To LGBT DUers: Just something to consider and I would like to know your opinion after reading it.

[tom_paine]

First, a little background. I am a straight long-time DUer who has never really spent much time in the LGBT forum and usually stayed away from LGBT topics, except when I have felt very strongly about something in particular to voice my support for LGBT issues.

I would never have had the confidence to post here (without my flame retardant undies, anyway) because this is an intense and "bare-knuckle" forum with many passionate people who pull no rhetorical punches and stand strong in their beliefs. I happen to like that attitude, so maybe it's a wonder I haven't come down here much.

But I digress, my point is that recently, a few very nice LGBT DUers have said some very nice things to me, about how I never try to judge LGBTs or tell LGBTs to be quiet or not be upset when you have a perfect right to be. I just stand with you in quiet but firm support and I hope understanding, too.

Nobody chose to be gay anymore than I chose to be straight. It just happend one day, at puberty. I am certain that gay people can't "turn straight" any more than I could convince myself to start getting attracted to hairy tuchuses if I so chose.

Those are my "bona fides", and before I get on to the meat of my point I wish to submit to the LGBT community at DU, I want to make it clear that...

I am NOT telling LGBT to be silent "for the sake of the Party".

I am NOT telling LGBTs that their feelings of hurt and betrayal are wrong, because they aren't, IMHO.

I AM making a point I recently considered and asking what the DU LGBT community thinks of my reasoning.

The only thing I am going to ask LGBT responders to this poll is to please try to analyze my assertion while putting aside as much as is possible, your quite justified feelings of hurt and betrayal, and tell me what you think of my thought strictly on it's own merits.

I know it's hard to think clearly when you're pissed or hurting inside. It happens to me and everyone. Try to do so, anyway, please.

OK, FINALLY, here is the thought I had and what do you think about it LGBT DUers?

The thought is what you'd call an "alternate hypothesis" to all the post-election Obama moves like most of his appointments, Warren, etc. (of which I have been a part of the "Obama angst", though I refuse to condemn him or otherwise go off the deep end before he has even taken office).

The alternative hyposthesis I speak of is that Obama may be a brilliant FDR/Lincoln-type political strategist who is that rarest of rare birds, especially these days in the USA...a person who truly wants to mend and heal, and knows very well the tough course he has to take and is thinking better and further down the road than any of us here on DU.

Now, that is by far the most optimistic interpretation, but watching the results, even early indication make this a more likely scenario than it ever has been since the Bushies most-likely killed JFK, RFK, and MLK. Apologies to the LGBTs on DU. I am NOT dismissing your feelings of betrayal, just stating certain possible strategio-political facts.

Remember FDR did NOT campiagn on The New Deal in 1933.

Plus, if this most optimistic scenario IS true, Obama seems like he betrayed LGBTs today, but it will result in a brighter future for all LGBTs down the line.

That's IF the most optimistic interpretation is true, and that is not certain. But I am coming to see that it may be more possible than I thought. Only time will tell.

====================================================================================

So, there it is. Maybe, just maybe, even though we hate it and think it wrong, Obama is thinking five-steps ahead of even we DUers with stuff like Warren (yes, we finally have a president who is MUCH SMARTER than us instead of just MUCH CRUELER, so these things are once again possible) and that in the end, crazily enough, this betrayal with Warren will in the long-run benefit LGBTs.

I know it sounds a little nuts, but think of the Emancipation Proclamation. You think enslaved African-Americans in the South (especially if they'd had the anonymous internet to bitch on like we do) didn't feel a little betrayed by the fact that THEY weren't freed, only Border State slaves, in 1863?

But, did the smart strategy of the Emancipation Proclamation not benefit the cause of African-American Freedom in the long-term, in spite of the short-term betrayal of leaving African-Americans in Redfederacy still enslaved?

Something to think about.

OK, I have said my piece. Now I would like to know what the LBGT community think about my assertions.

[xchrom]

1. i voted for him -- but i am skeptical and wary of obama.

he genuinely seems to USE lgbtiq people -- with the advantage of being able to take it back
with impunity.

[Zuiderelle]

2. Even if your most optimistic scenario turns out to be true, we still should object to Warren and to

Obama for making the decision to include him. I think it is our protest that would be the main thing that would convince Obama to actually do the right thing in the end. Without our protest, I believe that Obama might take it as a sign that we are not a group that he has to worry about, or care about. He hasn't given much indication that he actually does support our equality, since he's repeatedly said that he is against gay marriage.

I think presidential policies are living things that change based on the reaction they get when testing the waters. I think if we try to imagine what he's thinking, instead of reacting to what he's actually doing, it would be a huge mistake. Complacence and blind faith are dangerous things.

[HillWilliam]

3. Well, Tom,

I lived a while in Chicago and saw the bare-knuckle politics. We'll see if Obama has the balls to take it as much as he dishes it out. We're not a group of people who just sit back and take it any more. Since Stonewall, we've found our voices, we've found a sense of community, we've found a sense of pride and dignity, and, if need be, we've found our own fists. We've found our political power, we've found our economic power. We've grabbed hold of our own personhood and we'd like to think we're taking hold of our destiny.

