feet. I'm not trying to deny that at all.

However, he's near the bottom of the heap as far as blame for prop 8 goes. I'm sure you know this. The six judges have WAY more blame to catch. The California legislature has a lot of heat as well. The governor of California should be catching his share. The Mormons should be getting chewed up by all that flak, long before any reaches president Obama.

But... that's not what's happening at all. Nobody's talking about the judges. There's no railing against the California legislature. Nobody's bitching about Arnie. The Mormons are catching a little, at least. But by and far, the largest measure is being aimed at Obama. To read some of the posts, you would think he penned proposition 8 himself.

When I try to figure out the reasons for this... I can't come up with anything logical. The blame being thrown at obama is vastly out of proportion to his actual role in this fiasco, WAY out of proportion, while the people most responsible are the ones catching the least blame. That is, in two words, FUCKING BIZARRE. Now in the absense of logical reasons, I have to look at the pile of illogical, irrational reasons there might be for this.

Racism's right on top of that pile.

Are all the people flinging poo at Obama doing so solely because he's black? Not by far. But I do sense a racial subtext in the fact he's catching disproportionate blame, while the six very fair-skinned judges who made this ruling are getting away very quietly.

[EFerrari]

62. There's more at stake here than only Prop H8.

And unless you have something to point to, I'd hold off on calling out a racist "subtext" to anything that has been said on this issue. For one thing, the has been plenty of anger directed at the Court and for another, just because in your infinite wisdom you can't make sense out of the situation, that doesn't mean there is no sense there.

[Chulanowa]

64. I've pointed to it. And I've been explaining it.

If you disagree with it, that's one thing, fine, I'm just expressing how things look to me. But please don't act as if I haven't presented myself.

If you want to criticize someone's wisdom and sense, perhaps you should move upthread a little ways and handle the dipshits and dumbfucks who are asserting Obama is worse than Bush. Unless, as Missy might suggest, you are supporting htem with your silence?

I have not seen "plenty of anger" directed at the court. How much is "plenty"? And why is so much more than "plenty" being directed at Obama? These are my questions. I can understand if you disagree or dislike the most obvious conclusion I found. if you could supply me with a better one, an answer to the question of why Barack "WORSE THAN BUSH!!!!" Obama is catching so much flack, and the six Supreme court judges get a "who are they?" response, I would love to hear it. i'm no happier with my conclusion than anyone else, but it seems the most likely.

[EFerrari]

68. How did you miss the twenty FUCK THE CA SUPREMES! threads

in the last two days? Or all the threads wishing California ill or recommending we all boycott it or move out of the state?

If you really do have so little information and your first impulse is to find racism in this, I don't know what to tell you.

I know your conclusion is bullshit because I have been following these threads. And I caught a bunch of flak for debunking the whole "the black voters did H8" which was pushed hard by the media on very upset people. But there has been none of that here and it would be nice if you would look at some of the threads posted since Tuesday before you re-ignite that conflict. Just search "Fuck" and "California". I'm sure you'll find plenty of reading material.

[Starry Messenger]

85. Thank you for putting it so well.

Do we have to repost all the threads from Tuesday and beyond? People should know how this board works by now. If I haven't been here for a few days I always go back a few pages to catch up on the issues. Otherwise it's easy to get egg on your face if you're not all caught up.

[Neecy]

84. this is ridiculous

First of all, I don't blame Obama for Prop 8. He did make a lukewarm effort to oppose it, although his 'one-man, one-woman' quote was sent out on robocalls to voters by the Yes on 8 group before election day. All in all, that's a wash although I wish he was more open-minded about marriage equality.

Should he have addressed the issue in Beverly Hills the other night? I wish he had. Many of us - myself included - volunteered for his campaign, gave him money, stood in the rain on caucus night to vote for him. I honestly believed he'd be more open-minded about our issues, and I also believed he'd get us out of Iraq sooner than Hillary. And I liked the guy. In many ways I still do. But his silence the other night was symbolic. It would have taken so little to make a brief remark giving us 'hope'...but we're not bankers, or AIG, I guess. Never underestimate the power of symbolism. Obama certainly does, and we got nothing.

