OpEd: Okay, Obama. Now Let's Have a Speech on Gay Rights »
Posted By TimALoftis 7 months ago in Political News
There has been a growing roar within the gay community about seeming inaction by a man who promised change.
Some activists fume that President Obama hasn’t followed through on his promise to repeal the offensive Defense of Marriage Act or muttered a substantive word about the legalization of same-sex marriage in six states. After last night's airing of NBC's Inside the Obama White House interview, in which Obama provided a tepid answer to a question about whether “gay and lesbian couples who wish to marry in this country have a friend in the White House,” the blogosphere is filling with cries of “shameful” and “no passion, no heart, no real connection to our cause.”
Others are enraged by Obama’s failure to end the ban on gays serving openly in the military. In his “Hypocrisy Watch” segment yesterday, MSNBC's David Shuster derided Obama, saying "Here we are, more than four months into your administration and the 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' policy remains in place."
The man who would deliver gays and lesbians to the promised land of full equality is now viewed with suspicion and anger. The sense of betrayal is palpable. But it is a sense I strongly believe is misplaced, especially so early in a four-year term.
Read Full Story at voices.washingtonpost.com »
402 Views Share Story 38 Comments Report
Submitted By:
TimALoftis
Don't Get Caught Standing On The Wrong Side Of History When It Comes To The Issue Of
EQUALITY
Who Also Submitted: All »
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentComments So Far: 38 (view all)
-
100%
scott42617 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I believe President Obama will address gay rights issues. And if the speeches he's given so far are any indication, he will be well received...
Reply
Then, will this actually result in positive change? Will the south and parts of the midwest break off into the United States of Texas? ....In all seriousness, gay marriage equality could threaten the union like no other issue, but it is so vitally important those of us in the gay and lesbian community. It looks like my partner and I may have to retire in the northeast now, which we don't mind, but it would really be great to be acknowledged with the same rights in all 50 states...
That said... I don't expect that the President will embrace gay marriage, but I do believe he fundamentally believes in the advancement of our equality. This will be framed as a state's rights issue. And he's gonna have to get rid of more southern blue dogs to even have the votes to repeal DOMA...-
100%
wtagg7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I am not sure that a speech on gay rights is necessary or even desired. It portrays the members of the group (or quite frankly of any group) as special. I think what is needed is true equality under the law and a speech supporting that. True equality is efficient and conservative. No special attention or favoritism is afforded to any individual or group.
Reply
Whether someone embraces a lifestyle or not should not be of concern. This is the problem of those that want to advance a particular lifestyle choice/decision. That isn't the business of government or the laws governing this country. It is a decision that is to be left for the citizen to make and for the rest of us to respect. Embracing is not needed.
If Obama is going to do something, it should be strictly within the world of one law applying to all citizens equally. This is an area that those that oppose such thinking are vulnerable. If you move out of the area of equality and efficiency, then I think the issue is very vulnerable to never being brought to resolution.
Of course, there is the conspiracy part of me that can be led to believe that the powers that rule either side will never wants true resolution. Once resolved, their importance, power, and income disappear. Unfortunately, I think that may be part of this because the equality issue is common sense under the law and the constitution. -
sonofreasonComment removed: Hard Banned2 Replies
-
Neutral
Natureboy7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Scott, I say this with affection and respect - What you believe Obama believes is far less important than what he actually DOES. And what he has done thus far, in many respects, is pork out on promises.
Reply
So beware, my friend - it is likely that the LGBT community has been played.
-
-
PsychoHosebeastComment removed: Spammer, Abusive
-
45%
Endoscopy7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
What rights. Homosexuals have every right that everybody else has. They want to change the institutions that have held for thousands of years for less that 1% of the population. They want to degrade what marriage is ans has always been. Man and woman raising a family that they brought into the world.
Reply-
100%
Tangent0017 months ago
-
100%
wtagg7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
So, are you advocating the repeal of women's rights also?
Reply
There are many couples that haven't brought a child into this world. There are many couples that have raised adopted children.
So, let's take this where it will go. You want all fetuses brought to term, no matter the risks or the circumstances, but if a couple adopts, they are not married unless they create a child through traditional *coupling*.
If you personally want to believe marriage is exclusively that, that's fine and your prerogative. I'm guessing that most homosexual individuals will hardly disagree with your right to believe what you like in this country. You have no right to deny due process or access to civil secular law in this country.
Marriage, in the view of civil secular law, is a contract dictating the responsibilities between two individuals. It does not require physically bearing children or consummation. The church's only authority under civil secular law concerning marriage is the ability to perform the ceremony, if they choose to do so, and nothing more. Any church has the right to deny performing that ceremony. They do not have the right to deny a civil judge from performing the ceremony.
You once again prove that you are anything but conservative. You give the word the wrong definition. -
-
100%
sinophil497 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
endo - Just a slight distortion of the statistics I see in your post.
Reply
The 1% you quote is for the number of US households that have same-sex partners in 2000 census. This is expected to rise by the next census next year.
The number of individuals who are gay/lesbian ranges from 2-3% all the way up to 10%. Various polls differ. But it is absolutely certain we can say that the percentage of gays in the US population is far higher than what you believe or want us to believe.
Then comes the American tradition of the US standing up for the oppressed minority. We do that on the international stage to prevent massacres and genocide, to promote human rights, to abolish slavery, to promote democracy for all.
Why are you espousing oppression of the minority in our own country? -
100%
sinophil497 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
endo - "They want to change the institutions that have held for thousands of years for less that 1% of the population."
Reply
Wtagg already pointed out that women's subjugation and oppression has been a cultural institutional bedrock for thousands of years across the globe. Your claim of perpetuating an "institution" simply because it has existed for thousands of years is baseless.
Another institution that has existed since the beginning of time is slavery. It is still widely practiced in today's world. In 2007, a conservative estimate was 27 million slaves around the world. One report went as high as 200 million. The majority are women in the sex market and child labor.
Since this institution has existed for thousands of years and benefits millions of people, business owners, brothel owners and human traffickers, are you advocating maintaining this institution? These 27 million slaves are only 0.3% of the world's population. Definitely far below 1%. So why bother, right?
-
-
capecoralMComment removed: Retracted by user4 Replies
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.