Any politician who's willing to fritter with two significant segments of the voting populations had better be wearing some kevlar BVD's. While LGBTs plus women may not be a monolithic group, when some fool marginalizes both in one feld swoop, the nutcase contingent Obama is cozying up to gets mighty, mighty small. He needs to realize, and double-quick, the loony brigade will do him no favors. They've amply demonstrated over the last 30ish years that they will never, ever be satisfied, no matter what concessions are handed over to them. Every single time the majority have extended an olive branch to them, they've snatched it out of our hands and beaten us with it.

Enough is edamnough. For the LGBT community, this was the last and final in a long, long, too-long line of insults. We ain'tcher grampaw's shrinking violets any more.

I'll close with this: We're glad and grateful that we do have allies. Human dignity should be universal. If the wackogelicals ever cracked open the Gospels, they'd know full well that quiet human dignity was central to Jesus' message and mission. Acceptance, forbearance, and, if needed, forgiveness were in nearly every single parable and homily. The wackogelicals conveniently mislaid every bit of that. While I am truly angry at Obama's stubborn insistence at giving the worst of society a place of honor at his inauguration (and I fully intend never to let up on reminding him and his staff the poverty of that choice), I realize this is one moment in the next four years. I expect him to recant and make up for this in other ways and I do expect progress.

That can't come from his office alone. Substantive change, no matter what kind, has to come from Congress. That's how our legislative system works. It's up to us to lean on Congress to push Obama to do the right thing. So mote it be.

[TEmperorHasNoClothes]

4. how long are we supposed to wait for fairer laws?

I like Obama, even though I hate his decision about Warren. I don't feel betrayed, just disappointed.

[yardwork]

5. Your poll didn't include an answer that approximates my response.

I'm so bored of repeating myself I'll just repeat myself verbatim from another thread. Here goes:

I'm disappointed that Obama chose to elevate Warren in this way but I don't agree with a number of other positions that are being assigned to me by some, including:

1. I don't think that Obama will or should rescind his invitation to Warren. Once the invitation was made it was too late to take it back. You won't see any posts from me insisting that Obama take back the invitation.

2. I haven't "thrown Obama under the bus," I haven't "written him off," I haven't "decided that his presidency is a failure" or anything like that. I have said that I'm not going to defend Obama for a while. I've been defending his candidacy, positions, and decisions non-stop for six months, I've sent him money, I've voted for him twice. I'm glad that he was elected and I'll continue to be glad that he was elected but right now I'm not going to be diving into threads defending his every word and action for a while. Let other folks do that. I'll wait. He doesn't need my money right now for all his inaugural balls. Obama is enjoying enormous popularity and support. I'm sending money to relief organizations that feed the hungry and fight for equal rights in the courts. If this means to some that I've "thrown Obama under the bus," then they are hysterical. That's their problem.

3. I don't think that Obama is a racist, homophobe, or bigot. I've never posted that and I don't believe it. I do note that Obama has - three times now - elevated and honored public figures who are homophobic bigots. I haven't seen Obama elevate and honor racist bigots. It's only homophobic bigots who get this public approval from Obama. That bothers me. No question - it bothers me. I'm watching and waiting to see what it means.

4. I don't think that "gay rights" are the only problem facing the United States. I do, however, think that equal rights for all people should be a foundational value that 100% of progressives should support without question. I believe that a country that is willing to deny rights to a minority group is going to have trouble solving all it's other problems. In fact, I think that all our other problems arise from the willingness of too many Americans to ignore basic human rights.

I can only speak for myself, but I've seen numerous other posts form GLBTQ posters here that say the same thing.

Let's make a deal. I won't paint "all of DU" or "all straight people" with a broad brush if you won't paint "all GLBTQ" with the same brush. Deal?

[tom_paine]

17. I never assume monolithic behaviors from any group of people, LGBT among them.

(just curious - what's the 'Q' stand for in your acronym?)

I am sorry if you felt I was over-generalizing. It goes without saying that any generalization, made for rhetoric's sake or any other sake, carries within it the implication that there are numerous exceptions.

I didn't think I was painting anyone with a broad brush, just noticing that a large number of the LGBT community was pissed off, which is certainly your right.

It seems like you took my OP personally or something. I know being pissed at Obama does not automatically mean a person has "thrown him under the bus". I suppose I was talking to the small, statistically-certain minority of people, LGBT and otherwise who so seem (and I have read their posts, whoevethey are - I don't make lists or anything) to have fully condemned Obama over this.

But if something in my post does not apply to you, please don' take it as if I was aiming a shot at you or something.

Very thought-provoking post. Thanks. 3 and 4 were particularly good.

[bluedawg12]

6. Your point has been considered previously by many of us.

My concerns are not about "feeling" better, they are not about "feelings" at all.