But aside from Prop 8, do you know that most of the protesters outside were advocating the quick repeal of DADT, which WAS a very specific campaign promise? Did you go to the Political Videos forum and watch Lt. Dan Choi's very powerful speech outside of the Beverly Hilton? So putting up photos of the California Supreme Court really isn't all that accurate. That's not the sole issue at stake here.

And finally, if this board had been around during the Clinton administration you would have seen FAR, FAR more criticism of Bill Clinton. It would have made the criticism of Obama look like a sea of love. Talk about screwed! I also volunteered for Clinton's first campaign, gave him money, listened to his promises and then watched him triangulate and pander and sign DOMA - unforgiveable - and DADT. These were betrayals and I was far more angry with him than I've been so far with Obama. So please don't try to silence us or shut down debate by using racism. It's a horrible tactic and completely unfair.

[Moonwalk]

115. It's not Racism, per se. It's that he's not a superhero. And he's not being MLK.

Dude. I completely agree with your point that Obama is getting more hits from this than those deserving. And your point is very well taken in the fact that our enemies, the real enemies, are delighted when we do this. When we tear down our allies (however tepid) instead of going after the real bad guys. We really do have to unite against those who funded Prop. 8 and helped pass it, not those in power who are nominally, if not enthusiastically, on our side. A house divided can't stand. If we divide ourselves, then the enemy will win. Unfortunately, there is not, as yet, a gay MLK to focus and direct all this rage against the right target. Part of the anger at Obama is that he isn't willing to play that role.

But it's more than that. And yes, it is a sort of racism, but not the kind you're thinking of. It falls in line with casting Native Americans as noble savages, and blacks as "Magic Negros." It's the same reason that blacks got flack after voting against Prop. 8. The way the thinking goes is something like this: Black folks have suffered. Black folks understand discrimination. Black folks, from what we see in movies, are supposed to be wise, magical and make things better because of this understanding. They aren't supposed to be ignorant and bigoted. They aren't supposed to be tepid. Especially when they go on and on about this historic president who represents their overcoming so much discrimination....

You offered a good example of the man who breaks your nose, vs. the guy who does nothing. But you didn't go far enough in the example. Imagine that the guy who does nothing has spent years telling you, "I used to get busted in the nose every day. And people out there just watched it happen! No one should have to suffer thought that! We should all fight against nose busters!" Now, you get hit in the nose and he does nothing. And you, angry at the nose buster, are also pissed at your friend there. "Why," you ask, "Didn't you help me. This is just like what happened to you!" And he says, "It's not the same at all. There's no comparison."

I think that, yes, there is a sort of racism happening here. But it's not because gays are hating on blacks. It's because they are disappointed that so many blacks are doing to gays what was done to them and insisting that it's "different." Even here on the DU there was a long argument about comparing gay civil rights to black civil rights, and the person who posted that thread said they felt insulted when gays made that comparison. Taking a bust in the nose is painful and hard. Taking it and then hearing from someone whose suffered the same that you're NOT suffering what they suffered, that maybe they, too, will bust you in the nose...well, that's going to get a very visceral reaction. Logic and common sense are going to fly out the window.

A guy who hates you and busts your nose, that you expect, and it may hurt your nose, but not break your heart. Those you supported in the past, and who you thought would support or understand you in similar circumstance, but then they don't...that breaks your heart. Because it makes you feel that you are on your own. You can only rely on yourself to fight against this enemy. It's not logical, but you will be angrier at your "friend" and hold an longer and more lasting grudge against them than your enemy. You didn't trust the enemy. You trusted the friend. Yes?

[EFerrari]

116. What you are describing is not racism. No one is expecting Obama

to be "magic" as far as I can tell.

You're very right when you point out that no one can disappoint us as deeply as someone we thought was an ally or a friend or at minimum,someone who told us he was on our side. That's why Obama's phrase "fierce advocate" is repeated here. But, those are his words, not some magical thinking on anyone's part.

