-
Website
http://www.americablog.com/ -
Original page
http://www.americablog.com/2009/06/democrats-and-political-homophobia.html -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
- Like we miss Cholera
- The Hill: 'Cracks are beginning to show in Emanuel’s once-impregnable political armor'
- Gibbs just flashed crib sheet on palm at WH briefing, included 'eggs, milk, bread, hope and change.'
- Lieutenant Dan Choi back on military drill duty
- AP photo shows Palin cheated, read notes off her hand at Teabagger conference
Your post has me wondering if Rahm Emmanuel is the root of the problem with the Obama administration-- and not just on gay issues. There have been some outrageous moves made by our Justice Dep't. on detainee issues which are at odds with everything that Obama claims to stand for. Maybe Rahm is the rot at the core....
i pointed this out to my partner, who said, "no, it's not just you...i think the same thing."
If the Dems thought that gay rights would get them re-elected, it would have been passed years ago.
This country finally got somewhere on civil rights for African Americans when the number of white people who favored equality exceeded the number of practitioners of racism. That made it safe for Lyndon Johnson to push civil rights legislation, and that made it safe for sufficient numbers of legislators to vote for rights.
The same thing will happen with equality for gay and lesbian Americans. When we have enough straight allies to convince legislators it's safe to vote for us, legislators will vote for us. But, until then, only very brave politicians and those with very safe seats believe they can afford to be our allies.
you said, "when we have enough straight allies..."
we have enough, what we need is for our elected officials to pull their collective heads out of the orifice below their belts and see that THE PUBLIC has left THEM BEHIND (no pun intended).
i live OUTSIDE a town of less than 200 people in a county that votes 90%+ REPUKE.
if you look at the data, a MAJORITY now supports the repeal of DADT and about 58% support marriage equality.
even in my little narrow-minded community (where i have lived for more than 10 years), i am completely OUT and have had people i don't even know come up to me in the general store to say, "i know who you are and even though i can't condone your lifestyle, i respect you as a person".
It's the Bible-belt argument: we have nothing against them, we just want to be sure that the "very best" person is in the right spot. Um . . . define "very best" and let's see whether that somehow fits the Bible-belt profile of externally conformist religionism.
So . . . if it's Rahm
and we know it,
let's dethrone him!
☺
Wise up! See “The Big Chill: Why Obama Must Defend DOMA as He Works For Repeal” at http://cotocrew.wordpress.com/2009/06/27/the-bi...
“The critics are correct in arguing that the President lacks a discretionary power to refuse to enforce unconstitutional statutes. Instead, the President has a duty to disregard such laws that arises from two sources. First, the Constitution never empowers the President to enforce unconstitutional statues. He no more has the power to enforce such statutes than he has power to enforce the statutes of Georgia or Germany. Second, the President's duty to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution requires the President to disregard unconstitutional statutes. When the President enforces a statute he regards as unconstitutional, he acts to violate the Constitution no less than he would were he to imprison citizens without hope of trial. Both John Adams and Thomas Jefferson argued that executives could not enforce unconstitutional statutes, with Jefferson being the first President to actually invoke the duty of Executive Disregard. Upon entering office, Jefferson ordered the termination of Sedition Act prosecutions on the grounds that the Sedition Act was unconstitutional. Jefferson justified his non-enforcement decision by arguing that the Sedition Act was no law at all and by noting that he had a duty to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, a duty that prevented him from implementing measures that violated it.” (See "The Executive's Duty to Disregard Unconstitutional Laws," by Saikrishna Prakash University of San Diego School of Law, San Diego Legal Studies Paper No. 07-95.)
ACT UP! WISE UP!
My guess is he won't even allow a brief chat, Obama's not going to let anyone pin him down. What can he say given his current lack of moral courage other than "Sorry, bad timing?"
I said it yesterday, but: Guess what Obama and the Democrats in Congress gave us for Pride this year? TWO parties of NO.
Obama never seemed comfortable with gays. Hillary did. Oh, but she's a lying, racist bitc_, I forgot.
In short, all the things you do not want in a president.
Add to that the fact that the Clintons' primary loyalty is to the Clintons. They will shit on anyone who isn't going to help the Clintons. Why else do you think so many supposed Clinton friends supported Obama? The Clintons had screwed them over in one way or another.
So, let's concentrate on the agenda before you and feminists like me. And the sad truth is that Phyllis Schafley may be right. Feminism might be dead. The funny part is that in my opinion it died under the weight of the self-satisfied, latte drinking, unaware generation who grew up without remembering how women were treated by the Civil Rights Movement. I go and listen to young women complain about the glass ceiling and then when I point out that they can't even bump their heads on the glass ceiling without doing it on the back of a whole host of women who clean their houses and watch their children, I get looks of utter blankness. Makes me want to cry.
Anyway, I wonder to a certain extent if the same thing isn't happening in the gay movement? There is a part of your community that is so happy to no longer be pursued by cops and to have some protection against job loss, that they just seem willing to accept the present situation. How do you mobilize them?
The problem is how to motivate those that are apathetic. We really can't depend on repealing DOMA to motivate them. A lot of the younger guys are not ready to settle down, so they're certainly not ready for marriage. Of course, there are a lot of older guys who have been burned and are also not interested in marriage. Of course, the DOJ's brief on DOMA probably did get more people motivated. If anything will motivate the gay community, it will probably be DADT. Everybody can see the absurdity of DADT. There are also several charismatic victims of DADT who should appeal to a lot of people.