Obviously PE Obama has been lauded for drawing on a "team" of rivals and varied thinkers for his new administration.

I have no objection to the Obama team engaging in dialogue with political adversaries, that is necessary and prudent.

Factually and historically the Democratic party has a history of selling out on gay issues - DOMA and DADT come to mind.

Currently there are still many Democrats who are not fully in favor of gay and lesbian civil rights in it's most comprehensive meaning. A significant number of Democrats voted in favor of Proposition 8. There are Democratic leaders who still openly avoid pro-same sex legislation. There is much work to be done within our own party.

Historically, the religious right has insinuated itself into right wing politics and ended up becoming a decisive voice in the Republican party, perhaps it’s down fall. They have shown themselves to be wealthy, organized, zealous and rigid. Their entrance into Democratic party politics, as they are today, is antithetical to several Democratic party ideals and policies.

The religious right does have policies in common with progressives, as claimed by Rick Warren, among them poverty, HIV/AIDS, the environment. A deeper look will reveal that these faith based initiatives are deeply flawed, unquantifiable and in the case of HIV/AIDS "allegedly", due to religious orientation, inadequate in infection prevention measures and not consistent with evidence based medicine and best practices, a not inconsequential concern.

I am of the opinion that for the majority the gay community has no objection to bringing people like Warren into some level of dialogue. I am also aware that there are several non-negotiable issues for the religious right and Warren in particular, that are based on theology and which are non-negotiable, among those are full and equal gay marriage rights under law.

Those are the facts as I know them. I am not concerned about being soothed, or feeling better or feeling worse. Feelings follow facts and reality.

When it comes to civil rights for gay people, I do not expect to change the minds of right wing preachers as the primary strategy. I do not think it is the role of the President Elect to engage on theological issues and debate. Yet, religious right wing anti-gay posture is based on scripture, hence, there is no role for our party and political leader in religious debate.

I do not think that this is a battle to be fought in the Churches, or the voting booths, it is a battle to be fought in the Courts and legislatively. I do expect the new administration to work diligently in those areas.

I have read PE Obama's writings on gay civil rights and as he is a lawyer I am confident he understands the issues very well. I hold him to his campaign promises of repealing DOMA and DADT. I expect him to come around, post-election campaign pressures, on the reasonableness of full same sex marriage rights and to support it openly on a legal merits basis.

When I see empirical evidence that there is effective dialogue and some measure of change on the part of right wing religious leaders then I see no problem in pointing out the good work and praising the growth in those leaders.

As of this moment, there is no empiral evidence as to what this administration will do, as they are not yet in office.

For that same reason, I see no reason to elevate a man like Warren to a coveted and historic place, even if for less than two minutes, the symbolism is powerful, too powerful and has not gone unnoticed. In fact, the symbolism of "outreach" is the exact reason, we are told, that Warren has been selected. It is meant to be symbolic.Warren has not earned such an honor.

To be clear, no one should be afraid to speak to adversaries. I will withhold my opinion until such time as I see some measure of genuine public repudiation by Warren of the virulently homophobic rhetoric made by him. That means he first has to admit publicly to the homophobic hate language that he has engaged in, then, he has to repudiate himself publicly. In fact, he has recently, with in the week, since his invitation, done the opposite, he has lied about the very statements we abhor, despite the fact that the statements and the lies about them are all on video. If past behavior is prologue, then, that is not reassuring.

As it is, the presence of that religious leader is premature invocation.

Parenthetically about the language of your poll, the introduction made me smile. It is the same tone I would use with an angry child, or entering a cage with hungry lions.

I am not sure I can respond to your poll, there is no category regarding: I have read and understood your point and I agree, or disagree.

Your poll is about feelings and hurt. Never mind about my “feelings and hurt,” when it comes to politics.

Give me something to understand, show me something concrete that has results.

I have heard PE Obama explain his rationale for selecting Warren and it is thin gruel. It is basically a recapitulation of the facts: I invited him, I always said I would engage in dialogue with opponents and so he is coming.

A few days later Warren began his 2008 world media tour. Warren talking and hugging Melissa, Warren on his way to talk at the Ebenezer Baptist Church, Warren at a Muslim sponsored seminar for understanding, Warren on his way to the inauguration, Warren now has control of this story. Small comfort that.

Fact check: Regarding President Roosevelt, it was under his administration that laws were passed barring racial discrimination in the military and Federal government as part of the world war two effort. Today, that travesty to equality and religion driven bigotry: Don't Ask Don't tell, remains.

[noamnety]

7. I'm not sure why I should feel better about this

It's not exactly a "new thought" nor a comforting one that we're being thrown under the bus for political strategy. Yeah, we get that.

Nor is it (imho) helpful to bring up in this context that people who were still held in slavery in 1863 were maybe short-sighted if they were pissed as hell about that, because they weren't seeing "the big picture."