[Moonwalk]

133. Energy needs to be directed where it will make a difference. We squander it--

If we waste it on someone who we feel, but don't know for sure, is failing to live up to his promises. Obama's "fierce advocate" for example, might, to him mean quiet negation with intractable enemies behind closed doors, but not in public which would only drive those enemies from the table and end negotiations. Perhaps he is living up to that promise just not in the way you define it. But assuming you are dead right, and his assertion that he'd be a "fierce advocate" is, indeed, a lie, then, of course, we have every right to take him to task. But the argument here isn't whether Obama needs to be taken to task for anything. It's whether or not we should let our disappointment in him, justified or not, redirect our rage from our enemies to him.

The rage and energy to fight must not be squandered. Turning it on Obama is squandering it because it eases the pressure off the Mormons, the court system, those who voted in Prop. 8 and could be talked into regretting that and repealing it. It squanders energy that could be put into passing gay marriage laws in other states, into voting in judges who might be fair, or creating pro-gay television spots or supporting liberal churches in opposition to fundie churches.

Let me put this another way. Everywhere Obama goes, there are protesters outside. Everywhere. Signs and shouts about abortion and taxes as well as those demanding he keep his promises. It's very likely that they blur together. Okay, now think about this. Until Prop. 8 there'd never been a protest outside the Mormon Church in L.A. There was a huge one after Prop. 8, and it scared the shit out of the Mormons. So. You have a group of energized protesters. And you can use them to apply pressure to someone or something to achieve your goal. Are you going to send them to a dinner with the president and mingle with the protesters against abortion and taxes? Or outside a key place where there have never before been protesters? That, in the end, is all that matters to me. Where and how will pressure make the MOST difference? I don't think that putting it on Obama is the optimal place to achieve much of anything. But why don't you tell me. If I gave you a group of protesters on this issue, and you could put them anywhere, where would you put them to get the most bang for your buck?

[EFerrari]

140. That's easy. I'd put them outside the Arch Diocese here in San Francisco

to put the puppeteer who organized the whole Prop H8 strategy under scrutiny. Niederauer outsourced the cost and bad PR to the Mormons and also, to the black electorate here in California -- with great success. I'd bust that manipulator and make him the subject of conversation for as long as possible. That would deflate the biggest center of power here in California.

But it would be a mistake to lay off Obama. He himself said he expected feedback, remember? And this issue is not special to California. It's national and it's moving fast. So maybe I'd take half of the pool and set them to work getting his attention.

It's not personal. It's politics.

[Chulanowa]

121. That makes a lot of sense

It's not too far from what I was getting at (I wasn't at all saying "gays hate blacks," just noting that there seemed to be some sort of racial thing here) and you provide a pretty clear explanation of the viewpoint.

Thanks.

[EFerrari]

141. It doen't make any sense to say that a public promise

has somehow morphed into magical thinking by the people who heard that promise.

That's just rationalization, sorry.

[ecstatic]

54. You may have struck a nerve

I also believe Hillary Clinton would be getting far less daily outrage with exactly the same circumstances.

[Chulanowa]

65. I'd be a shitty dentist

But hey. It is a pretty damn unpleasant conclusion, and I'd really like a different one. Maybe I am just tired, but for the life of me, I can't figure out why hte judges are getting surly glares while Obama is getting a full broadside cannonade.

[mitchtv]

158. You think that it is all about prop 8

That is your mistake. Obama came to Calif after 8 . He has been assiduously avoiding any Gay issue Like his promises DADT & DOMA .NO bully pulpit no nothing but a lame Joke about IA. Look, nerves are raw with HOmophobes all over and "allies" telling us to shut up and wait. Come to the Beverly Hilton for a fundraiser and ignore a constituency that supported you? expect some grief. as for Arnold? he stayed out of it , timidly supporting the No side. As of today, no comment on VT ME and all the other things that happened. the Gay service man was waiting for him too before he gets fired

[treestar]

132. Even they decided according to what they think is the law

California and its initiative system suck, but it exists and the Cal. S. Ct. cannot pretend it does not and just rule how they want.

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TahitiNut]

24. DU's very own form of McCarthyism.

:puke:

[omega minimo]

39. Funny the gender related allegiances

you pick and choose.

