With "Advocates" Like These . . .

who needs opponents? From the comments section to the Frank Rich column I wrote about last night:

I've been an advocate of gay marriage for 20 years but the behavior and uproar of the gay community has turned me against them and their causes the way no right-winger or religious nutjob could ever do. How dare they make this inauguration all about them! . . . Gays have only themselves to blame for the passage of Prop 8. They did ZERO outreach to the black and latino communities. They were so arrogant that they did not mount a proper opposition to Prop 8. When it passed they started looking for people to blame--stalking donors to Prop 8 and castigating blacks.

The more the gay community rants and attacks their allies, the more they will harm their cause. Calling Obama a bigot, homophobe and traitor (as many have) doesn't make me want to storm the barricades against Prop 8. It might also make Obama drag his feet in getting around to those issues.

(Emphasis supplied.) More . . .

You see, her "advocacy" for the civil rights of gays and lesbians depended on the "behavior" of gay and lesbian advocacy groups. I think there is an important lesson here. A lot of people who claim to be supporters of civil rights for gays and lesbians only support it so long as no one actually FIGHTS for civil rights for gays and lesbians. In my book, that makes you not much of a supporter. More of a non-objector to civil rights for gays and lesbians than an advocate. Good that there are non-objectors but do not think for a moment these folks are advocates.

Speaking for me only

< Sunday Open Thread | Obama's Options for the Israel-Gaza Conflict >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    LMAO (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by mexboy on Sun Dec 28, 2008 at 05:13:22 PM EST
    This gave me a good laugh, and I mean a belly laugh.
    Thanks for posting it.

    That response sickens me, but I think (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by andgarden on Sun Dec 28, 2008 at 05:13:59 PM EST
    I see where it's coming from. To her mind, gay rights advocates are stealing her moment. (It's a kind of "how dare you get treated for cancer during my wedding?! reaction")

    BTW, (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by andgarden on Sun Dec 28, 2008 at 05:21:07 PM EST
    her opinion, whatever it really was, like hasn't changed. This is just an attempt to shut the rest of us up.

    maybe she should take a bit of her own (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by nycstray on Sun Dec 28, 2008 at 05:21:31 PM EST
    'advice'.  . . .

    STFU and behave!

    I am looking (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Carolyn in Baltimore on Sun Dec 28, 2008 at 05:22:58 PM EST
    for my tiny violin but I can't seem to find it, it being so tiny and all.

    Suddenly I"m having second thoughts (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by ThatOneVoter on Sun Dec 28, 2008 at 05:28:35 PM EST
    about womens' rights, after reading that letter.

    Snark tag (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Dec 28, 2008 at 05:29:50 PM EST
    This is so reminiscent (5.00 / 5) (#13)
    by Cream City on Sun Dec 28, 2008 at 05:51:38 PM EST
    of "the century of struggle," as the woman suffragists called it.  Knowing its story so well now, I still have to grit my teeth every time I read or hear that women were "given" the vote.

    Yeh, sure, if men wanted to be so beneficent about it, they could have "given" the vote many decades sooner -- and they could have saved women more than 900 separate campaigns they had to wage at municipal and state levels at the cost of millions of dollars, and so that millions had the vote, well before they won the final campaign at the federal level.

    And throughout, women like Anthony and Stanton and Stone and Paul and Burns and many others constantly were told that if they'd just stop asking for the vote, if they just would sit down and be good girls, they would be "given" it.

    The things worth fighting for are only won by fighting for them.


    And if it had been a man (none / 0) (#68)
    by Amiss on Mon Dec 29, 2008 at 12:04:44 AM EST
    manwhat would you do about their rights? After all, Warren is a MAN, Obama is a MAN, all of these church leaders are MEN.

    Comes the revolution... (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by oldpro on Mon Dec 29, 2008 at 12:33:20 AM EST
    What I love love LOVE (5.00 / 3) (#11)
    by lilburro on Sun Dec 28, 2008 at 05:32:03 PM EST
    about these people is that almost nobody was talking about policy during the primaries - it was all about personality.  Of course horrible Hillary couldn't bring people together!  Of course Obama would be the only one to bring a spirit of bipartisanship!  When was it ever about policy??

    And of course it is absurd that those who are able to recognize that Obama's inauguration might have some symbolic value cannot see that Warren has symbolic value in the context of the inauguration.  

    And if you think the gay community is so terrible because they "stalked donors to Prop 8" then I really question your "fierce advocacy," if you will.

    Gays, like blacks before us, are supposed to be (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by ericinatl on Sun Dec 28, 2008 at 05:37:40 PM EST
    quiet and wait for the better nature of people to give us our rights.  Well, that was our "strategy" in the Prop 8 defeat and it was shown once again not to be a winner.  We have to speak loudly even against our "allies."  That may make some people uncomfortable, even alleged supporters like Yvonne.  But in the end they weren't really allies in the first place.  I bet after a lot of speaking loudly they will be though.

    Yup...which is why (none / 0) (#15)
    by oldpro on Sun Dec 28, 2008 at 05:55:29 PM EST
    I wondered where she was in the 50s and 60s.  Not marching in Selma, that's for damn sure.

    John Lewis is a hero, consistently (5.00 / 4) (#17)
    by andgarden on Sun Dec 28, 2008 at 06:09:47 PM EST
    USA's (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by SOS on Sun Dec 28, 2008 at 06:02:05 PM EST
    a pretty screwed up country.

    Freedom means we're allowed to buy lots of stuff.

    That's Not Fair (5.00 / 3) (#56)
    by ruffian on Sun Dec 28, 2008 at 10:27:07 PM EST
    We're free to be Christians too. Of almost any denomination!

    Equally as reprehensible (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by shoephone on Sun Dec 28, 2008 at 06:15:11 PM EST
    is the NYTimes' decision to censor almost all the comments that were actually posted to Rich's opinion piece! Only 19 comments are on the page -- the "editor's selections". And comments are no longer being being accepted. I'll venture a guess that hundreds of comments (like mine, which does not appear) were posted. The NYTimes editors are nothing but a bunch of g*dd*mn cowards.

    The "editor's selections" are almost exclusively in favor of holding hands with the bigot Rick Warren. That tells us everything we need to know about the downward spiral of the Times. Cowards cowards cowards.

    heh (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by andgarden on Sun Dec 28, 2008 at 06:20:52 PM EST
    Never pick a fight with a person why buys bandwidth by the terabyte?

    allright, i'll join in (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by boredmpa on Sun Dec 28, 2008 at 06:25:08 PM EST
    Best/saddest comment ever, recommended by 189...
    He does realize he's commenting on frank rich? and talking about book-writing obama?  emphasis added..

    "Generally you are smart. I even paid money to hear you do your schtick. But you are not wise, mon vieux Just smart and glib.


    Obama is a lot smarter than you or me. He has never had to review theatre or films or edit books. He is the real deal.

    Don't sabotage the machine. Be smarter than yourself for once. Put your glib writing on deadline self on the margins. Be smart. Wait. Shoot later when there is something real to shoot about.

    -- Richard McDonough, Irvine CA./ US"

    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by nycstray on Sun Dec 28, 2008 at 06:35:00 PM EST
    Shoot later when there is something real to shoot about.

    when it's too late?


    "Shoot about"? (none / 0) (#23)
    by otherlisa on Sun Dec 28, 2008 at 06:57:10 PM EST

    He's Jesus! (none / 0) (#21)
    by andgarden on Sun Dec 28, 2008 at 06:26:47 PM EST
    Like a true Obamabot (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by starsandstripes on Sun Dec 28, 2008 at 07:17:09 PM EST
    If Obama drags his feet on gay rights it's the gays' fault. The kind of adulation this man receives is ridiculous.

    blaming the victim; yuck. (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Lil on Sun Dec 28, 2008 at 07:19:22 PM EST

    Follow the leader (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by mmc9431 on Sun Dec 28, 2008 at 07:21:23 PM EST
    We're in for at least four years of a cult mentality that will rival Bush's. It took his followers more than 6 years to realize what he was. (20% of them still think he walks on water).

    Too many of Obama's supporters will never question his judgements. To admit that Obama made a mistake would tarnish the myth that they have created.

    Right on, but (5.00 / 3) (#80)
    by mexboy on Mon Dec 29, 2008 at 05:05:20 AM EST
    Too many of Obama's supporters will never question his judgements. To admit that Obama made a mistake would tarnish the myth that they have created.

    No, they would have to admit they made a mistake, and that is far more painful. It will never happen.


    i must vigorously disagree (5.00 / 3) (#27)
    by cpinva on Sun Dec 28, 2008 at 07:27:01 PM EST
    with this assertion:

    about these people is that almost nobody was talking about policy during the primaries

    on the contrary, sen. clinton spent most of her time during the primaries doing nothing but discussing policies. she provided a list of her priorities, and detailed plans for each. not so sen. obama.

    for her trouble, sen. clinton was constantly smeared by the obama campaign, its supporters and (of course) the media. just how dare she discuss substantive issues, when there's a new saviour to be annointed!

    the only "change" i expect to see in the oval office, come jan. 20th, is the name on the desk. anyone serially anticipating some magnitude 8 quake is destined to be severely disappointed.

    the commenter, yvonne, is typical of the brain washed obamanauts, no better than the hard-core bush apologists.

    sorry (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by lilburro on Sun Dec 28, 2008 at 07:55:31 PM EST
    with this statement

    about these people is that almost nobody was talking about policy during the primaries

    I was referring to the blog/media dialogue about Hillary and Obama.  Very few pro-Obama bloggers & commenters I know of were excited about him in policy terms - he was supposed to "bring a change," shake up the atmosphere, end dynasties, unite the country, etc.  Hillary was not & supposedly could not though their policies were very similar.  Admittedly, some were very excited about his foreign policy.  

    That's why this statement from Yvonne's comment:

    "How dare they make this inauguration all about them! Warren has said equally horrible things about the pro-choice community but you don't see us demanding he be scalped. That's because we're focused on the policy."

    strikes me as so absurd.  Now nothing about Obama is tone - if isn't signed into law, it doesn't count against him.  All that stuff about unifying the country & setting a tone is superfluous now - they're focused on policy.


    That statement is absurd (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by nycstray on Sun Dec 28, 2008 at 08:17:14 PM EST
    from the "How dare they. . . " right down to the "you don't see us . . .".  WTF?!

    I guess I should count my blessings I don't know her in RL, lol!~


    Ok, I'll Play the Odd Man Out (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by liberalone on Sun Dec 28, 2008 at 07:50:18 PM EST
    I see Yvonne's point:  Too much reactive blame when there should have been a more proactive campaign to defeat the proposition.

    Many Californians have commented on the poor campaign that the HRC ran.  From what I have read, it is true that the HRC performed little to no outreach in black and latino communities.  I would surmise that they didn't go inland either.  Very bad campaigning was the most important factor in the anti-Prop 8 loss.

    As for the question of allies and coalition building, some of that was destroyed immediately following the passage of Prop 8.



    I don't see Yvonne's point as a call for quiet acquiescence as much as it is a sign of frustration with a strategy of blaming others.  Neither the women's suffrage movement nor the civil rights movement chose to focus solely on blame.  Solid arguments, coalition building, use of the courts... prolonged multiple attacks.

    Uh. We gays have been criticizing the Prop 8 (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by ericinatl on Sun Dec 28, 2008 at 08:00:15 PM EST
    campaign run on behalf of equality.  But we gays are notoriously good at multi-tasking.  We can criticize HRC while also criticizing Obama's pick of an outspoken Prop 8 supporter to kick off his throning, er, inauguration.  It's not an either/or proposition and to pretend it it is is just plain silly.

    By the way, it's not like all us gays get in a (5.00 / 5) (#32)
    by ericinatl on Sun Dec 28, 2008 at 08:02:22 PM EST
    room to plan the Prop 8 strategy.  Most of us had little say in it.  Neither do we have a say in Obama's inauguration.  But that doesn't mean we can't object and complain about either or both.

