I truly "support" Democrats being elected in 2010 and 2012. I am a "fierce advocate" of the Democratic Party after all. I know that I have promised you my support over the past few decades and have done my best to follow through.
Even now I am "working towards" a financial donation to the Party. I do have to ask for your "patience" though, because as a gay man, me and my family are still second class citizens and are having to funnel our resources towards causes that protect and honor our basic civil rights. "We have a lot on our plate."
We are "proceeding" towards lifting the denial of funds to the DNC and are "developing a strategy" that will get us there by the end of Obama's time at the White House. As a matter of fact, my family has planned several "meetings" to discuss these very important donations and will be sending out a press release shortly to announce our "coctail party" celebrating Democracy.
Thanks for understanding. And hang in there!
Sincerely, Liam
Butch1
· 6 months ago
Bravo! That about wraps it up.
Gridlock
· 6 months ago
facebooked THAT
cowboyneok
· 6 months ago
OH, THAT'S GOOD!
citizen spot
· 6 months ago
Thank you Liam. That made my day!!
Off topic, but "The Colbert Report" was most excellent today. He took on our dissatisfaction with the powers that be, which is great because he has a huge audience. Tonight's word was "stonewalling".
jimstoic
· 6 months ago
I hope you don't mind, but I've posted this on my facebook page and tagged 30 friends. I credited Liam and said it came from a comment on Americablog.com. I changed "me and my family" to "my family and I" and I corrected the spelling of cocktail. I told my friends to spread it far and wide.
ChrisSF
· 6 months ago
LOL! I promise that I will resume donations to the DNC some time "before the sun sets on this Administration."
bluebear
· 6 months ago
Rest assured: the next time Obama or the DNC ask me for contributions I will be "moving forward" with "developing" and idea to send them funds. As soon as I have equal rights I will then "proceed".
cowboyneok
· 6 months ago
Again, all the money I would send to the DNC and other progressive "A-list" groups is going to Tony Wood's campaign. It would be quite fun to see him raise an INCREDIBLE amount of money that would otherwise go to the DNC, wouldn't it? It might actually open some eyes, huh?
psychodrew
· 6 months ago
That administration refuses to walk back that offensive brief tells me that he doesn't think he should be worried about offending us. Our money and votes aren't going anywhere else so he can offer us these crumbs to keep us quiet.
As long as there are a-list, elite gays who are willing to set aside their convictions in order to hear a speech from the Vice President or get an invitation to the While House, this movement won't go anywhere. I'm sorry, but I'm not buying this, "I'm going to go and give him a piece of my mind" bullshit. No, you're going because you want a picture of yourself in the White House on your facebook page. And you're willing to sell out the rest of us to do it.
atariageguy
· 6 months ago
Wow. That letter must have been a big pile of fluff-filled crap. "’I'm hoping you also heard about the list of priorities/accomplishments:" The person clearly never read your blog.
Look, at this point the President AND the Democratic Party have to understand two things.
1) At this point, especially because of the DOMA brief, the majority of the gay community is prone to viewing Obama and the Democrats as openly hostile to gays. That they view us as lesser humans and lesser Americans. Just like the GOP. No difference. Period. So how will Obama and the Democratic party respond?
2) The only way - ONLY WAY - to change people's minds on this matter is do to do this: In STRONG public words AND public deeds (ie, legal works) strip away the anti-gay rhetoric coming from the Obama administration, halt every further DADT firing - AT ONCE - and then wrestle congress into killing that evil policy, fast-track and push HARD on sailing the Shepard Bill into law, and kill DOMA completely.
Frankly, every day from now on until that's REALLY moving (not "working toward" or "getting to it") is a day the view solidifies more and more that Obama and the Democrats are hostile to gays and wish them nothing but harm. It's up to you guys (DNC/White House) to prove us wrong.
Seansmith
· 6 months ago
I'm hearing the DNC made $250,000 more than they made last year, totaling a cool million. How sad is that? Over 180 people showed up...versus about 40 protesters. I guess the GayTM is open after all.
This is why we have no rights. We have no unity.
Gridlock
· 6 months ago
We seem to have a lot more trained house faggots than rebellious field faggots.
This must be reversed.
jenjen64
· 6 months ago
Man, I'm sorry to hear that. I hate to keep harping on Native rights, but we have the same problem.
John Aravosis
· 6 months ago
Don't trust how many people showed up. I guarantee you they must have given away a lot of free tickets, to friends and family, to fill the space at the last minute - lest they look like idiots to the VP.
Seansmith
· 6 months ago
Probably but this still doesn't explain the lack of protesters and overall disorganization on our part. We really needed to get asses in the street for this and reportedly we got...25 people.