[QC]

74. The cluelessness of privilege.

:puke:

[Missy Vixen]

22. The GLBT people are tired of sitting in the back of the bus

Their concerns are always "we'll work on that later". It's "an election year". It's always an excuse. Uh, no. If their right to a legal marriage ceremony, their right to serve in our military, and their right to live harassment-free in this country don't get done in the first year of the Obama administration, it won't happen at all.

They deserve the same civil rights the rest of us enjoy, and they deserve to have those civil rights protected.

[omega minimo]

40. oh no you di n't

"back of the bus" :wow:

[Missy Vixen]

57. So, if you think I used the incorrect phrase, why don't you help me find a better one?

What would you call it?

Their rights and their concerns have been ignored for years now. Is that fair?

[Lost-in-FL]

119. Under the bus maybe?

with the atheists.

[AtheistCrusader]

109. Might not be the best expression for the situation

but they are certainly getting the separate but unequal treatment.

[treestar]

129. But every group has had that happen in the past

Changing society takes time.

[Rhythm]

139. Yep... we've just gotta 'wait', right?

Dr. King was on to something, i believe. "For years now I have heard the word ‘Wait,’... This ‘Wait’ has almost always meant ‘Never.’"

But we in the GLBT community hear it time and again, because Dr. King's words fell on the ears of the last generation, which has gone deaf to how those words might apply to those of us still struggling to be seen as 'equal' under the law.

Wait, because it's too soon... (fill in politician's name here) jsut got into office.

Wait, because it's getting close to the mid-term elections...

Wait, because (fill in the blank) is running for re-election, and these issues are divisive...

Wait... wait... wait...

An meanwhile, it's OUR families who suffer -- not yours -- as we wait for when the time is right for politicians like Obama (such a 'fierce advocate, unless he has to actually DO something), or our fair-weather allies (here and elsewhere) to actually rise up with us and press for the equality that is supposed to be ours under the US Constitution.

I'm not waiting any longer... i am NOT a second-class citizen to be used as a convenient source of votes and campaign contributions, only to be cast aside and told to 'wait' later when i'm not convenient any longer.

[Missy Vixen]

168. So, in other words, they can just wait?

>Changing society takes time.<

How much longer should they have to wait? Four years? Ten years? Twenty? How would you like to be told that it'll "take time" to have YOUR family legally recognized?

Go ahead. I love listening to others whose civil rights are intact tell another group they'll just have to "wait". We won't even go into the fact that President Obama was more than happy to take their votes and their campaign contributions, but has kept NONE of his promises to the GLBT community.

[NMMNG]

38. Thank you

And it might help if people would remember we're not just "posters from the GLBT forum" but we're DUers, we're Progressives and we're fellow human beings. It hurts when we get demeaned and shat upon constantly for merely asking for what we deserve--things we should have had long ago. These are our lives we're talking about here, not "pet issues".

[npk]

43. I wish I had worded that differently

I would go back and change it but I cannot edit my post any longer. I realized after going back and reading it that the line "posters from the GLBT forum" did sound like I was making the reference "those people". Like "those people in that other forum". Obviously I did not mean it to sound that way. I wish I had worded a little better. I hope most people realize that that's not the message I intending to make.

But you are absolutely right NMMNG. Thanks.

[EFerrari]

45. You did fine.

:thumbsup:

[npk]

53. Thanks EFerrari

:fistbump:

[NMMNG]

47. I didn't mean you specifically

I was speaking in broad terms. It's all too frequent that we get that "you people" sort of response any time we raise our voices. It's disheartening and frustrating. But I thank you again for your post. :hi:

[omega minimo]

67. b/c your OP has 31 recs

:toast:

[Chovexani]

69. Thanks.

:hug:

[cboy4]

70. :)

Error: You've already recommended that thread.

[mahina]

71. Parade here Saturday,

and the equal rights group emails have all the right political fundraiser dates so EVERYBODY can go say Aloha to the individuals who feel that only some people are ok to wed.

Lots to do, lots of momentum. We are going to elect a Governor here who is going to work for equal rights, promise!

[EFerrari]

107. Sounds great!

:hi:

[jimlup]

72. I object to...

"you cannot possibly know what it feels like". People who claim to have some kind of corner on special feelings that others can't share always grate on me.