Furthermore, just giving you my gut reaction here to your post (not meant as an attack on you, just saying this is how that post makes me feel), my immediate reaction is one of belligerence in seeing the Emancipation Proclamation (which at least gave SOME rights to SOME slaves) compared in any way to honoring a homophobic bigot, which gives no rights to anyone, and strengthens the voice of those who are removing rights from people.

Lastly, gut reaction again to the post, the poll to see if you made us "feel better" is coming off - to me - a little like a pat on the head. I'm sure that's not how you intended it, but in the interest of honest feedback, that's what I'm feeling. I don't want people working to "make me feel better." I want people working to send the message to Obama that this is not an acceptable way to govern.

[tom_paine]

18. You might be right. Maybe not so much of the pat on the head as trepidation to speak my mind here.

Sorry if it came off condescending. It's just that the last thing I wanted was to fend off a flame fest. I have found the best way to do that is to sort of pre-emptively try to turn the uber-pissed people who would flame me, away with sweet reason.

You make a good point about the Emancipation Proclamation and the validity of my comparison, or lack of it. Not sure I fully agree it's completely irrelevant, but food for thought nonetheless.

Your last line, though, reminds me of why I posted this in the first place.

You said, "I want people working to send the message to Obama that this is not an acceptable way to govern."

This brings me back to my OP and perhaps questionable analogy. But my counter-point is this: IF (and this is certainly a big IF) my "optimistic assessment" of Obama's motives is correct, and his yielding now somehow leads to greater equality and greater respect for LGBT rights in the long-term, then is it truly not an acceptable way to govern, or is it brilliant strategy that is aiding the LGBT cause?

I don't know the answer, I am just asking the question.

IS it really an unacceptable way to govern if these moves somehow lead to greater adbancement of LGBT goals in seeking equal treatment and protection under the law?

If this was the case, it would then seem to me that Obama's governing style, might be acceptabkle after all

Like I said, I don't know, I only ask.

[noamnety]

20. Did you ever see the movie "Our Brand is Crisis"? (nt)

[tom_paine]

26. No, but I will likely be Googling it up soon. n/t

[noamnety]

34. The reason I bring it up

is that after watching it, I was a lot less receptive (as in completely immune) to campaign slogans. The movie, for those who don't know it, covers James Carville's activities mucking around in the elections in Bolivia. It gave an inside look into the process that campaign strategists use to Brand a candidate. CHANGE. HOPE. A NEW WAY OF POLITICS. All done through focus groups. Does this branding make you "feel good"? How about now? Your poll reminded me of that immediately ... when I say this, does it make you feel less angry, more open? That's not the reason I bring it up, though - not because of your poll.

I bring it up because once you understand the backend of that process and are immune to it, those slogans no longer color your thinking in the same way. Throw out the slogan of change, and look at what's happening.

One of our biggest complaints about the democrats is that they've been spineless. They don't stand up for their beliefs. They've caved to the republicans over and over again, on key issues. The war, the budget, FISA, judicial appointments, filibusters, impeachment, investigations, pretty much you name the issue, they've caved. Now we have another democrat who has been caving on exactly the same issues, repeatedly. And the new BRANDING is that this is an entirely NEW way of doing politics - reaching across the aisle (compromising) with the republicans. Is there anything new about that? Is that different than DOMA, than welfare reform under clinton, than NAFTA, than the Iraq War? Is there a reason (other than the branding) that we should think of this as a brilliant new strategy, the likes of which we haven't seen in a politician before?

"most important election of our lifetimes" <-- sound at all familiar? It's sort of a one size fits all slogan, turns out it polled well here in the US AND in Bolivia. So Carville used it both places. The politicians, the elections, they turn out to be interchangeable. With the right spin, you can jam any politician into whatever slogan is polling well. I think we've been suckered by this belief that Obama has some genius strategy that is any different than any other democrat's strategy (barring a few, like Kucinich, who'd rather stick to his principles than sell out for a vote).

If anyone else here saw that documentary, I'd love to hear if it had the same effect on you.

[bluedawg12]

35. good point: I worry more about Dems, more than I do about PE Obama.

The grass roots support needs a lot of work judging by some reactions.

[Two Americas]

41. that is great

That is just a great post there lwfern. Thanks.

[plantwomyn]

8. This is an example of brilliance, of mending and healing?

"The alternative hyposthesis I speak of is that Obama may be a brilliant FDR/Lincoln-type political strategist who is that rarest of rare birds, especially these days in the USA...a person who truly wants to mend and heal, and knows very well the tough course he has to take and is thinking better and further down the road than any of us here on DU."
Well from my perspective, it is only darkness. Of poring salt into newly reopened wounds.

Where has Obama shown me that he will LEAD us to a place where "it will result in a brighter future for all LGBTs down the line."?
After CA, AZ, and FL?
Once I heard this I had to take a break from the campaign. No more phone calling and door to door for me.
SEN. OBAMA: I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. (Applause.) Now, for me as a Christian, it's also a sacred union. You know, God's in the mix. (Applause.)