I have a lot of hope for the guys who were vicitims of DADT. One of them may become the leader that the LGBT community needs. Both the Black community and the Feminist community had leaders, the LGBT community only has a few pathetic leaders. They are our version of a "self satisfied, latte drinking, unaware generation".
I agree with you that Obama never really had any gay friends. In fact, I could say the same for most of the great middle America and that's the problem. To people like Obama and Emmanuel and for most Americans, your agenda doesn't really effect them (the same could be said for the feminist agenda). So, how do you get through to them. Obama and Emmanuel are now in the White House bubble. They aren't going to be making any "new" friends. But the rest of America is open game.
maybe this will be the difference for us...precisely clarifying the specific issue/problem/reality and then forcing Obama to answer to it.
justice is on the side of equal gay rights.
we've just got to persuade the f-ing politicians.
Politicians do two things well -- count money and count votes. They whip out the calculators and spreadsheets and decide what they will do based on what will give them more money and/or more votes.
We can threaten to withhold our votes and we can withhold our money, but they've already done the math. Policy A will bring them more votes/cash overall than Policy B.
Yes, they will lose us, but they will gain more on the others side -- so it's a net benefit. If the spreadsheet showed the reverse, Obama and Rahm would be fawning over us.
But it's not personal, as Don Corleone would say -- it's just business.
If you're expecting anyone to act on principle, you're in the wrong game.
won't they be surprised when their pleas for cash fall on deaf pink ears?!
I am a PhD student who studies sexual prejudice (homophobia). I have a colleague who is convinced that we need to re-consider how social scientists conceptualize and measure sexual prejudice. I'm going to send this post to her. Very interesting idea.
It's been an assuring act so far, but it's already come to the point where it rings not just dissonant, but hollow. These guys, this White House, like Bush, are terrified of dissent, or losing control lest they're perceived as being weak. They're immature, they lack vision, and every time when push comes to shove, they get beat down and lose the offensive.
It would take a president much more secure in himself to have the courage and grace necessary to use his power to put down hatred of homosexuality. Politics is the problem, surely, but lack of character is the root problem in all of Obamas failures as president so far.
hammer, meet nail.
.analysis brilliant
if i was misunderstood, i think that john's assessment was brilliant.
The only thing that I would add to is that poltical homophobia exists within some rank-and-file sectors of the Democratic coalition itself (i.e. racial and ethnic minorities, Reagan Democrats, union workers). Not only that, but the Democratic Party has simply swept the issue under the rug among those constituencies. As a result, you have a divide between the politicos who are very pro-gay rights (e.g. union leaders, the Congressional Black Caucus) and many of the voters of those constituencies who are either neutral on the issue or even anti-gay.
Don't worry -- they'll be back with their promises of change for a better tomorrow just as soon as they think they need you again.
That is what will get things moving. A politician only has clout if he/she can show results. If a politician suffers defeats, for whatever reason, that decreases their clout. It also hurts their egos.
I don't believe that the Obama administration has decided to "throw gays under the bus". I do believe that we are not their highest priority at this moment. Any action taken by the Obama administration on DOMA and DADT will entail the use of a lot of political clout - there are many Congressmembers who, while they might not lose their seats if they support the administration, will face tougher battles to retain those seats and will be reluctant to get on board.
I'm reserving my anger for a little longer as it's only June 2009. The economy, global warming and health care reform can go first. If those aren't handled, my civil rights may very well be a moot point anyway. After those, however, I want to see some positive action on DOMA and DADT.
And I fully agree that a financial boycott of the various Democratic funding organizations, with the reason why when possible, is an excellent beginnning. It may be what is needed to get the attention of some of those Congressional waverers.
If other minority groups actually bothered to not be hypocrites and believe in ALL minorities' rights being protected from the majority, then everyone would be a lot better off and we would have had gay rights a long time ago.
Unfortunately, many people believe they are the only ones that are deprived of certain rights and can't be bothered to help anyone else.
I think its more insidious than that. I think many people believe their minority group is the only who has a LEGITIMATE claim on equal civil rights. Not EVERYONE in minority groups are that way, but there are quite a few in some groups who absolutely do believe others should experience discrimination and don't deserve rights.
I find him incredibly hot, but I don't think that exempts him from being involved in the problem.
And bouncing the ball to Nancy doesn't exactly solve the problem. As the president is well aware of, the problem is the United States Senate and - incidently - his own administration. The House has passed much of this stuff already.
You know what I saw in the months leading up to Prop 8 in Washington's Gay Village, Dupont Circle? Not a whole lot of action on Prop 8. Bet it was the same in NYC, Chicago, Atlanta. Meanwhile, their Mormon neighbors were donating like hell to Yes on 8. These peacetime consiglieri apparently didn't think that Black turnout in California would be high and largely pro-8 (maybe less so than initially reported, but still providing the bulk of the margin.)
It's as if professional gay rights organizers have internalized the sense of the closeted homophobe Roy Cohn, who could not (in his mind) be a "homosexual" because to accept that definition would be to surrender all actual and self-perceived clout. It's as if they are listening to Alec Baldwin's Blake at the beginning of Glengarry Glen Ross, calling them failures, losers and faggots and accepting all of the labels. Where's Harvey Milk, Bayard Rustin? More HRC malpractice and this straight father of two will simply stop giving a shit. Why should I care about gay rights when most gay people in this country haven't given a fucking $20 bill for the cause?
"You care far too much what is written and said about you. You don't relish combat when it becomes personal and nasty. When the largely irrelevant Alan Keyes attacked you, you flinched," Axelrod wrote in a memo to Obama.
http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2009/08/david_a...
I think this goes far in explaining much of the problems in this administration, in the health care debacle and on the entire litany of gay issues.