I basically agree with this post but I'm always offended by statements like that. Nobody has a special corner on "feelings". That's just wrong. Empathy is possible. It is a basic human response. We all can empathize and we have all had remarkably hard times and gone through difficult things. Don't ever tell me I "cannot possibly know what it feels like". You're wrong, I can.

[sofa king]

73. We need a nightly cynicism wrap-up.

It could be under various headings, like:

How the GLBTs Got Screwed Over Today

How the Poor and Minorities Got Screwed Over Today

What Foreign Country Got Screwed Over by America Today

What Corporations Screwed Over America Today

Today's Lie From the Former Bush Administration

Which Bush Administration Whistleblower Died Unexpectedly Today

How Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are Responsible for Republican Crimes Today

[Deep13]

78. I think the GLBT critics of POTUS are right.

For my own self, I still generally agree with him, but I think he should have at least backed a Federal nondiscrimination bill that includes repealing of DADT. And I'm annoyed about giving a pass on torture.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

80. Great post

But why in so many words was I accused of being anti gay because I didn't list Obama's supposed failure on LGBT issues at the top of the things that trouble me about the Obama admin?

[lies and propaganda]

82. because just like in America

we are second class citizens on DU too.. always told the same republican bullshit of 'get over it."

[Gman]

87. but it just keeps going on, and on, and on, and on, and on...

I don't think anyone minds allowing someone to vent. They get to vent all they want. Unfortunately, many are pretty inconsiderate about just how annoying it's starting to be because, as far as they're concerned, there is no other issue that is as important or matters as much in the entire course of world, or even the entire solar system or galaxy.

[Forkboy]

89. Your mocking their concerns is part of the problem, Gman.

You have your rights. You won't lose your job for being straight, you aren't denied over a 1,000 rights that married people get because you're straight. This is their very lives. They live this each and every day. Can't you find it in you to try to understand why this is their most important issue? And also understand why mocking that very valid concern is totally wrong? How can you say you support them (I'm assuming you do want equal rights) but then not even try to understand why they're so sensitive? :shrug:

It is their most important issue, and it should be. What's happening to them is 100% wrong, and we need to try a lot harder to understand where they're coming from. Are you saying that all the issues that concern you are equal? You must have one issue that stands out the most for you, be it The Constitution, Gun Control, whatever. So why mock others for having a concern that they give a higher priority to, one that effects every single facet of their lives?

[Gorobei]

120. So wait, their right to visit their loved on in a hospital is more important than habeus corpus? N/T

[Gman]

122. Thank you, and the defense rests!

[Forkboy]

125. No, it doesn't.

Why are you making this an either/or equation? How would you feel if people called your concern over habeus corpus "inconsiderate", or a pet issue, as others have called gay rights? How about you just try to understand their position and try to help them understand yours? It's not hard to do. :shrug:

[Gman]

156. No, it's not hard to do

and when I do, gay rights aren't even in the same ballpark as habeus corpus, war crimes, crimes against humanity, unjust war, the absolute looting of the treasury and much more. We're talking people disappearing here with no compulsion to even let someone know they're being detained. We're talking a country literally stolen blind. It's not even a close call.

[Forkboy]

159. Then how about just a little simple respect for their concerns?

Nevermind, you already answered.

It's not even a close call.

[Starry Messenger]

160. Oh well, at least he's keeping the thread kicked.

I'm never quite sure why people who are oh-so-not-interested post in threads like these.

[Gman]

163. I have respect for their concerns

as their concerns are perfectly legitimate issues that need to be addressed. However, they're concerns are not the sole reason we elected Obama and their concerne sare by no means the only concernes deserving of any attention.

[Duncan Grant]

165. Again, I'll remind you that I have had my civil equality revoked. Have you been through that?

Let's face it, you're so ignorant of gay and lesbian lives that you can't see how our struggle is related to your own.

Guess this 'big tent' Democratic party thing isn't your cup of tea, eh?

[Forkboy]

124. Why should it be either/or?

Why not try the understand the people who are concerned about both?

And there's literally over a 1,000 other rights married couples have, so it's a little more than a simple matter of a hospital visit.