    My invite got lost in the mail, obviously (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by andgarden on Sun Dec 28, 2008 at 09:37:36 PM EST
    And here I've thought all along (5.00 / 3) (#54)
    by oculus on Sun Dec 28, 2008 at 10:11:20 PM EST
    Hillary Clinton won the California primary.

    who to blame for YES on Prop 8 (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by TimNCGuy on Sun Dec 28, 2008 at 10:27:04 PM EST
    Sorry, but I tend not to agree with Pam's House Blend on who to blame for the passage of Prop 8.  She wants to take away all balme from minorities who overwhelmingly voted for Prop 8 by citing statistics that showed that Republcans also voted overwhelimgly for it (duh) and evangelicals too (double duh).

    the real issue is to get some stats on who voted FOR Obama and also voted FOR Prop 8.  Especially when the Prop H8 people used Obama's own words in their commercials and Obama CHOSE not to respond and explain to his supporters (and VOTERS) that they should vote no on Prop 8.  Was he afraid if he did that it would cost him votes elsewhere in the country?  It certainly would never have cost him CA.  Obama's face should have been ALL OVER TV in CA saying VOTE NO ON 8.  Where was he?


    No other group (5.00 / 4) (#57)
    by andgarden on Sun Dec 28, 2008 at 10:30:18 PM EST
    supported Obama AND prop 8 as strongly as blacks. Anyone who tries to deny that would have to claim that the exit poll is very wrong.

    Was the exit poll in Florida (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by andgarden on Mon Dec 29, 2008 at 12:23:04 PM EST
    that said the same thing also wrong?

    I mean really, please.


    I trust 538 not at all (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by andgarden on Mon Dec 29, 2008 at 12:49:18 PM EST
    and if you actually knew anything about these exit polls (you don't), you would know that they were conducted by Edison/Mitofsky, not CNN.

    There's a lot of speculation (none / 0) (#102)
    by andgarden on Mon Dec 29, 2008 at 02:45:01 PM EST
    in that post. There are vague accusations that the exit poll is unreliable, but the exit poll says what it says. My point to you is that it was conducted by professionals, not some fly by night organization. Could it be wrong? Yes, but if you multiply out the AA subsample, you see that they talked to more than 200 people. That's enough.

    Your attitude--that the problem isn't really that big--is what I'm fighting against. I think if we pretend that the 70% isn't reality, then we can just ignore the issue. We cannot.


    comparing the exit polls (5.00 / 2) (#107)
    by TimNCGuy on Mon Dec 29, 2008 at 04:40:32 PM EST
    for whites that voted for prop 8 to blacks that voted for prop 8 is comparing apples to oranges.

    Instead try comparing the number of whites who voted for Obama and also voted for prop 8 to the number of blacks who voted for Obama and also voted for prop 8.

    When you include ALL whites, you are throwing in a bunch of right wing conservatives who we knew for a fact would vote for prop 8.

    But, both the whites and the blacks who voted for Obama should have also had sense enough to vote against prop 8.

    Use your own 57% or 58 % if you want to instead of the 70%.  When you consider that OVER 90% of blacks voted for Obama, that still gives you well over 50% of those voting for prop 8.

    I would guess that the percentage of whites who voted for oabama and also for prop 8 was no where near the percentage it was for whites.


    Excuse me, but the overwhelming evidence (none / 0) (#105)
    by andgarden on Mon Dec 29, 2008 at 03:22:05 PM EST
    is that a majority, probably a supermajority, of black people do hate us. And it is not racist to say that.

    Indeed, I think it's actually racist to suggest that we can't talk about the problem.


    And So (none / 0) (#61)
    by liberalone on Sun Dec 28, 2008 at 11:14:51 PM EST
    Only the Mormons were actively campaigning in Black neighborhoods.  Few commercials about No H8 aired during the campaign.  Some San Francisco voters who were displeased with Obama did not vote at all.  

    According to my LA friends, California voters could also choose to NOT vote on certain measures and still have their ballots counted.  (California voters please correct me if I am wrong.)

    On the positive side, virtually every major black CA political organization and supported the no h8 campaign, including the NAACP.  Many major black political figures  and actors supported no h8.

    Rather than using the data to blame others, why not use it for a proactive campaigns.


    my original comment (5.00 / 3) (#66)
    by TimNCGuy on Sun Dec 28, 2008 at 11:31:19 PM EST
    was only discussing Pam's houseblend justifying the large percentage of balcks voting FOR H8 by comparing their numbers to those of repugs and evangelicals who were NEVER going to vote against H8 anyway.  It's a false comparison.

    To your comments what I will ask is

    How many percentage points did Obama WIN CA by?
    How many did H8 win by?  A lot less, right.

    Neither of these numbers are changed by people in SF who didn't vote at ALL.

    Choosing NOT to vote on a measure, doesn't increase the YES on H8 vote.

    My blame for the passage of H8 falls squarely on the shoulders of Obama.  He should have been out there explaining to HIS voters and supporters why they should vote NO.  Especially when the other side was using his own words to get H8 passed.

    Obama should be out there in public RIGHT NOW supporting the CA Attorney General in his position to the Supreme Court to overturn H8 based on the fact that it should have never been on the ballot.  You can't place a proposition on the ballot to remove EXISTING rights from people without that initiative having been approved by a super majority of the CAlegislature first.


    I't snot about blame, (4.50 / 6) (#63)
    by andgarden on Sun Dec 28, 2008 at 11:21:37 PM EST
    it's about recognizing that there is a problem that exists.

    I have no beef with the black civil rights orgs and leaders. They do important work and support civil rights consistently.

    My problem is with the beliefs of a supermajority of black voters. They hate me because of who I am. that's a pretty difficult problem to get past.  I had hoped that Obama would try and change some minds, but instead he's moved on to Warren.  


    on election day, i was in line (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by boredmpa on Mon Dec 29, 2008 at 03:27:18 AM EST
    in san fran city hall, in front of someone cheerily proclaiming how she had never voted in her 40+ years and wanted to be a part of history. Was she one of the 2 in 10 that voted for my rights?  Probably not, since if I recall the non-regular voters were even more likely to vote against gays.