So did I know he did not support equal rights? Yes.
Did I know that Obama was just another "Christian" who held his religion above the Constitution? Yes.
Did I vote for Obama? Yes.
Didn't I expect Obama to throw us under the bus as he drove to D.C.? Sure, as many say, he's "just being pragmatic".
After all we have had tire tracks across our backs more than once. We have always brushed them off and tried again.
The tracks from Obama will not so easily be wiped away. They are tattooed on our hearts.
It hurts me down to my very soul that "our" leader has again decided that we are the "expendable" voices?

[tom_paine]

19. That's the thing about dealing with very smart people like Obama. They see things we don't.

Sometimes, anyway.

As to envision HOW this could help LGBTs down the road, I don't know, but the presumption is that Obama does.

And I could also be wrong in my "alternative hypothesis" in which case we have no disagreements whatsoever and in the absence of mitigating circumstances or strategic imperative, I am just as disappointed in Obama on this one as anyone.

So, we agree that neither of us can see how Obama's strategizing will help LGBT struggles for equal rights and treatment down the road.

But what if it does just that, in ways we can't foresee?

I guess all I am saying, and I can only speak for myself, is that I am willing to wait and see if that is the case. That or something close to it.

I understand if you strongly disagree.

[MNBrewer]

24. I don't think he DOES see

what the true, longer term effects of his stance against gay marriage are. i don't think he much cares ,either.

[Two Americas]

36. not understanding you here

What difference does it make whether we wait and see, or we don't wait and see? Nothing changes, does it? We will all be here, and we will all be seeing, regardless.

I think that most of the "very smart people" who "see things we don't" that I have met in my life are members right here. Way beyond any politician - it is not even a contest.

Maybe you are confusing clever, driven, ambitious, and charismatic - qualities that politicians need - with "very smart."

I worry about this sort of idolization of any politician. I would never take the position that we should trust politicians to be smarter than us, and make the presumption that they know better than us, so we should wait and see. Granted, of we were going to elevate any politician to god-like super-human status, I agree that Obama would be the one.

In any case, waiting and seeing (which we have no choice about, and will happen no matter what) and speaking out and applying pressure (which I think is our moral obligation and civic duty) are not mutually exclusive or even oppositional to one another.

So what could "wait and see" possibly mean (unless we are merely talking about being here in the future and looking at things, which is inevitable as I said above) other than "be obedient and quiet?"

[tom_paine]

38. I am speaking of a person's heart, not their political actions.

I would never assume to tell someone to be quiet or stop putting political presure on candidates...especially when most of us worked pretty damned hard for Obama.

I am speaking solely of people's internal thinking here, not trying to silence or censor anyone.

[elotrolado]

47. Warren selection: Spin it into Gold

To the instigator of this thread: you don't have to apologize for thinking and expressing yourself unless you offend in doing so, which you have not.

I doubt Obama is as wise as some may think. He made a mistake. Imagine if JFK had invited a segregationist preacher who preached that blacks are inferior to whites to give his inaugural invocation. This is a very apt comparison. Warren, with a reach of millions, called by the media "America's preacher", has unequivocally equated gay relationships with incest, child molestations, and sex with animals.

Obama can fix his mistake. He could gather a group of GLBT folk and their loved ones--especially including children and victims of violence-- and facilitate a meeting with Warren so that he can hear how comments like his cause not just hurt feelings, but lead to acts of violence. Then, Warren should be persuaded to issue a public apology and ask for forgiveness via a sermon in which he describes why his comments were not only hurtful, but fan the flames of fear, hate and violence with real life consequences.

Then, Obama's selection will be worth gold.

[Marrah_G]

9. The issue I have with your thoughts is this.

If he were going to bring about some big change in equal rights after the inauguration, he would not have chosen this speaker. He would not have campaigned using anti-gay preachers. He would have simply stayed quiet.

But he did not.

He has stated he is against Gay marriage.

He has campaigned using anti-gay preachers, especially in the south.

He has had Anti-gay activists campaign for him.

He has invited an anti-gay activist to share a position of honor on what would have been a historic even for all of us.

So yeah- Obama may end up a great president. But PLEASE, PLEASE, stop trying to portray him as some hero for the GBLT community and if they just wait long enough he will come flying out to save the day. That's bullshit and I think you all know it.

He is no passionate Ally of the GBLT community. He is a politician who is either to ignorant or to afraid to do what is right on this topic.

I think that is what many here want to hear from OUR ALLIES........ Yes, Obama fucked up, Yeah, Obama is not great friend to the GBLT community, Yeah, we are sorry you are hurting, how can we help?

Instead the forums are filled with people doing backflips trying to convince everyone that Obama has some big master secret plan.

He doesn't. When it comes to GBLT rights he is no different from most other politicians.

Just fucking accept that he sucks ass on this topic, stop blowing smoke our way......

Here is to hoping he is good at the other shit he promised.

[Morning Dew]

10. amen,

Good post, that's pretty much my feeling, especially the request to stop blowing smoke - it's so annoying.