[QC]

126. Because the either/or fallacy is a great way to dismiss/trivialize people's concerns.

How can I care about you losing your jobs when there are so many cure, curly-haired children with cancer? Do you really think that you are more important than they are?

[Forkboy]

127. Some complain about pet issues, then turn around and promote theirs.

:crazy:

[QC]

130. Exactly!

Here's a radical idea: maybe there is a larger category of concerns--we can call it something like "human rights"--now stay with me, I know this is crazy--and maybe that "human rights" category can encompass both habeas corpus and equality.

Like, whoa, dude! Pretty freaky, eh?

[NorthernSpy]

135. There's a difference between promoting your interests...

... and pouring your energy into vilifying, harassing, and censoring everyone whose priorities are different from yours.

[Forkboy]

146. To me, you pour as much villification and harrasment on the gay community here.

And who has been censored here?

[NorthernSpy]

162. I believe in the rules here, and I try to remain civil with those who disagree with me.

Certainly not claiming perfect conduct, but I do try. The fact that you don't like some of my opinions doesn't mean that my expressing those opinions is tantamount to my vilifying or harassing you or anyone else.


I'm sure you know which small handful of individuals -- and what sort of behavior -- I was alluding to. Those individuals are not "The Gay Community", regardless of whether some of them may like to promote themselves as such. And their behavior doesn't represent the gay community, either, even if you think it does.

[Duncan Grant]

164. Lesbian and gay people in California have had their civil equality revoked. Obama says nothing.

You shame yourself when you trivialize gay people as you do in your post.

One would think you would have every reason to ally with gay people if habeus corpus is your complaint.

[riderinthestorm]

93. I think the time for them to go on and on and on is now.

Agitating for your rights should never be "annoying" to progressives. For the GLBT community, this is their time and they've been told since, well, forever that they're being "inconsiderate" for getting annoyed at being sent to the back of the bus cuz, well, other issues are more important.

This argument is infuriating.

[Starry Messenger]

98. "Inconsiderate?"

Wow...Just. Wow. I don't even know where to start.

[QC]

99. That's what privilege sounds like. n/t

[Starry Messenger]

112. Yep.

I wonder about the poor souls who had to listen to the whiny-ass suffragettes back in the day. What a torment!

[QC]

113. Didn't they know how annoying their whining was? Those high pitched voices?

Why couldn't they wait and let the menfolk deal with more important issues?

[Starry Messenger]

117. Just look at these shameless harridens.

What self-absorbed haters they were! They probably brought on the Great Depression with their endless bother.

[QC]

118. How inconsiderate! n/t

[treestar]

131. They are doing something, not venting, and they aren't blaming

the current President at that time for not moving society forward singlehandedly.

[kiva]

167. Check your history...suffragettes certainly picked in front of the

White House, calling for Woodrow Wilson to support enfranchisement for women--Iron Jawed Angels is a good place to start. And yes, Obama DOES deserves criticism for his silence on the issue of GLBT rights.

[Name removed]

100. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[EFerrari]

103. There were some people who felt exactly the same way abut that annoying King guy.

He just wouldn't shut up.

[Bluebear]

106. What a fierce fighter for freedom you are. Crying here.

"inconsiderate about just how annoying it's starting to be"

Wow.

[BlooInBloo]

91. Doesn't mean people get to make shit up.

[EFerrari]

92. That same or similar posts were on well knwn sites yesterday

Most of them moderated their response after more facts came in and on reflection, like Andrew Sullivan for example. I haven't checked Americablog but Towleroad did the same thing.

So the poster to DU did not "make shit up" but posted something from a website that is usually very reliable.

[BlooInBloo]

95. Any post after the video was linked counts as making shit up.

[BlooInBloo]

96. "Thanks to GarySF for posting the video in the comments. This actually makes it worse."...

There's AmericaBlog's "moderation".

http://www.americablog.com/2009/05/obama-jokes-about-gay-protesters-asking.html

[EFerrari]

101. Now you're "making shit up" as I specified that I hadn't checked John's blog.

But I will now. He may be right, he usually is.

ETA: And I agree, as usual, with John. The Obama White House does need an intervention. They are massively blowing their response to the front line of civil rights today in this country. Thanks for pointing me to his post.