    And lets not forget, i was online here from early 2008, reading and commenting on how the democrat party cheerily suggested that beauty pageant winners (c.f. biden) and race-baiters should not rule the day. I didn't need ehrenstein to imply what was going on.

    homophobia, sexism, and racism were all exploited during this election cycle and the end result was a higher turnout of homophobic folks and a loss of civil rights.  Sure that's debatable, depending on which statistician you talk to, but it's close enough to be a major point.

    Identity politics and disenfranchisement are disturbing and disgusting things to see employed by the democrat party.  And they have real *&$! results.  


    San Francisco went (none / 0) (#111)
    by andrys on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 06:05:44 AM EST
    overwhelmingly against Prop 8.

    I was going to dispute the word "hate" (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by sarany on Mon Dec 29, 2008 at 07:55:46 AM EST
    feeling it's too strong, but maybe you're right.  

    I think it's time for a lot of conversations with people who range from hesitant, reluctant or queasy about gay to those who actually do hate.

    What is it about gayness that allows other discriminated groups to disrespect us, deny our humanness, deprive us of the same rights they struggle for?

    I believe the reasons people are willing to exclude gay people from their own particular group are extraordinarily complex. Until we can make unassailable inroads on people's very private and unexamined prejudices, fears and biases, every single gain the gay community makes will be vulnerable to overturning I fear.

    Maybe there is something in common here with women's reproductive rights.  Gay may scare people most urgently because it can turn up anywhere: in our families, our friends and oh lord, even ourselves. You can't see it coming because it's a chameleon. Similarly, any woman can turn on us and take control of our progeny.  Is it all about the fear that we can't control anything, our women, the sexuality in our families and even ourselves?


    Political Organization and Politician (none / 0) (#62)
    by liberalone on Sun Dec 28, 2008 at 11:18:27 PM EST
    Agree No on 8 was terribly run (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by DaleA on Mon Dec 29, 2008 at 01:08:57 AM EST
    And the people in charge should never run another campaign. What is driving the anger among many gays is that we have been in a coalition with Blacks for decades. During this time, gays have worked for many Black candidates, donating time, energy and money. Every urban Black mayor depends on the support of LGBTQ2S people. Usually, Black elected officials are among the most supportive of gay issues.

    Looking at the numbers, a majority of whites voted No on 8. It appears so did a majority of Asians. And a majority of non evangelical Latinos voted No on 8. There are beginning to appear precinct studies showing a majority of all Latinos voted No.

    Black elected officials have always been our path to communicating with the Black community. There are large vibrant Asian and Latino glbt communities which get the message out. Among Blacks, not so much. So we have always been stuck with the elected officials, who until now always came thru for us. That is what hurts so much.


    Warren (none / 0) (#33)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Dec 28, 2008 at 08:06:51 PM EST
    A word missing from your comment.

    Warren (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by liberalone on Sun Dec 28, 2008 at 08:24:57 PM EST
    I agree that one should complain about multiple things at once.  I do not agree that there is no organizing unit for the gay rights campaign.  The HRC is one of many recognized organizations working for gay marriage.  So, yes, there were and are places for gays to go and organize.  

    I don't believe that I was suggesting that folks should only do one thing.  My last line was specifically contrary to that.

    Yup, I feel that this is too much ado about WARREN.  The direction that the various attacks have taken is making this a God vs. Gay argument, which is definitely a losing strategy.  

    If you think that name calling, attacking individuals, attacking churches, attacking religious figures will build a strong coalition... go for it.  Why not use the WARREN thing to get something out of Obama.

    God vs. WHO? (none / 0) (#40)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Dec 28, 2008 at 08:57:43 PM EST
    Rick Warren as god? Or Obama?



    Neither Warren nor Obama (none / 0) (#51)
    by liberalone on Sun Dec 28, 2008 at 10:00:28 PM EST
    The comments that the various no H8 proponents used have been attacks against born again Christians, evangelicals, and the like.  Since the Catholic church shares the same view I guess one could throw them in there as well.  Perhaps God vs Gay was too vague...

    Christian Doctrine vs. Gay
    Christianity vs. Gay
    Biblical beliefs vs. Gay
    Church Doctrine vs. Gay

    If this is a Human Rights issue, then the religion angle should be minimized.

    Hopefully I am clear this time.


    None of them (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Dec 29, 2008 at 05:54:14 AM EST
    Not a one, is God.  Despite their claims to be God's messenger on Earth.



    I love that she thinks so little of her (5.00 / 6) (#44)
    by tigercourse on Sun Dec 28, 2008 at 09:07:37 PM EST
    guy Obama that she writes that if people are mean to him, he'll drag his feet on pursuing civil rights.

    Okay, I see where this is going. (5.00 / 6) (#45)
    by Anne on Sun Dec 28, 2008 at 09:26:31 PM EST
    The message is that all those who have a bone to pick with the government are supposed to be "civil" about it, even if it's something as essential and obvious like having the same rights as everyone else.  If that message goes unheeded, if voices are raised and demands are made in a less-than-appropriately-humble manner, the time-out corner awaits until the lesson is learned.

    I mean, being "nice" about it is a method that worked so well for people of color and women, you know?

    And, besides, wouldn't it just be extra-super-special if those who want to be treated like everyone else could give all the credit to Obama, and not to their own efforts?

    Clearly, for people like Yvonne, the Rick Warren pick was a test to separate those who blindly trust Obama from those who would prefer not to leave their rights in the hands of one person with a spotty record of actually achieving anything; having failed that test, the gay community, in Yvonne's eyes, has no one to blame but themselves if their issues go on the back burner until such time as they have shown that they have learned their lesson.

    I'm just left shaking my head at the insanity of it all.

    Read his lips (5.00 / 6) (#46)
    by mmc9431 on Sun Dec 28, 2008 at 09:30:13 PM EST
    When the president elect is on record for his opposition to gay marriage because of "religous" reasons and actively campaigned with anti gay zealots, why should gays be surprised now?  (His own words were used in the ads for prop 8).

    I think Obama has made his position very clear. For the Obama cult to still cling to his "No One Has Done More" approach his actions is insulting. Gays do not have an advocate coming to the WH.

    why is it that whenever (5.00 / 9) (#48)
    by TimNCGuy on Sun Dec 28, 2008 at 09:41:18 PM EST
    anyone explains to one of these anti-advocates that we would like to see the example of where Obama is including a "racist" and an "anti-semite" if the explanation for Warren is to be inclusive, they never have an answer?

    The only response I have heard for that to date is that well OF COURSE he wouldn't have a racist or anti-semite.  Everyone knows that is just WRONG.

    And, that's the problem.  Everyone, or at least every liberal and/or progressive should also just know that Warren's opinion that gays are like pedophiles is WRONG and there should be no place for him if there is no place for a racist or anti-semite.  

    Everyone should just know, like they do with racism, that civil rights (not just marriage) are not somethign to describe as a difference of opinion on social issues.

    you nailed it (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by sarany on Mon Dec 29, 2008 at 08:11:02 AM EST
    Warren's equating gay marriage with pedophiles make him unacceptable as a face for Obama's reconciliation administration.

    You cannot proclaim yourself inclusive, Mr. Pres.-elect, if you tap a symbolic spokesman, in the name of inclusiveness, who is himself not inclusive. Warren won't meet with gay groups, won't welcome gays into his church and won't recognize gays as a minority group who needs protection and is due the same rights as any other group.

    This is mind-numbingly simple. Anyone who denies that it's important and should be forgotten is condoning the message that this sends. Silence is not acceptable.


    Just listened to the BIG CONTROVERSY (5.00 / 8) (#49)
    by TimNCGuy on Sun Dec 28, 2008 at 09:46:36 PM EST
    over the distribution of the parody song "Barack the Magic Negro".  It's being called extrememly racist.  But, I haven't heard any discussion yet that people should just get over it.  I haven't heard that playing the song is just being inclusive of other opinions.  

    But, when itis gays being disparaged, it's no big deal.  We just need to settle down and discuss our differences and see if we can come to common ground.


    Just Another Apologist for Gay Racist Speak (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by AnthonyLook on Sun Dec 28, 2008 at 09:49:59 PM EST
    The detractors of gay rights are not suddenly changing their minds; they were just pandering to the gay community for their own gains all along. Frank Rich is only coming out of his homophobe/hate closet; we are witnessing countless of black ministers defending Rick Warren as well. They are merely political oppurtunists that want to ride the trade winds of what they see as a safe ride.
    Remember the name, Frank Rich; just another of many who do not have the dignity to demand that Warren retracts his hate speech, just as Obama and Ethridge, and Biden, and many others have not.
    It may seem trivial for the blind eyes of religious self righteous gay bigots to allow this man to speak at this event, it may seem that it means little to nothing; but, it means nothing less that these apologists and Obama are condoning his rethoric by selecting and defending him.
    Minimize this event all you want; the gay community will not soon forget. Come election time, Obama will not overcome this insensitive disrepect and insult. Monies for black candidates will not simply be handed over because they belong to the Democratic party.
    Things have changed.

    These Threats Would Have More Credibility (none / 0) (#74)
    by kaleidescope on Mon Dec 29, 2008 at 12:50:38 AM EST
    If the opponents of Proposition 8 had actually, you know, used their relatively lavishly funded campaign to defeat a proposition the Field Poll had down by almost ten points a couple months before the election.

    AIPAC or the NRA would be embarrassed by this kind of post-election-loss bluster.


    Welcome to Bush's Third Term... (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by pmj6 on Sun Dec 28, 2008 at 10:09:02 PM EST
    Don't say I didn't warn ya...

    you're talking abour people's RIGHTS... (5.00 / 4) (#58)
    by pluege on Sun Dec 28, 2008 at 10:54:41 PM EST
    EQUALITY UNDER THE LAW! There can be no acting bad (as long the law isn't broken.) Its just ridiculous to criticize homosexuals for being upset and angry. There's just no excuse for them to not have full equality under the law - its outrageous.

    Withholding equal rights, equal opportunity, and equal protection under the law for any humans, any citizens is a major, major national disgrace. Everyone should be outraged.  

    but, but, but (5.00 / 3) (#59)
    by TimNCGuy on Sun Dec 28, 2008 at 11:00:26 PM EST
    The gays would be treated equally if they would just stay in the closet and pretend to be straight.  You know REAL minorities don't have that option.  Women can't pretend to be men.  Blacks can't pretend to be white.

    If gays would just ACT straight, they wouldn't get beaten up.  They wouldn't get fired.  They wouldn't be denied housing.

    So, you see there is no problem.  Just act straight and you can be treated like a full citizen.  It's easy, right?


    Right, because the religious right has no problem (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by ruffian on Sun Dec 28, 2008 at 11:08:47 PM EST
    with them being gay - it's just that gay behavior they think is an abomination.

    While women can't pretend to be men (5.00 / 8) (#67)
    by nycstray on Sun Dec 28, 2008 at 11:35:14 PM EST
    and Blacks can't pretend to be white, there is still an expectation of "acceptable behavior" put on both groups. Dawg forbid we get too big for our britches {speaking as a woman}. . . . . or worse, don't behave in the acceptable manner.

    Equal Rights has a long way to go in this country and I don't see Obama being much of a leader for LGBT or women. Only thing I ever heard him be consistent on was "Race, religion, region". But hey! maybe if we all just behave . . .


    She comes really close (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by Jake Left on Mon Dec 29, 2008 at 01:06:39 PM EST
    to calling gays uppity and pushy. Those of us who have also supported (I mean support, not non-opposition) the struggles against anti-semitism, racism, and misogyny recognize this kind of "supporter".

    Yvonne's smug and self-righteous (none / 0) (#5)
    by oldpro on Sun Dec 28, 2008 at 05:21:43 PM EST
    post to the Rich column is recommended by 166 like-minded folks.

    You left out the part where she takes credit for pro-choice supporters 'not behaving badly' by objecting to Warren's selection, unlike those stupid gay people.

    Wonder where she was in the 50s and 60s.


    I wonder if she realizes (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by nycstray on Sun Dec 28, 2008 at 05:29:34 PM EST
    that many pro-choice people are objecting to Warren. In defense of gay marriage and all  ;)

    I'm pro-choice and behaving badly (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by Cream City on Sun Dec 28, 2008 at 05:53:45 PM EST
    about Obama's honor to Warren.  Very badly.

    Please tell Yvonne for me, since I am so grateful that you and BTD have spared me from going to read her drivel for myself.  What a fool she must be.


    Nah...I'm not going back. (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by oldpro on Sun Dec 28, 2008 at 07:41:40 PM EST
    Let's just pray for her.

    (yes...it's snark).


    166 Obamabots. Still, ick. (none / 0) (#7)
    by andgarden on Sun Dec 28, 2008 at 05:23:05 PM EST
    having her (none / 0) (#79)
    by cpinva on Mon Dec 29, 2008 at 03:40:08 AM EST
    brain washed?

    Wonder where she was in the 50s and 60s.

    McCarthyite tactics (none / 0) (#36)
    by daryl herbert on Sun Dec 28, 2008 at 08:34:16 PM EST
    breed resentment.

    Trying to get ordinary people fired during an economic crisis isn't advocating for civil rights, it's petty thuggery.

    No one has to support a movement that is committing crimes in the streets against old people and targeting their opponents' employment during an economic crisis.

    Rev. King didn't encourage riots.  He always said that it did matter how the movement conducted itself.  I suppose that makes him a sellout in your eyes.

    oh good grief... (5.00 / 3) (#37)
    by Maria Garcia on Sun Dec 28, 2008 at 08:40:08 PM EST
    ..so ALL gay people should abdicate their claim to equal rights because you don't approve of the behavior of some? Lucky for you that I and a lot of other people who were offended by the petty thuggery of "some" in the Obama movement had the ability to look past the BS and do the right thing.

    Say what? (5.00 / 4) (#39)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Dec 28, 2008 at 08:56:28 PM EST
    I am not sure what you are talking about, but if you think King did not use ECONOMIC weapons as part of his movement then you clearly never heard of the Montgomery Boycott.

    But honestly, I have no freaking idea what your comment is supposed to be about.


    I'm beginning to think McCarthy (none / 0) (#43)
    by nycstray on Sun Dec 28, 2008 at 09:06:43 PM EST
    McCarthyism, McCarthyite tactics is the new bot defensive buzz  ;)

    So where is the gay "Watts"? (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by ThatOneVoter on Sun Dec 28, 2008 at 09:05:54 PM EST
    I missed the news about the gay riots. Did many  people die? How  
    many homes were burned down?

    Perhaps you have a calling (none / 0) (#52)
    by liberalone on Sun Dec 28, 2008 at 10:01:49 PM EST
    You must be talking about the new blacklist (none / 0) (#83)
    by ericinatl on Mon Dec 29, 2008 at 07:21:03 AM EST
    that the media is all up in arms about.  Supposedly all of us gays have access to this anti-gay blacklist which has been compiled - a list of all the supporters of Prop 8 - and we're supposed to boycott them.

    There is no such list.  However, it is true that on several gay messageboards it came to light some Prop 8 supporters were working in traditionally gay industries (directors of theaters in California I believe), and many of us expressed our displeasure and those individuals resigned.  Also, the manager of El Coyote in Los Angeles (a gay hangout) turned out to donate to yes on Prop 8 and gays in LA staged boycotts.  

    Yes on 8 supporters somehow believe we are infringing on their civil liberties (free speech) through boycotts.  I don't see it.  First of course we are not the government so there is no constitutional issue.  Second, they still have their right to speech.  But we also have our right to speech -- we can complain about their "speech".  Finally, the straight media seems to forget that these individuals actively worked to take the civil rights of gays away.  But I guess some rights are better than others.  Snark off.


    Obama Needs to be Consequenced for Warren (none / 0) (#38)
    by kaleidescope on Sun Dec 28, 2008 at 08:42:04 PM EST
    Phil Ochs pretty much pegged your Obamabot commentator with is song,"Love me, Love me, Love me, I'm a Liberal."

    But the quoted commentator is right about one thing.  As a Californian, I sure would have appreciated hearing A LOT more about how bad Proposition H8 was BEFORE the election.  Did anyone else see the ridiculous anti-H8 ads that beat around the bush so much you couldn't even tell what the hell they were talking about?

    The anti-H8 campaign has to go down in California history as one of the least effective.  The political consultants who ran the anti-H8 campaign acted like retreads from the Angelides/Westly contest.  

    The post-H8 campaign, on the other hand, has been pretty good, but it doesn't save marriage rights.  All it provides, right now, is outrage.

    Give me rights over outrage anytime.

    So, if there had been a great (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by oldpro on Sun Dec 28, 2008 at 09:02:51 PM EST
    campaign, then gays would have 'deserved' to win and with anything less, it serves them right?

    Dem Party anD Liberals abandoned us (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by DaleA on Mon Dec 29, 2008 at 11:14:24 AM EST
    When trying to recruit phone bankers, got told over and over again that they were already calling for Obama to Indiana or where ever. When asking for money, told everything was going to Obama. So, gays were essentially left on their own. The Democratic Party and liberal organizations abandoned us. Despite decades of voting and donating, we were on our own. This strikes me as the root of our anger.

    While trying to work out a solution, Rick Warren is dumped on top of us. Lesbians and gays, a community that votes more than two to one Democratic, is insulted again. Lots of LGBT voters are reevaluating their loyalties. Expect to see more openly gay candidates in the future, frequently challenging urban Black office holders. And some shifts in LGBT political donations.


    No (none / 0) (#64)
    by kaleidescope on Sun Dec 28, 2008 at 11:24:54 PM EST
    If there had been even a moderately competent campaign we all -- gay, straight and bent -- would likely have WON.

    We all "deserved" to win.  All I'm saying is I wish the campaign before the election had been as intense and out there as the campaign after the barn door has been closed.