[jonnyblitz]

13. wow. excellent post!!

:hi:

[yardwork]

14. That was especially good. I usually agree with your posts but that one hit it out of the park.

[Two Americas]

16. well said

Good post. Thanks.

[tom_paine]

21. I am NOT trying to portray Obama as a hero to the LGBT community.

And my whole point is that I am not smart enough to be sure about Obama before he has governed a single day.

It sounds like you have already made up your mind.

On this we disagree, and probably have to agree to do so.

You sound like you are sure about how you perceive the situation and Obama. I am not sure about anything yet.

I hear you about Obama's Big Master Secret Plan. You are right in that he may not have one.

I am not sure about that, either. You may be right in the long-run, in which case I will have no problem standing right alongside the LGBT Community in saying so.

It sounds like you have me confused with someone else. I am not insisting a thing to you, just thinking aloud. You disagree and that's fine. But please don't lump me in with the bunch who's trying to tell you to be quiet or that you the betrayal you feel is unwarranted or irrelevant.

Finally, when I am SURE that you are correct on this topic, and not before, I will modify my views accordingly. But I won't do so until I am sure that your interpretation of events is the correct one, not mine.

It could go either way, I think.

[bluedawg12]

22. No one knows what he will do, our complaint is what he is doing now.

The other examples cited by Mara add further justification for our concern.

[MNBrewer]

25. Can you provide any examples of concrete steps Obama has EVER taken

to advance the cause of GLBT rights? (beyond co-sponsoring bills that never got voted on).

Those are the past actions from which we're extrapolating his future actions.

[tom_paine]

28. I understand your point. I hope your extrapolations are wrong for all our sakes.

I cannot argue with how you feel nor with your overall perception of the situation.

But time, might and I stress MIGHT, prove you wrong.

That is all I am saying. You have every right to feel as you do, and there are no guarantess in this life that anyone will behave any way.

I said maybe.

Maybe.

[MNBrewer]

30. Maybe, just MAYBE

and while the past does not dictate the future, it's generally a good indicator of how someone will behave.

At this point, I expect NOTHING from Obama. I've already decided he doesn't care, and will take no action to right the injustice that exists on gay equality.

If any bill has passed Congress advancing equality (ENDA, repeal of DOMA or portions of DOMA, ending of DADT) and signed into law by the end of 2010 I'll be shocked.

[Two Americas]

39. what is the danger, tom?

You say "when I am SURE that you are correct on this topic, and not before, I will modify my views."

I am wondering what the reluctance is about, what the worry is here. I hope my question doesn't seem provocative or confrontational, because I really do want to understand this.

Many straights seem to be saying "I support equal rights, I really do, believe me, BUT...." It is as though people fear "going too far" - they will only go so far and no further. What is "too far" exactly? What is the reluctance, the resistance, the hesitation, what are the qualifications about?

Let's say you were not completely sure, and took a leap anyway? What would you be leaping to? What would be the terrible consequences of doing that? What would happen if you took the leap and were wrong, and what would being wrong be and what would that mean?

You say that you are not sure about how to perceive the situation and that you are not sure about Obama in regard to this. Are you unsure about both? Or are you sure about how to perceive the situation, and is your hesitation really about how you perceive Obama? Must we qualify what we say according to how it might impact the way we or others see Obama?

[RandomKoolzip]

23. Boom! There it is.

Nice post. :thumbsup:

[PeaceNikki]

32. Fantastic post

:thumbsup:

[NWHarkness]

11. About this mending and healing...

You can't heal one wound by opening another.

If, as you posit, Obama has some brilliant scheme to bring everyone togather on the issue of equal rights, then he shuld expect all sides of the divide to put something on the table. As it is, he has not. If this was an actual move towards healing, then it would include conditions on Warren. Acquiescing to one side is not healing, it is appeasement.

I think of South Africa, and the Truth and Reconciliation Commissions. They required those who had done harm to admit their deeds and renounce the beliefs behind them. Only then was healing possible. There can be no healing when the likes of Warren are allowed to believe that their bigootry is acceptable.

I do appreciate you attempts to understand the issue without condescension.

[Two Americas]

12. one point if I may, tom

You say "remember FDR did NOT campaign on The New Deal in 1933."

I don't think that is a valid argument in this context.

The thing we should remember is this:

The New Deal could only have happened so long as people were willing to pressure and criticize him.

Saying - or implying - that since FDR changed, that Obama could, so therefore we should not criticize Obama is misleading at best.

It was because of outside criticism and pressure that FDR moved to the Left.

FDR himself welcomed the pressure and said "you want me to do something, force me to do it." That is accomplished by building public pressure, and public pressure is created by speaking out and taking stands, not by sitting back hoping and wishing, "giving him a chance," and telling people that "at least he is better than the Republicans," and most certainly not by accusing dissidents of "harming the cause" or being disloyal or destructive.

[tom_paine]

31. Well, I never said you shoudn't criticize Obama, and it's a valid FDR point you make.

I also never said I thought the LGBT Community shouldn't continue to put pressure on Obama to do the right thing.

You may be conflating my beliefs and assertions with others.

Neither you nor anyone HAS to give Obama a chance. I was just making a point, not trying to persuade people to suppress their beliefs nor their upset.

And I would NEVER tell someone that peacable dissent is destructive. I am not saying "LGBTers, shut up," and please don't confuse me with those that are.

I am just sharing my hopes, and maybe wondering if they were possible.

Mostly, I was wondering what the LGBT Community was thinking about my hopes, which apparently are not quite so unique and original as I first thought.

[Two Americas]

37. not sure what you mean, then

I think it is fine for you to hope. I do, too.

Anything is possible. I think it is more likely that good things will happen if we do not "wait and see" but rather if we speak out strongly.

Few people have said that there is absolutely no hope of things improving. Some are saying that speaking out is the thing to do, others are saying that not hassling the politicians is the thing to do.

I think you can have hope either way. Some are trying to tell us that if we criticize a politician, that we therefore are doing some harm or have abandoned hope, or are damaging others by robbing them of the good positive and hopeful feelings they are enjoying. I don't agree with that.

I hope. I hope that more and more people will speak out, and I hope that the politicians will be unable to ignore us and will act. That is my hope.

When people say we are not so smart, we should not speak out, that we should trust that a politician is smarter than we are and we should just believe that he will do the right thing, that takes away all my hope. But I don't go around beating up on people for taking away MY hope, or blame them for my feelings.

History can decide whether or not Obama is a great man. The question now is what sort of people we are going to be, not what sort of person he is going to be.

Politicians compromise, horse-trade, seek the middle, and make deals. That is their job; it is what they are hired to do. But we should not do that. Our job is to advocate, to speak out clearly, loudly and passionately. The opposition is doing that. They have his ear. Why should we be quiet?

I don't find fault in Obama for doing what every politician must do. I find fault with us - our vacillating, weak, and compromising cowardice and wishy washy hesitation and fear - our failure to do our jobs.

What would Thomas Paine say about this?

[mitchtv]

15. I don't like being used

By a smart politician,,,, again this time as a Sista Soulja moment. I don;t trust people like that. I would like to see. progress, not games. I am dure we will make progress but only by pursuing it with an vengance. I expect it will come in the form of a judicious judicial appointment, not directly from the cynical polititcian he appears to be.

[bluedawg12]

27. tom_paine : Who was your post addressed to?

You are confusing in your statements.

ToLGBT DUers: Just something to consider and I would like to know your opinion after reading it. tom_paine

I suppose I was talking to the small, statistically-certain minority of people, LGBT and otherwise who so seem (and I have read their posts, whoevethey are - I don't make lists or anything) to have fully condemned Obama over this- tom_paine.


just noticing that a large number of the LGBT community was pissed off, which is certainly your right. tom_paine

Please clarify who was your target audience?

-the GLBT community?
-the small, statistically-certain minority of people?
-a large number of the LGBT community was pissed ?

And who do you think is pissed?

-the GLBT community?
-the small, statistically-certain minority of people?
-a large number of the LGBT community was pissed ?

[tom_paine]

29. Well, you called me out on sloppy wording...and after reading your post, you are right. Allow me to

clarify.

My post was directed at whatever percentage and proportion of the LGBT community is pissed at Obama for the Warren invitation, and for some of his other pre-election appointments and actions. That's my target audience for the OP, I suppose. I retract my sloppily worded qualifiers.

As to who do I think is pissed? Some percentage of the LGBT Community, whether it be 10% or 99%.

And me. And people like me who believe LGBT peopel should have the same rights and protections everyone else has. I happen to agree with you that, on the surface of things, Obama's invitation to Warren is a nasty slap in the face to those LGBTs who supported him and worked for him.

I was just wondering, maybe expressing my own hopes aloud, that maybe Obama IS brilliantly strategizing in a way which will, in the long run, make sense?

Am I certain of this? HELL NO! Who could be after 8 years of "keeping our powder dry"?

But I am hopeful it will be the case, if Obama is the man we think he is.

And I am willing to wait and see if it is so. If it turns out not to be the case, I will stand with the LGBT community for equal rights and equal protection under the law, even if it means opposing Obama on it.

[bluedawg12]

33. First, allow me to state it was a request for clarification.

Second, thank you for explaining.

Third, I think the biggest issue in regards to PE Obama is the Warren choice and not as much his cabinet and administration selection.

Fourth, you may be asking indirectly why is this issue resonating so much on the DU forum?

My sense is that it began after Proposition8 passed and many GLBTQ went over the the GD and GPP forums and we were told to get over it.

That dispute was unresolved when the Warren selection was made.


In my opinion, this is a continuum of the Proposition8 debates and the reason it remains on the forum so long and seems to be unabated is because there is resistence to same sex equal rights and gay civil rights in those forums. Whether “it be 10% or 90%.” I am not certain, I too have wondered. Is it a small core of resistors?

I cannot speak for all of my gay brothers and sisters, but my personal take on this is that Prop8, Warren and even PE Obama himself are in a way a proxy to introduce and to keep these issues in the forefront of Democrat consciousness.

It is also a positive feed back loop. Every time we post a pro-gay issue and we encounter resistance, then it continues, some make anti gay comments or just don’t bother to learn the issues and make inaccurate statements and we fight back.

Also, there is core over there that opposes us, or opposes our threads and they fan the flames by posting how awful and mean our threads are.

So, both sides keep posting for different reasons and both sides seem to keep it going.

I would like you to consider this from another perspective, I personally have no doubt that PE Obama is NOT frail, or fragile, intellectually. He welcomes dissent and contrarian views. I don’t think our discussions here, in anyway would weaken him or his resolve or ability to perform his duties.

True, it is a public forum and there for the world to see. But, bickering Democrats are a good thing, a healthy thing and somewhat like “business as usual” in fact, and I don’t think we are in anyway weakening PE Obama’s future capacity to govern.

However, in the process, we may convince some fellow Democrats and persuade some, which then may have practical applications for grass roots activism nation wide.
Probably a lot more benefit than Warren will bring to gays. Yes, “it is messy” at the moment.

I worry more about pro-Obama supporters not being able to tolerate dissent, then I worry about Harvard Law educated, Prof., PE Obama not being able to tolerate dissent. The PE can handle debate, can some of his supporters?

Thank you for your reply.

Peace-
bd12

(Q = Queer or questioning, check wiki for “Queer” it explains a lot of the terms)

edit: typo

[Iggo]

40. I am not LGBT.

But there was an option there just for me, and I couldn't resist.

[AntiFascist]

42. I have to agree with my African-American brothers and sisters on this one...

The fight for LGBT equality is not the same thing as the fight for freedom from slavery. For one thing, everyone pretty much understood the issue when Lincoln began pushing the Emancipation Proclamation - either you were for the freedom of African-Americans or against it. In our fight, many progressives don't understand why marriage is such a big thing to get worked up about and feel that there are many more priorities to be tackled. In a sense, they are correct to a certain extent - I may get in trouble for saying this, but I would be a little disappointed if Obama began the process of overturning DOMA at the expense of focusing on the FDR-style solutions that are needed to solve the economic problems. This strategy could actually end up drawing a lot of negative attention to the LGBT community which could end up hurting us in the long wrong.

Having said that, I still think it is very important for us to continue making noise about Warren and drawing as much support as possible from our allies and, most importantly, getting our allies to understand the FULL issues as broadly as possible.

The fight for black equality did not end with Lincoln, of course it continued all the way up through MLK who made some very incredibly brilliant speeches that resonate so well that they may be applied to other struggles as well, including LGBT rights. The struggle for black equality continues to this day in many sectors.

The struggle against Warren I see as a much broader struggle against religious domination. Let me repeat that because I think it bears repeating: the struggle against Warren is a much broader struggle against religious domination in general. This is a struggle that, not only can the progressive community unite over, but we should be able to draw upon allies all around the world who may feel the effects from the threat of American domination by the Christian Right.

People don't seem to remember, but early in the Bush Administration there was a flood of Fundamentalists and Dominionist types coming to the White House and shaping the direction of the Bush presidency. This was when the idea was forged that "we create our own reality." In hindsight this was an incredibly dangerous and costly direction that our nation could paying the cost for in the decades to come.

Anyway, in a very tight nutshell, this is where I am coming from in the fight for lesbian and gay marriage equality. tom_paine, I know you to be one of the more outspoken DUers when it comes to this broader struggle against "the Bushies" and I would appreciate your thoughts on my post.

[Iggo]

45. I'd rather get it done...

...and afterwards sit around and talk about how it wasn't the same, than use the not-the-same-ness as an excuse to do nothing.

EDIT: Awkward syntax. Kinda fixed...had a then/than thing going. I hate those.

[MNBrewer]

43. where did the "Obama is so much smarter than we are" meme come from?

[bluedawg12]

46. From people dumber than we are.

[kladinvt]

44. Suspended enthusiasm & hope

Like most progressives, I was stunned by Obama's choice of Warren to participate at the inauguration. Handing the 'global microphone' that is the inauguration of the first African-American president in U.S. history, to a man who has said that the LGBT community are unworthy of human rights protections because in HIS view we are unnatural, is at best mind-boggling & insulting.
I understand Obama's premise of reaching out to those he disagrees with, but why is that the LGBT community are the ONLY ones being asked to 'kumbaya'? And by doing this, I have to question, how much of Warren's agenda, does Obama disagree with?
For now, my enthusiasm & the hope I felt are suspended & maybe that's a good thing. Blindly following anyone is never a smart thing to do. However, I do believe that Obama is an intelligent person & therefore realize that intelligent people do have the capacity to learn from their mistakes. And in that capacity is where the last vestige of my hope lies.