[NorthernSpy]

128. AMEN!

Thank you for saying that!

[EFerrari]

134. None of the blogs that put that story up yesterday set out to "make shit up".

When the White House doesn't lead, what people are left with is interpretation. The White House needs to clarify its message.

[NorthernSpy]

136. They automatically leapt at what they perceived as a opportunity to demonize Obama.

So why should the rest of us turn the other cheek and automatically assume the best about them?

[Starry Messenger]

137. Is your name Barack Obama?

Why do you identify yourself with the President? Curious to me. Several people do it here. Every perceived "slight" to the President is taken as a personal offense by posters here. It's an interesting phenomenon.

[EFerrari]

138. No. When you assign motives like that

I think you're misreading what happened, NorthernSpy.

In the absence of better information, a group of blogs tried to read the situation. That's what happened here.

There's no need to turn even one cheek. Clearly, the message out of the White House needs to be cleaned up. I mean, to come to any major venue in California this week should have automatically meant dealing with the Prop 8 decision. That's just common sense. Even Harry Truman on his post-presidential road trip knew enough to bone up on local issues before he rolled into any town.

And the issue of equal marriage rights isn't exactly limited to any small town, is it.

When people don't have enough information, they prepare themselves for the worst case - maybe that's a better way to put it.

Most of the blogs that put up the story went back and revised their post but not all of them. Some of them seemed to think ignoring the decision was even worse than joking about it. I can't disagree with that.

There are people who capitalize on random events to demonize Obama, I agree. This wasn't one of those times to the best of my knowledge. I haven't seen any of the gratuitous cr@p that we can expect from that kind of opportunism.

People are fighting for their right to live as citizens with equal rights. These people don't have the luxury to take the POV that you are assuming. fwiw

[nvme]

94. On the record

President Obama's performance has been mixed. True there has been no great undertaking on his part regarding DADT for the military but, he did extend benefits to the partners of gay members of the State Department. The significance of this policy change should be noted. As I recall he doesn't make a move unless he knows he can make progress. He is using his capital to stabilize markets,banks,health-care reform. He did promise to overturn DADT but he also has to make sure he has his military commanders on board. That's why the military is studying the issue. Remember he is trying to make an oil tanker do a 180 degree turn and that moves slow.

[Dystopian]

102. KandR.

Thank you.

peace~

[jeff47]

104. Perhaps we should consider the long-term

Perhaps we should consider some of the long-term effects of the situation.

First, "Gay Marriage"* will be the law of the land. We've reached a tipping point, and it will happen.

That's not to say there isn't some very motivated reactionary folks who are trying to reverse the tide with a teaspoon. As demonstrated by the passage of prop 8, those folks can and do spend a lot of money and get a lot of people to vote. But that was back when they were the only ones massively energized and the only ones operating a massive grass-roots operation.

So prop 8 passes and what happens? Well, the anger and outrage greatly damages the reactionary groups, and causes a lot of folks to get off the sidelines and start fighting for "Gay Marriage" because of prop 8. Perhaps if we fix that problem now, many will go home instead of continuing the fight. Because the problem is 'solved'.

I realize I'm not the one getting discriminated against, so I'm not experiencing the down-side. But the existence of prop 8 and the fight over it is extremely useful in the other 49 states. In my current state (NY) "Gay Marriage" was basically off the table until prop 8 passed. Now it's at the forefront. Maybe it's best to live with the crappy situation in CA for a couple years in order to get a few more states on board. As more and more folks see "Gay Marriage" as just marriage, the opposition to it becomes more and more irrational and easier to destroy.



*I'm using the term "Gay Marriage" because that's what many people describe this fight as. It's really about equality and equal treatment under the law, but that's a lot longer to type.

[Orsino]

110. I think we ought to minimize *every* historically persecuted group's concerns. Daily, if possible.

:eyes:

[vanbean]

111. What flame wars are you talking about?

[rhett o rick]

123. Flame wars are started and continued because people love it.

There would be no such thing if people just ignored the flame baiters.