    Did you watch the worthless ads the bosses of the campaign wasted our money on?  The people responsible for running the campaign should hang their heads in shame.  

    And I'm also asking, where were all these people tearing their hair out before the election?  I live here.  I wasn't called once.  Nobody asked me for a contribution.  Nobody asked me to work for the campaign. Nobody canvassed me.


    No. Didn't see the ads.... (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by oldpro on Mon Dec 29, 2008 at 12:30:09 AM EST
    I live in Washington, not California.

    Here's the thing:  issue campaigns are nothing like elections (with campaigns by candidates) and the results can't be judged with the same criteria.

    Losing campaigns are always described as 'lousy' and winning campaigns described as...well, good...or great.  The reverse, however, isn't true for issues campaigns.  You can have a great campaign and still lose if the opposition also has a great campaign and the public isn't crystal clear about the choice or isn't ready to make it.

    How the question on the ballot is posed is vital.  Research shows that when people are confused or unsure, they vote "no."  Good propaganda is designed to take advantage of that.


    We had an advantage on that front too (5.00 / 3) (#72)
    by andgarden on Mon Dec 29, 2008 at 12:37:17 AM EST
    The CW was that Jerry Brown's ballot language change should have been decisive:

    [I]n the wake of the state Supreme Court decision in May legalizing same-sex marriage, Brown worded Prop. 8's ballot description to specify that it "eliminates the right of same-sex couples to marry."

    The proponents' original title for Prop. 8 was "Limit on Marriage." What voters see on their ballot pamphlet, thanks to Brown, is, "Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry."

    At the end of the day, what Californians were voting for couldn't have been clearer. One depressing loss, if you ask me.


    Big mistake, I'd say. (none / 0) (#89)
    by oldpro on Mon Dec 29, 2008 at 10:34:23 AM EST
    The best bet on defeating Prop 8 would have been to muddy the waters by keeping the original title or making it even more threatening-sounding to the general population...not clarifying it to California Hispanics and AAs whose religious and cultural institutions are unlikely to support gay marriage.

    Jerry Brown messed up, if defeat was the goal.


    Jerry Brown clarified it for every Californian (none / 0) (#108)
    by mexboy on Mon Dec 29, 2008 at 04:43:05 PM EST
    The best bet on defeating Prop 8 would have been to muddy the waters by keeping the original title or making it even more threatening-sounding to the general population...not clarifying it to California Hispanics and AAs whose religious and cultural institutions are unlikely to support gay marriage.

    Are you saying Latinos and Blacks are too stupid to understand a proposition, and therefore, it had to be simplified for them alone?

    If you are fighting stereotypes against gays and lesbians, maybe you should search your own conscience for your own stereotypes against others; before you expect others to support you in your struggles.

    For your information, we Latinos were very closely divided on this issue (47% to 53%) and precinct reports are beginning to show, that maybe, the majority of us voted against it.

    The fact that we as a community, with our strong and ingrained traditional values voted against prop 8 in such large numbers ought to open your eyes to the fact that we hate injustice and discrimination.

    We share common goals, and you have strong support from my community.

    The possibility of having overwhelming support is there for the taking. But with prejudiced views like yours it's hard to see.


    Nooooo...that's NOT what I'm (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by oldpro on Mon Dec 29, 2008 at 06:34:23 PM EST
    saying...in fact, quite the opposite:  when it's going to be a close election on ANY issue and if there is doubt about whether a clear message will win the day for progressives, do NOT clarify the message for those who might vote against you.  It's basic politics.

    And, BTW, I do know my prejudices and guard against them but they're not the one's you're assuming.  Don't assume.  I am a 70+ straight, white female widow who was very happily married for nearly 30 years, have both gay and straight friends, Hispanic, Asian and AA friends and a single son who I wish would bring home a loving partner of any stripe, straight OR gay.


    Apologies for my assumption (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by mexboy on Mon Dec 29, 2008 at 07:03:27 PM EST
    You're absolutely right, and will be more vigilant about them.

    I still disagree with your point, but I've learned a valuable lesson today.


    Well (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by kaleidescope on Mon Dec 29, 2008 at 12:43:23 AM EST
    The post-election campaign has been great.  The word is now out and lots of people are producing videos and getting a lot of press.  People are now mobilized.  Too bad that didn't happen before people voted.

    The old advocacy structure (none / 0) (#65)
    by andgarden on Sun Dec 28, 2008 at 11:27:22 PM EST
    is creaky and incestuous. Essentially the people who produced Obama's crappy but prolific ads.

    Do These People Have Names? n/t (none / 0) (#75)
    by kaleidescope on Mon Dec 29, 2008 at 12:54:18 AM EST
    Not off the top of my head (none / 0) (#76)
    by andgarden on Mon Dec 29, 2008 at 01:07:43 AM EST
    but they work prolifically.

    Why should people have to ask you to contribute? (none / 0) (#81)
    by mexboy on Mon Dec 29, 2008 at 05:28:27 AM EST
    You knew what prop 8 was about. No body asked me and I donated.

    Why should any human being's rights, or value, be put up for a vote?

    Why should gay people have to defend their equality?

     Why are you blaming the victims?


    Nobody Asked and I Contributed Anyway (none / 0) (#86)
    by kaleidescope on Mon Dec 29, 2008 at 09:27:20 AM EST
    But that nobody asked is just one of many indicators that political incompetents ran the No on 8 Campaign.

    Ron George isn't a bad Chief Justice, but he's no Roger Traynor. I wouldn't count on him rounding up the votes to judicially overturn Proposition 8.

    So that means going back to the ballot to get it legislatively reversed. A necessary first step is learning the lessons of our defeat and trying to figure out how to run a better campaign to get Proposition 8 reversed.  To learn who screwed things up and to make sure they never come close to the next campaign.

    You don't need to try to make me feel bad that Proposition 8 passed.  I already do.  But I want to feel better by getting it reversed.  I want rights not hand wringing.  

    If you want to cry into your pillow, go ahead.  But that alone won't get you your rights back.

    And by the way, Proposition 9 wrecked a lot of lives in ways much more profound than Proposition 8 did or ever could.  How much money did you contribute to the No on 9 campaign?


    I didn't know this was a competition (none / 0) (#106)
    by mexboy on Mon Dec 29, 2008 at 04:09:26 PM EST
    And by the way, Proposition 9 wrecked a lot of lives in ways much more profound than Proposition 8 did or ever could.  How much money did you contribute to the No on 9 campaign?

    I contributed $0.00 money to it.
    You see, I'm a student, and on a budget, so the money that I did contribute both to Hillary Clinton and against prop 8 came out of that already limited budget.

    Tell gay people who were married that their lives are not as profoundly affected as someone else's and see how they react.

    It seems to me, that telling  gay people, they are less valuable, less complete, than heterosexual people and encoding that judgment into the constitution is mighty profound.

    Wouldn't telling people their love, or the way they love, is invalid and illegal not "profoundly" affect the way such person sees him/herself? Would it not affect the psyche of the gay community? Especially is that person happens to be a child, teen or an adult dealing with the homophobia inherent in our culture?

    You don't need to try to make me feel bad that Proposition 8 passed.  I already do.

    It was not my intention to make you feel bad.

    If you want to cry into your pillow, go ahead.  But that alone won't get you your rights back.

    You lost me here.


    William Kristol, seems to be rubbing our (none / 0) (#87)
    by KeysDan on Mon Dec 29, 2008 at 09:55:36 AM EST
    collective nose in Obama's affaire d' Warrem  with his snarky op-ed in today's NYT: "....I suspect he'll (Warren) be careful to say nothing pro-life or pro-traditional marriage--but we conservatives have already gotten more than enough pleasure from the hysterical reaction to his selection by the tribunes of the intolerant left.  And having Warren there will, in fact, be a welcome reminder of the strides the evangelical movement and religious conservatives (broadly speaking) have made in recent decades."   But, maybe we can take some cheer from Kristol having the uncanny ability to be wrong on just about everything.

    I think he does have a point... (5.00 / 3) (#88)
    by starsandstripes on Mon Dec 29, 2008 at 10:08:43 AM EST
    And having Warren there will, in fact, be a welcome reminder of the strides the evangelical movement and religious conservatives (broadly speaking) have made in recent decades

    If they hadn't made such strides, Obama wouldn't feel such a need to pander to them. Because that's what having Warren up there really is about, isn't it?


    The reaction on this thread (none / 0) (#97)
    by Slado on Mon Dec 29, 2008 at 01:21:29 PM EST
    is exactly what the comment was about.

    The difference between gay rights and civil rights is we're talking about sex and religion and the human speicies defies logic when the words sex and religion is associated with any arguemnt and it's double confusing when both are.

    On this issue we have truly mixed church and state.   My church and many others will never sanctify the marriage of two gay people.   You can call that biggoted if you want but you are really asking peole to change their religous beliefs.   If your church believes that marriage can be defined to include same sex couples then great.    But why should my church be forced by the state to accept your beliefs or vice verca?

    The state or states have turned a political issue into a religious argument by sanctioning marriage in the first place.   Do I care personally if my state decides to issue licenses to gay people giving them the same rights as me?  Nope.   Do I care if they call that union a marriage like mine?  Personally I don't but I don't feel someone is biggoted if they don't approve.  

    So what to do.   Remove religion from the process.  Let the states grant civil unions for all couple, gay or straight and let the states decide the rules.  Then you can call the union whatever you want based on where you choose to perform the ceremony.

    This is still a religous country and if you choose to battle religion head on instead of removing it from the equation proponents of gay rights will continue to loose these battles or at least be opposed by a bigger porition of society then if religion wasn't part of the arguement.

    Maybe it works differently in Canada (none / 0) (#98)
    by starsandstripes on Mon Dec 29, 2008 at 01:40:22 PM EST
    If your church believes that marriage can be defined to include same sex couples then great.    But why should my church be forced by the state to accept your beliefs or vice verca?

    But I don't believe same-sex marriage rights at the government level has anything to do with forcing churches to churches to change their beliefs. At least in Canada, a church does not have to perform a gay marriage if it doesn't want to, but the government will issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples and will afford the same rights that it does to opposite-sex married couples and same-sex married couples. Isn't that what same-sex marriage rights is about in the US? I don't think anyone is forcing churches to do anything.

    Yes and no (none / 0) (#99)
    by Slado on Mon Dec 29, 2008 at 01:58:47 PM EST
    The state is giving marriage licenses.   Marriage is a religous word in the minds of most Americans.  

    This really boils down to the meaning of the word Marriage and to most Americans it has religous meaning.

    The state should not be involved.    The state should grant civil unions and let individuals define "Marriage" in the terms of their own religous or spiritual beliefs.

    I see your point and it is valid but I think the reality on the ground is because the state is granting rights to what is traditionaly a religous practice it is indeed sanctioning it when it uses the same term.


    The flip to this arguement (none / 0) (#100)
    by Slado on Mon Dec 29, 2008 at 02:05:25 PM EST
    is of course religous groups or the far right wing of will see it as another sign of an ACLU type seperation of church and state and will freak out etc... etc...

    This will flip the playing field IMHO and make the religous right the loud minority and put moderates like myself on the side of gay rights.

    Just my opinion though.


    Semantics (none / 0) (#103)
    by starsandstripes on Mon Dec 29, 2008 at 02:46:37 PM EST
    It's religious arrogance that can't bear the term "marriage" being appropriated by the state. Just like there's been some outrage that the whole same-sex marriage issue is being seen as a "civil rights issue".

    I know Canada got round the problem by passing legislation explicitly stating that religious institutions did not have to recognize same-sex marriage, and one could refuse to perform a same-sex marriage if it was against one's beliefs. Of course, now you have the problem of what does a same-sex couple do if the one JP in a small town refuses to perform their marriage. And should it be a requirement that government servants be able to perform same-sex marriages - quite like the whole access to health debate going on in the States right now.

    If you have to have civil unions only for gays, get rid of marriage from the state period. Switch it all to civil unions.