We could have made a real statement here but instead once again we look like a bunch of ragtag fools.
And Cleve expects the march to yield numbers? Until we somehow galvanize this community we're not going to get shit done.
jack251
· 6 months ago
Did you go?
I did - counted about 50 protesters, twice what you're reporting here, but of course, not enough. SLDN was the only identifiable organized group, with about 10 participants, including it's executive director.
Jared Polis and Tammy Baldwin did cross the drive to express support for the protestors. Some politely disagreed with their continued sponsorship (including SLDN). I wanted to ask what it would cost them to do the right thing, but others shouted them down and chased them away. I'm OK with both tactics, people have a right ot be angry. I did disagreed with the group yelling "bigot" and "shame" to every car that pulled up, including people clearly not attending the event. The most underdeveloped Gaydar can tell the difference between a well-preened donor giddy to meet the VP and a japanese family returning to their hotel after a day at the Mall.
I hope someone asked Biden if he read DOMA before he voted for it.
jack251
· 6 months ago
Forgot to mention, it was covered by the Washington Blade and German Television. No surprise other American media ingnored it - they are not our friends.
Name
· 6 months ago
thank you for the report. i had tried to find a way to connect with the protest live via the internet and other than face book but, seems there was none. correct me if i am wrong. not reaching out to those of us otherwise absent left the protest weak. florida wanted to be there other than in spirit. i'm taking note about what group you said was visible and, at the same time disgusted that of all our organizations, none took the stand outside with you and them. we have to loose the loud angry name calling and insist on why instead. F. Peterson
Moncusa
· 6 months ago
It really is embarrassing. No wonder the Dems just laugh us off as harmless.
Mateo1970
· 6 months ago
How long are they going to use the same excuses: "Obama has too much on his plate right now" ... "We need to let the military leaders study DADT before we end it so 'quickly'" ... "We're not sure we can get enough support for ENDA"
Muther#*&$, Goddam#, Fu@king Bastards!! Enough already!! We have been waiting for decades on some of these issues.
woodroad34
· 6 months ago
"We need to let the military leaders study DADT before we end it so 'quickly'"
That statement reminds me of the story of the 100 year old woman who's been walking on a cane for some time and who goes to the doctor and says, "Doc, all of a sudden I feel old and my leg hurts"
Over the last 15 or so years, there have been studies that contradict DADT; several top-level military personnel have said get rid of it; even a few Republicans have said get rid of it...apparently they've managed to 'quickly' come to a conclusion (that is if 15 years is considered 'quick')
vkobaya
· 6 months ago
6) inclusion of LGBT counts in census
Yeah, Yeah! Except I'll be damned if I'm going to trust Obama enough to tell him I'm gay. Damn it! He said we were pedophiles who committed incest. Those are felony crimes punishable by prison time. No way. Once on that list, I'd never get off and this day of computerization, that list will exist until the end of time for any and all to read, including those are even more ill willed and untrustworthy.
EML
· 6 months ago
I hope I'm wrong, but I essentially do not see this administration doing anything on DOMA or DADT for years. I've said it before, you are the sacrificial lambs to the center right. You might get something out of the Obama Admin if he is reelected, but otherwise he's going to essentially ignore you. If by some magic, we actually saw the return to a Rockerfeller form of Republicanism, then you might be a bit better off since the Dems would be a bit worried about gays and lesbians being wooed away from them.
Hey, as a feminist, I know how you feel. You don't really think anything meaning full like the removal of combat bans for females or even the Equal Rights Ammendment will be brought up by this Admin, do you? And just where am I going to go with my vote? You know if McCain had chose Carly Fiorina instead of Palin as his running mate, that would have been a signal to feminists. *Shrugges* Oh and I know you are going to all scream 3rd party. That ONLY works if there is a 4th party - a viable far right party.
Indigo
· 6 months ago
"Working toward" is not enough.
Gridlock
· 6 months ago
So they've accomplished very little (things that took no effort and have no impact and in some cases, were already legal options) and half of THOSE were in direct, scrambled response to the community shitkicking a huge fuss over the DOMA brief.
They are "moving on" and "supporting" the major things, with nary an explanation on exactly HOW they're doing so..
meanwhile, they're filing hateful briefs in support of bigoted legislation (when they did not have to at all), pointing the finger at congress (who is pointing the finger right back) in regards to DADT during which time more servicemen and women are being witch hunted and forced out...
HEY DEMOCRATS:
YOU CONTROL ALL FUCKING LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT.
FUCKING ACT LIKE IT.
Jesus WEPT.
heyitsfeej
· 6 months ago
Thank you. If the Democrats aren't actually going to do something with their congressional majority then they don't deserve to keep it.
It's hilarious that a political party made up of "progressives" has shown such little progress on LGBT civil rights.
TrueBleuCA
· 6 months ago
Definitely not holding my breath on any of the above.
Judas Peckerwood
· 6 months ago
The only question is whether LGBT Americans will stop falling for the "lesser of two evils" argument in the next election and actually refuse to support the Democrats because they've sold us out once again. If not, we should just stop complaining and accept the fact that even our "allies" consider us second-class citizens.
littlebearnyc
· 6 months ago
Instead of listening they are pulling the wagon trains in a circle. Do they think is is a 'communication' problem alone??
Steve
· 6 months ago
Yes, they think we're ignorant and stupid. I was aware of every crumb on that list John quoted. The problem isn't that I'm ill-informed. The problem is that I'm underwhelmed, as well as offended by the brief.
Butch1
· 6 months ago
Could this "non-action" list have been even bigger? Looks like they had to scrape around just to fill that list.
I understand that if Section 3 of DOMA is repealed LGBT Americans SHOULD be eligible for equal immigration rights, but still it would be nice to have some UAFA support/attention from the gay community.
Besides, isn't the inequality in immigration a great argument for repealing some or all of DOMA?
jimstoic
· 6 months ago
Kennedy didn't move very fast with civil rights for African Americans. Obama sees himself like Kennedy, right?
jenjen64
· 6 months ago
It may be futile, but as I stated on another post, what if everyone started to feed money into the Greens? Maybe if they started to get more funds and started hearing from the LGBT community along with those who support LGBT civil rights they could really start putting their ideas into action. It may be a pipe dream, but you never know. I support Green because they are the only party that shares the same ideals as I do, especially their support of the Native American community. Maybe I'm just fooling myself, but a girl can dream, right?
EML
· 6 months ago
Because their agenda is too left wing to draw a big enough base to actually get elected on a federal level. If you really think that is the way to go, what you should do is concentrate your effort in one state. If you could get a Green Party Governor, then you might have a shot at getting the DNC's attention.
You know, one of the problems that you guys are having is thinking that everyone does or SHOULD think like you. Most people don't care about you because they don't really know you. So, take a look at the Green Party's platform from the point of view of a middle class, suburb, SUV driving family. It's just too far to the left for them. So, why would they vote for them? The problem is that they will never appeal to the masses enough to draw off suffient votes that do more than draw off the votes that might make a difference between a Republican win and a Democratic win. Now, if you want the Republicans to win, great. The Green Party will never be viable until the zeitgeist shifts left and then the Dems will probably take those positions and coopt them.
caphillprof
· 6 months ago
Do you think the zeitgeist will shift left during our lifetimes?
EML
· 6 months ago
Not without some effort on OUR side. Look, feminists and gays have gotten lazy in the last 10 years or so. There are some really good things happening, but we aren't putting our money where it will really be effective. Look, let me give you some examples of people and things the gay community should be funding. How about Bishop Carlton Pearson and his gospel of inclusion. How about writers like Suzanne Brockmann, who writes great romance/adventure novels and writes in great gay characters who are in loving committed relationships. Where is that blockbuster movie that tells the story of a band of soldiers who are serving in Iraq and includes the story of the gay soldier who has to hide who he is and ultimately sacrifices his life for his or her buddies. Where are TV shows that show gay characters as more than just 2 dimensional jokes. Why aren't gays out there in force doing things like working for Habitat for Humanity? Why aren't you packing church pews of center leaning churches forcing people in the rest of the pews to get to know you. It will require a real commitment on the part of gays to get out of their comfort zone and force straights out of their comfort zones.
Jophus
· 6 months ago
"You know, one of the problems that you guys are having is thinking that everyone does or SHOULD think like you."
First of all how offensive is that. Secondly so does every party. Thirdly, there is a right wing 3rd party with a lot of support. Do you remember Ron Pauls numbers? Lastly, more people agree with the green party than the republican party. If the MSM treated 3rd parties as equals then we might have a counter point to Obama that pulls him left, versus a counter point that pulls him right. Now for the people who think the green party is too left, do you think they'd rather have Obama sitting with people they don't agree with that are left or right of his ideas?
Our problem is people like you, who are quick to judge. I might add that is your problem as well.
EML
· 6 months ago
Be offended all you like, but it's more important for change to happen. I've lived cheek and jowl with the bible thumpers and while I don't agree with them, I got to know them and even tried to understand where they are coming from. You can present them with all the facts in the world and they will ignore them, because that's what people do with information that causes them cognitive dissonance. We do the same things.
As for MSM, they won't treat 3rd parties the same because THEY AREN'T THE SAME. Geesh! I get that you would like it to be otherwise and if you do, then you had better figure out how to make that change.
So, rather than strategies, you are going to pout?!?!? You want change in politics, then you have to change how people think. Political parties don't do that. People do that and popular culture does that. Politics follows.
Steve
· 6 months ago
No gay and lesbian victory has ever come from winning over "bible-thumpers." Victories come from marginalizing them, not appeasing them. And, EML, I was willing to listen to your ideas about politics and parties, but the second you used the word "pout" is the second I stopped listening to anything else you have to say. We don't need your insulting condescension. You waltz in here issuing directives and act like you're the first person to ever come up with these ideas. Go away.
EML
· 6 months ago
Oh geesh. You don't like how I phrase things so you stop listening. I suspect that it's more likely that you weren't interested in listening anyway. As for the bible thumpers, I wasn't saying you were going to change them, but it's the center right that you can change. Well, stick your fingers in your ears and live with what you have for the next 7 years.
Jophus
· 6 months ago
Well the 3rd party movement is trying to accomplish that same goal of changing. We can get progressive 3rd party candidates elected into congress and the movement can grow. That is what most of us think anyways, and really what is wrong with putting effort forth to try and move the country to the left? If we don't succeed there is no sweat off your back, because you are working your approach. Frankly, I like the odds better of having multiple attempts using different strategies.
It is cool if you don't agree with 3rd parties and/or you wouldn't vote for one. But don't you want to encourage the people who try? With out the effort we will never get off the dem/rep 2 party system.
It just seems that you are ney-saying. I'm not just open to criticism - I want it - but only if it is constructive. So if you have ideas on what we should be doing, I'm asking you to please tell me. I'm heading to the Art Institute for the day, but when I come home I will check my mail to read what you wrote. I genuinely would like your ideas. Please don't only say we are stupid and wasting time or hurting the democratic party, b/c that is even more of a waste of time.
EML
· 6 months ago
I actually love the idea of a 3rd party.. and even a 4th or 5th.... However, we don't have a parlimentary system either and the darned hard truth is, unless you are willing to let the Republicans run this country for another 20 to 30 years while we build that 3rd party, we are basically stuck with supporting the Dems.
I'm not a Green Party supporter myself, but I've voted 2 times for their candidates in local elections (neither won). Anyway, you have to have enough money focused in one area to actually compete. The last time this country had 3 viable parties was during the 1830s and that didn't last all that long (Look up the Anti-Masonic Party). But to create a party, you either have to have a huge crisis or you have to have a small focus. Hence, why I suggest a state. You might look at a state like Washington or Massachusetts. It will mean finding a candidate that is more left of center rather than left. You will need to find either a figurehead or a single issue that can be a catalyst - but remember the issue will have to be something that appeals to a broad mass, like cheap energy. Anyway, once you have a ground hold in one state, you will be able to replicate in others. It's not magic. It's strategic.
I don't see the Greens being able to do that. They are just too disorganized and undisciplined. On the upside all politics today is pretty much theater. So, being provocative can work on the fringe, it just won't do much on the center.
jenjen64
· 6 months ago
Thanks for the back up Jophus! **hugs**
jenjen64
· 6 months ago
Oh, one more thing EML....after reading some of your posts I am getting the impression when you refer to me and my fellow posters here as "you guys" you are assuming, (since a lot of the issues we discuss are about gay rights) that we are all gay. Wrong!! I am not gay and there are a lot of others who post on here who are straight. Assumptions are a bad thing. I am a Native American woman who just happens to live in TEXAS who knows all about those bible thumpers, rednecks and their ilk, and I am pretty sure there are a lot of GLBT people on here who, unfortunately, live in these areas as well. And don't presume we are uneducated and misinformed. As I stated before, presumptions and assumptions are a bad thing.
jenjen64
· 6 months ago
Well, I don't think that everyone should think like me, that would be a little arrogant, don't you think? The reason why parties other than the "big boys" are not succeeding isn't because of the ideas they have or that they are "too left/right", it's because they don't get the same respect, air time, promotions as the "big boys", and as long as the MSM is in their (dem/repub) pockets and major corporations keep pulling their strings, it's not going to change anytime soon. Personally, I don't think wanting civil rights for all, healthcare for all, respect for all is too far to the left. Maybe if these middle-class, suburban driving people would turn off the idiot box and talk radio and started really paying attention to what's going on around them they might see differently. And don't presume that the class of people you used as an example are not aware...
jimstoic
· 6 months ago
I think a better strategy would be to create a PAC that contributes only to candidates who have ALREADY proven their responsiveness to LGBT civil rights issues. The fund would just keep getting bigger and bigger while the Democrats who are "working toward" instead of "working on" LGBT issues keep eyeing it and we keep saying, "Show us the civil rights."
sonofloud
· 6 months ago
I don't think it's futile. Why give money to the Democrats when the Republicans will discriminate against us for free? I do agree that the media treats any party other than the Democrats or Republicans, with utter disdain and contempt. At state levels there has been success with so called 3rd party candidates and even independents. From a practical standpoint, an independent would probably have an easier shot. But please, no more Ralph Nader. He has done some good things and he has made some mistakes but his 15 minutes are certainly over.
Alex M
· 6 months ago
Fraudbama and his apologists are outrageous. Face it, we've been had. The Democratic party is no better than the Republicans when it comes to gay issues, only the spin is different.
John
· 6 months ago
The federal Democrats - Obama, Clinton, Pelosi, Reid, etc. - have been dissapointingly absent. No question about that. They're timid, lame, and fearful. Fearful of what I'm not sure of. The American people are way ahead of Washington on this. Perhaps not on same-sex marriage specifically. But every other gay rights issue, including repealing DADT and enacting ENDA, enjoys widespread public support.
But lets be clear, there would be no gay rights in America without the Democratic Party. None at all. Although they're more supportive than the Democrats in principle, the Greens and Socialists are pretty much non-entities in this country. And on the right, the Libertarians sold their collective souls to the GOP a long time ago. No amount of rallying behind Ron Paul now will cleanse the stain of allowing the Republicans to run the country as an aggressive, war-mongering theocracy in exchange for tax cuts.
So, practically all state and local gay rights legislation - whether it is anti-discrimination, hate crimes, or family law reform - has been the result of Democratic intervention. It didn't come down from the sky through divine will. State level ENDAs passed by Democratic legislatures in 21 states isn't "spin." Democratic leglslatures approving domestic partnerships, civil unions, and same-sex marriage in over a dozen states isn't "spin" either. There's a difference between holding your friends accountable for bad behavior and saying they're in the same league as your enemies.
Steve
· 6 months ago
No. Every last victory at every level of government came from gays and lesbians pushing reluctant Democrats. It didn't come down from the sky through party leader grace.
And when it comes to the appalling DOMA brief, there is absolutely no difference between Obama and Bush. None whatsoever.
Francis
· 6 months ago
I love the part where gays are considered "ghosts" in the federal census. Insanity, alive and well.
tlsintx
· 6 months ago
that's what I'M talkin about.
nice job, John A.
Alec
· 6 months ago
I toss all form letters I receive into the garbage. I'm sorry, but I was aware of all of these stated commitments; they can be pulled from his campaign website.
John, I do think that it might be time to consider dropping the incest/pedophilia claim. Those are clearly just examples of state refusal to recognize marriages validly performed in other states. Did they need to include the explanatory parenthetical? No. But the citation argument drains on your credibility here.
They are gunning for you though. You clearly pissed in someone's cornflakes.
Steve
· 6 months ago
The incest/pedophilia business isn't the most offensive part of the brief. The brief relentlessly argues that gay people should be read completely out of the Constitution. Nothing done to us is discrimination. Nothing done to us ever triggers constitutional scrutiny. We should be rendered constitutional outcasts. It's not remotely consistent with the Administration's general view of constitutional interpretation. It's pure gay exceptionalism of the most disgusting kind.
Alec
· 6 months ago
I've made that point multiple times. But that's the problem with the "incest/pedophilia" business, it prevents us from focusing on the more offensive part of the brief which, I agree, is offensive for precisely that reason.
jimstoic
· 6 months ago
I agree. And really, I don't care if an uncle wants to marry a niece, as long as there's not some weird coercion going on, and as long as any potential issues for offspring are addressed before the license is granted. That kind of thing has been done all over the world since time immemorial. It's even in the Bible!
Jersey
· 6 months ago
I hope you sent back a note saying "fuck you for thinking we're idiots".
leliorisen
· 6 months ago
Barack Obama's agenda for gay Americans:
1) Extracting money from wealthy gay donors. 2) Allowing gay staffers (as long as they 'don't tell'). 3) Purchasing season 1 of "Will & Grace" on DVD, to better understand our lifestyle. 4) Conferring with gay advocacy groups for assistance in helping the First Lady with interior design plans for the White House. 5) Promising not to use the 'f' word while in office, even when nobody is listening. 6) Sending a thank you letter to Andy Tobias, showing appreciation for keeping the troops in line (and the money coming in), while allowing Obama to still look centrist. 7) Setting up a committee to explore ways to keep gays hopeful that Obama might fulfill promises if re-elected. 8) Extracting more money from wealthy gay donors.
That is Obama's plan, in a nutshell.
mamazboy
· 6 months ago
You forgot Sending a birthday card to Joe Solomonese.
RonNYC
· 6 months ago
The President is going to be a fierce advocate for gay rights overseas as well.
gaydem
· 6 months ago
Good for you, John! I'm still waiting on a response from Tom Petrillo to a 10-day-old e-mail. BOER!
woodroad34
· 6 months ago
My new favorite expression is "cognitive dissonance", that a poster used the other day. It's a belief in something that isn't really supported by real facts and so a person makes excuses to somehow make the belief real. Religion is kinda like that and so is this Gay DNCer's belief that there's real movement on promises made by Obama. And here we thought the GOPers were the only party with this condition. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance
woodroad34
· 6 months ago
'My dog "supports" ENDA.'
So does my pitbull-german shepard mix and he's straight, but not narrow.
sonofloud
· 6 months ago
Step 1 is getting our message out and people like Joe have made some success. Look at Stephen Colbert's Word.....would that have happened without Joe and others making some noise? Not to mention some of the media such as AP writing articles about it. Just because there is not instant success does not mean we give up.
"If something is hard then it's not worth doing" - Homer Simpson
Barney
· 6 months ago
You guys can squawk and hope all you want. You ain't getting anything out of the boy-king, obama. How many times must he show you how much he ain't doing anything? How many times must Gibb use vague language to tell you nothing is being done? So far, very little has gotten done, except pass legislation that will raise taxes or the increase the deficit far more dramatically that Mr Bush ever thought about.
mamazboy
· 6 months ago
John, thanks for the good laugh with "My dog 'supports" ENDA." That said, I'm beyond disappointed with this administration and the fucking do-nothing Democrats and will be actively working for third-party success. It's gotta start sometime, and I for one am sick of being treated like shit by Obama and our allegedly "different" party.
Brian James
· 6 months ago
I'm beginning to wonder how stupid the Obama administration thinks the LGBT community is???
All Comments
I truly "support" Democrats being elected in 2010 and 2012. I am a "fierce advocate" of the Democratic Party after all. I know that I have promised you my support over the past few decades and have done my best to follow through.
Even now I am "working towards" a financial donation to the Party. I do have to ask for your "patience" though, because as a gay man, me and my family are still second class citizens and are having to funnel our resources towards causes that protect and honor our basic civil rights. "We have a lot on our plate."
We are "proceeding" towards lifting the denial of funds to the DNC and are "developing a strategy" that will get us there by the end of Obama's time at the White House. As a matter of fact, my family has planned several "meetings" to discuss these very important donations and will be sending out a press release shortly to announce our "coctail party" celebrating Democracy.
Thanks for understanding. And hang in there!
Sincerely,
Liam
Off topic, but "The Colbert Report" was most excellent today. He took on our dissatisfaction with the powers that be, which is great because he has a huge audience. Tonight's word was "stonewalling".
As long as there are a-list, elite gays who are willing to set aside their convictions in order to hear a speech from the Vice President or get an invitation to the While House, this movement won't go anywhere. I'm sorry, but I'm not buying this, "I'm going to go and give him a piece of my mind" bullshit. No, you're going because you want a picture of yourself in the White House on your facebook page. And you're willing to sell out the rest of us to do it.
Look, at this point the President AND the Democratic Party have to understand two things.
1) At this point, especially because of the DOMA brief, the majority of the gay community is prone to viewing Obama and the Democrats as openly hostile to gays. That they view us as lesser humans and lesser Americans. Just like the GOP. No difference. Period. So how will Obama and the Democratic party respond?
2) The only way - ONLY WAY - to change people's minds on this matter is do to do this: In STRONG public words AND public deeds (ie, legal works) strip away the anti-gay rhetoric coming from the Obama administration, halt every further DADT firing - AT ONCE - and then wrestle congress into killing that evil policy, fast-track and push HARD on sailing the Shepard Bill into law, and kill DOMA completely.
Frankly, every day from now on until that's REALLY moving (not "working toward" or "getting to it") is a day the view solidifies more and more that Obama and the Democrats are hostile to gays and wish them nothing but harm. It's up to you guys (DNC/White House) to prove us wrong.
This is why we have no rights. We have no unity.
This must be reversed.
We could have made a real statement here but instead once again we look like a bunch of ragtag fools.
And Cleve expects the march to yield numbers? Until we somehow galvanize this community we're not going to get shit done.
I did - counted about 50 protesters, twice what you're reporting here, but of course, not enough. SLDN was the only identifiable organized group, with about 10 participants, including it's executive director.
Jared Polis and Tammy Baldwin did cross the drive to express support for the protestors. Some politely disagreed with their continued sponsorship (including SLDN). I wanted to ask what it would cost them to do the right thing, but others shouted them down and chased them away. I'm OK with both tactics, people have a right ot be angry. I did disagreed with the group yelling "bigot" and "shame" to every car that pulled up, including people clearly not attending the event. The most underdeveloped Gaydar can tell the difference between a well-preened donor giddy to meet the VP and a japanese family returning to their hotel after a day at the Mall.
I hope someone asked Biden if he read DOMA before he voted for it.
Muther#*&$, Goddam#, Fu@king Bastards!! Enough already!! We have been waiting for decades on some of these issues.
That statement reminds me of the story of the 100 year old woman who's been walking on a cane for some time and who goes to the doctor and says, "Doc, all of a sudden I feel old and my leg hurts"
Over the last 15 or so years, there have been studies that contradict DADT; several top-level military personnel have said get rid of it; even a few Republicans have said get rid of it...apparently they've managed to 'quickly' come to a conclusion (that is if 15 years is considered 'quick')
Yeah, Yeah! Except I'll be damned if I'm going to trust Obama enough to tell him I'm gay. Damn it! He said we were pedophiles who committed incest. Those are felony crimes punishable by prison time. No way. Once on that list, I'd never get off and this day of computerization, that list will exist until the end of time for any and all to read, including those are even more ill willed and untrustworthy.
Hey, as a feminist, I know how you feel. You don't really think anything meaning full like the removal of combat bans for females or even the Equal Rights Ammendment will be brought up by this Admin, do you? And just where am I going to go with my vote? You know if McCain had chose Carly Fiorina instead of Palin as his running mate, that would have been a signal to feminists. *Shrugges* Oh and I know you are going to all scream 3rd party. That ONLY works if there is a 4th party - a viable far right party.
They are "moving on" and "supporting" the major things, with nary an explanation on exactly HOW they're doing so..
meanwhile, they're filing hateful briefs in support of bigoted legislation (when they did not have to at all), pointing the finger at congress (who is pointing the finger right back) in regards to DADT during which time more servicemen and women are being witch hunted and forced out...
HEY DEMOCRATS:
YOU CONTROL ALL FUCKING LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT.
FUCKING ACT LIKE IT.
Jesus WEPT.
It's hilarious that a political party made up of "progressives" has shown such little progress on LGBT civil rights.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhDY4CSURMg&feat...
How about slipping in another priority?
#10 UAFA: Immigration rights.
I understand that if Section 3 of DOMA is repealed LGBT Americans SHOULD be eligible for equal immigration rights, but still it would be nice to have some UAFA support/attention from the gay community.
Besides, isn't the inequality in immigration a great argument for repealing some or all of DOMA?
Maybe I'm just fooling myself, but a girl can dream, right?
You know, one of the problems that you guys are having is thinking that everyone does or SHOULD think like you. Most people don't care about you because they don't really know you. So, take a look at the Green Party's platform from the point of view of a middle class, suburb, SUV driving family. It's just too far to the left for them. So, why would they vote for them? The problem is that they will never appeal to the masses enough to draw off suffient votes that do more than draw off the votes that might make a difference between a Republican win and a Democratic win. Now, if you want the Republicans to win, great. The Green Party will never be viable until the zeitgeist shifts left and then the Dems will probably take those positions and coopt them.
First of all how offensive is that. Secondly so does every party. Thirdly, there is a right wing 3rd party with a lot of support. Do you remember Ron Pauls numbers? Lastly, more people agree with the green party than the republican party. If the MSM treated 3rd parties as equals then we might have a counter point to Obama that pulls him left, versus a counter point that pulls him right. Now for the people who think the green party is too left, do you think they'd rather have Obama sitting with people they don't agree with that are left or right of his ideas?
Our problem is people like you, who are quick to judge. I might add that is your problem as well.
As for MSM, they won't treat 3rd parties the same because THEY AREN'T THE SAME. Geesh! I get that you would like it to be otherwise and if you do, then you had better figure out how to make that change.
So, rather than strategies, you are going to pout?!?!? You want change in politics, then you have to change how people think. Political parties don't do that. People do that and popular culture does that. Politics follows.
And, EML, I was willing to listen to your ideas about politics and parties, but the second you used the word "pout" is the second I stopped listening to anything else you have to say. We don't need your insulting condescension. You waltz in here issuing directives and act like you're the first person to ever come up with these ideas. Go away.
It is cool if you don't agree with 3rd parties and/or you wouldn't vote for one. But don't you want to encourage the people who try? With out the effort we will never get off the dem/rep 2 party system.
It just seems that you are ney-saying. I'm not just open to criticism - I want it - but only if it is constructive. So if you have ideas on what we should be doing, I'm asking you to please tell me. I'm heading to the Art Institute for the day, but when I come home I will check my mail to read what you wrote. I genuinely would like your ideas. Please don't only say we are stupid and wasting time or hurting the democratic party, b/c that is even more of a waste of time.
I'm not a Green Party supporter myself, but I've voted 2 times for their candidates in local elections (neither won). Anyway, you have to have enough money focused in one area to actually compete. The last time this country had 3 viable parties was during the 1830s and that didn't last all that long (Look up the Anti-Masonic Party). But to create a party, you either have to have a huge crisis or you have to have a small focus. Hence, why I suggest a state. You might look at a state like Washington or Massachusetts. It will mean finding a candidate that is more left of center rather than left. You will need to find either a figurehead or a single issue that can be a catalyst - but remember the issue will have to be something that appeals to a broad mass, like cheap energy. Anyway, once you have a ground hold in one state, you will be able to replicate in others. It's not magic. It's strategic.
I don't see the Greens being able to do that. They are just too disorganized and undisciplined. On the upside all politics today is pretty much theater. So, being provocative can work on the fringe, it just won't do much on the center.
Personally, I don't think wanting civil rights for all, healthcare for all, respect for all is too far to the left. Maybe if these middle-class, suburban driving people would turn off the idiot box and talk radio and started really paying attention to what's going on around them they might see differently. And don't presume that the class of people you used as an example are not aware...
Why give money to the Democrats when the Republicans will discriminate against us for free?
I do agree that the media treats any party other than the Democrats or Republicans, with utter disdain and contempt.
At state levels there has been success with so called 3rd party candidates and even independents.
From a practical standpoint, an independent would probably have an easier shot.
But please, no more Ralph Nader. He has done some good things and he has made some mistakes but his 15 minutes are certainly over.
But lets be clear, there would be no gay rights in America without the Democratic Party. None at all. Although they're more supportive than the Democrats in principle, the Greens and Socialists are pretty much non-entities in this country. And on the right, the Libertarians sold their collective souls to the GOP a long time ago. No amount of rallying behind Ron Paul now will cleanse the stain of allowing the Republicans to run the country as an aggressive, war-mongering theocracy in exchange for tax cuts.
So, practically all state and local gay rights legislation - whether it is anti-discrimination, hate crimes, or family law reform - has been the result of Democratic intervention. It didn't come down from the sky through divine will. State level ENDAs passed by Democratic legislatures in 21 states isn't "spin." Democratic leglslatures approving domestic partnerships, civil unions, and same-sex marriage in over a dozen states isn't "spin" either. There's a difference between holding your friends accountable for bad behavior and saying they're in the same league as your enemies.
And when it comes to the appalling DOMA brief, there is absolutely no difference between Obama and Bush. None whatsoever.
nice job, John A.
John, I do think that it might be time to consider dropping the incest/pedophilia claim. Those are clearly just examples of state refusal to recognize marriages validly performed in other states. Did they need to include the explanatory parenthetical? No. But the citation argument drains on your credibility here.
They are gunning for you though. You clearly pissed in someone's cornflakes.
1) Extracting money from wealthy gay donors.
2) Allowing gay staffers (as long as they 'don't tell').
3) Purchasing season 1 of "Will & Grace" on DVD, to better understand our lifestyle.
4) Conferring with gay advocacy groups for assistance in helping the First Lady with interior design plans for the White House.
5) Promising not to use the 'f' word while in office, even when nobody is listening.
6) Sending a thank you letter to Andy Tobias, showing appreciation for keeping the troops in line (and the money coming in), while allowing Obama to still look centrist.
7) Setting up a committee to explore ways to keep gays hopeful that Obama might fulfill promises if re-elected.
8) Extracting more money from wealthy gay donors.
That is Obama's plan, in a nutshell.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance
So does my pitbull-german shepard mix and he's straight, but not narrow.
Look at Stephen Colbert's Word.....would that have happened without Joe and others making some noise?
Not to mention some of the media such as AP writing articles about it.
Just because there is not instant success does not mean we give up.
"If something is hard then it's not worth doing" - Homer Simpson