[urgk]

142. Honestly, I think it's a matter of tone.

There is an enormous difference between posts which criticize the President's actions based on rational, thoughtful discourse (even those tinged with anger) and posts which denounce the President as a traitor, a corporatist, a coward, a homophobe, a Bush-lite, etc.

Of course DUers can be angry. Even at members of their own party. And they should act on that anger with political savvy -- by calling our Senators, writing our representatives, organizing protests designed to change public opinion. But the moment they begin to undermine the integrity of the administration, to declare the elections pointless, to dismiss our party in its entirety, they are doing more to hurt the cause than to help.

We need everyone we can to push forward -- toward prosecutions of the Bush administration, toward greater economic regulation, toward more affordable health care, toward care for returning veterans, toward greater social equality, toward decreased spending on military pet projects, toward better public education, toward higher national goals in terms of morality and the advancement of science, toward, in short, traditional Democratic ideals. The divisive tantrums, the Chicken Little "sky is falling" tirades, the Survivor-like attempts at alliance building through emotional extortion, have all got to stop.

As I see it, no one gets a free pass in this. Everyone is deeply angry and fundamentally connected to some political or social injustice. Some of us have seen family and friends economically and spiritually destroyed. Some of us have seen communities devastated and entire socio-economic strata left for dead. All of us have seen the erosion of our basic constitutional rights on behalf of people whose wealth and power override ther basic humanity. If we all allow ourselves to wallow in it, to degrade the level of discourse, to fling angry sound bites that are easily dismissed by those in charge, we will, collectively, go nowhere, screaming our damn fool heads off the whole way.

[BlooInBloo]

149. Yup, and everybody knows it.

[ScreamingMeemie]

150. Sorry. I have seen threads that have only asked why, that have

asked thoughtful, intelligent questions shot down by those who are blinded. I wish it were just the few, but it isn't. The events of the past week or so are disgusting on this board.

[LostinVA]

151. +1

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

166. +2

:loveya:

[bluedawg12]

169. +3 n/t

[Toasterlad]

173. Exactly. For Every Post Overflowing With Venom for Obama, Congress, et al...

...there are THREE from people saying that there is no reason to be angry, that Obama is blameless, that we must "wait and see". The real problem isn't the angry people: angry people are what make change happen. The real problem is the people who try to excuse that anger, to enable the inaction of the administration and Congress. The people who have forgotten that in a democracy, you are SUPPOSED to be critical of your leaders, that you do NOT blindly follow along like sheep.

Suggestions about what to do with our anger are fine. Condemnations of those who choose to rant and rave - at whoever - are NOT fine. The ranters and ravers have their place as well, and get MUCH more attention than a subdued letter to a congressman expressing disappointment. Give me an angry protest in Obama's face over a tepid LTTE any day.

They have to hear us if we want them to change.

[QC]

174. Very true. And there's something very ugly about privileged people complaining about the "tone"

when those who are not privileged stand up for themselves.

"Muffy, why are those poor people always so angry? Don't they know it's vulgar to shout?"

[Number23]

170. Very nice post. Thanks for that.

[ooglymoogly]

143. indeed kr

[DutchLiberal]

152. Proud to give this thread its 60th recommendation.

From the pioneering country in gay marriage, with love...

[and-justice-for-all]

153. There is nothing funny about being a second class citizen..

which, until I have full equal rights, I will remain seen as such.

[JNelson6563]

154. I'm glad I've missed it.

Been very busy in recent months and don't see a whole lot of DU these days. Not surprised to read what's going on though. There are always flamewars going on here nowadays, the topics rotate but the cyclical behavior doesn't.

Julie

[Lyric]

172. There is a contingent of people here who never miss a chance to criticize uppity gay people.

I have no idea why these particular people have such hard feelings against us, but it's hurtful and more than a little sad, since we're all supposed to be liberals together here. I used to think it was merely over-protectiveness of the new President, but I don't think that anymore.

That being said--I'd bet the farm that, if we were all having these discussions in PERSON, few people (if anyone) would DARE to tell us that our civil rights and lives are "not a priority" out loud. It's a lot harder to look at real, live, flesh-and-blood people who are suffering and tell them that you really don't think their pain is vitally important right now.

[sniffa]

175. Thanks for this

:thumbsup: