We seriously need to come together here and fight the real issue here which is discrimination. No one cried like I did the night Barack was elected however being black does not absolve him of his obligation. His tin ear on this issue is disgusting and how he can pose this “separate but equal” argument is bull f’nk’g sh!t if you ask me.

Gentleman, we are in this alone and have to continue on with our fight. The problem is (and I’m definitely guilty of this myself) is I thought Obama would approach this issue with the same veracity as closing Gitmo. (Boy was I wrong) We have no friends in the Whitehouse. Friends don’t make you sit at the back of the bus. Friends stand up for you. Barack Obama is no friend of mine.

Obama is office, I helped put him there and he is better that what we had, however he still needs to address the marriage equality issue. It’s about equal civil rights.

African Americans and LGBTQ Americans all have suffered abuse and now its time for everyone to equal civil rights.

DOMA violates this and needs to be overturned. Obama committed to overturning DOMA and DADT. He needs to respect that and give gay married couples in the 6 states and DC that have full marriage equality the same respect the Federal government gives to straight marriages, namely joint taxes, Social Security survival benefits, and recognizing the spouses of gay Federal employees.

He also has to immediately stop firing us for gay. If my friend fires me from my job, military or not, just for being gay, I’d rather cast my lot with avowed enemies.

His litany of “legal rights” just won’t cut it, and would have never gotten my support last year during the primaries.

Just because some in our corner don’t support marriage equality doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t have the right if we so choose. Nobody is forcing any of us to marry, its a right that EVERYONE should enjoy, again if they so choose. Civil unions and marriage should be interchangeable or have one fits all. Why shouldn’t straights who choose not to marry have the right to form a civil union? Obama thinks civil unions are equal, but if you asked him if straights should be allowed to have them, you can bet his answer would reflect Tony Blair’s….”no, straights can get married”. The reason why Blair nixed civil partnerships for straights was rather transparent, it would have created a situation for gays to demand the right to marry. He didn’t want any confrontation with the christo fascist Anglicans (Episcopalians) or offend the Roman cultists. Proof positive they’re not equal and of course….god is in the mix when all is said and done. Obama is NO different, nor was Clinton.

Bill, does anyone really know just how many gay voters there are in this country? We know the Log Cabiners are just over 1 million, but what about the rest? My dream would be for all of us to support the Green Party, empower it like its never been before, get the unions on board, the younger progressive voters and win a few seats to start the ball rolling for real change. You can bet both parties would come grovelling at our feet and wouldn’t it be sweet justice to say to them….NO MORE?

Bill, yep….agree with you on that. Also, I think the emerging younger generation, the next generation of voters, mostly the college educated are beginning to see that the Dems aren’t doing enough and a vast proportion of them are on our side. I think they will be the ones to get us where we need to be. Its up to us to nurture it. We need to start by having massive, national statewide political demonstrations on a regular basis, enlist the unions, college students, not just once a year, but the year round without any letup. Now is the time to put pressure on the powers that be, just to let them know, we’re not going away and we won’t be silenced,we won’t be compromised and that we “demand” our equality or face the consequences, we should be done with asking for what is rightfully ours.

A Labour Party like Tony Blair’s you mean?

As someone who has always voted for a labour party I can tell you they are the best option, but trade unions and unionist parties know what power smells like just as much as any other political party, and they can sell out just as quickly when push comes to shove.

It’s a good tactic in the broader political sense… risky, though because you could spend 20 years splitting the vote and electing Republicans, and if you ever manage to build a solid party all it would take is one convention to have it stolen out from under you.

But as for forwarding our specific agenda, I wouldn’t trust that any outside group – union, political, church – is oging to be with us 100 percent of the time. I think we need their support, and it is important to build a coalition, but I wouldn’t put anyone else in the driver’s seat of our movement.

Both of those parties and others like them across the US are growing under the impact of the economic collapse and the spread of war in Southwest Asia. Waiting in the wings is the AFL-CIO led and financed Labor Party with a potentially vast base, a decent program and huge finances. What’s holding it back is the craven reliance of the AFL-CIO leadership on the Democrats.

That could change. Labor has been as disappointed as ourselves by the Democrats. Clinton gave us DOMA and DADT as a reminder that relying on sleazy political hustlers is a losers game. Labor, in return for their support, got union busting bills like NAFTA and bank deregulation which are two of the main causes of the current collapse. Obama promises more of the same.

As the economic and war crises deepen we may see the Labor Party unleashed in the electoral arena. And if not the growing radicalization of the GLBT communities, youth and students, working people and etc. is sure to toss up new ways to vote against the hustlers and fakers who run the Democratic (sic) party.

Our way to get ahead is to have a militant “won’t take no for an answer’ approach, to emphasize mass actions and to become politically independent of both parties run by bigots. If this or that liberal or conservative wants to support us that’s all to the good, but relying on them is suicidal.

Bill, I totally agree, the Dems do lie to us to get votes. It happened with Clinton and now Obama. If the Dems were truly interested in our full equality, we would not have had the Stonewall riots and we should not have had to fight for it ourselves. I don’t ever recall ONE of them voluntarily raising the issue of equality as far as our rights are concerned, they had to be reminded when Stonewall erupted.

I dont expect much if anything from this administration before its first and probable last term is over in 2012 with or without the economic downturn. After being lied to year after year, election after election, if we get nowhere, then what else is there butto resort to militancy? Political correctness and polite dialog with them hasn’t really worked, they promise this and that while they campaign and deliver zero once elected. How much more must we have to put up with it, they take our votes for granted and its about time we spelled it out for them…deliver the goods or else? As far as I’m concerned, they’ve yet to earn my vote. The only party that fully supports our equality publicly is the Green Party, one that I could support. If every gay voter supported them instead of the other two, I think it would send a clear message to the Dems. We do need a third viable party, no question about it. The current system clearly doesn’t work with leaders on both sides tied too closely to corporatism. Then of course, there are those among us who would argue that if we did that, we’d not only weaken either side but also lose majority control of both houses. Well…to them I say this….the Dems have control of both houses….including many states, just exactly what is it that they’re going to do for us before 2012? I don’t see anything on the horizon. I can guarantee DADT will not be repealed by November of 2010 or 2012 for starters.

Ben Franklin came to Montreal to try and drum up support in lower Canada and he failed.

Many of the loyalists who did not support your revolution came here as refugees (including part of my own family, some of whom stayed down south to fight).

As well, not all of your colonies were as fervent supporters as the new englanders.

Our country did not join yours in revolution, but you can’t pretend that we were not aware of it, nor that we were not influenced by it.

And as a matter of fact we have had several popular revolutions… in upper and lower canada in 1837, the red river rebellion in 1870, and the northwest rebellion in 1885.
And although the British played a large role in 1812 the Canadian public actively opposed the American invasion. Likewise opposition to the fenian raids in the mid-1800s (not a revolution, I know, but it was a popular movement).

And more recently, I cannot think of a greater sea-change in north american society than the revolution in Quebec at the end of the Duplessis regime in the 60s.
Then there is Oka, Ipperwash, Kahnesatake, and a number of other blockades and uprisings that have happened in recent years

By contrast, I wouldn’t call your civil war a revolution. If anything, it was the suppression of a separatist revolution. Although it ended slavery, I am sure you realize that the people who won that war were the power brokers and industrialists.

And I certainly don’t claim that we have ended bigotry in our country, but I do think Canada has gotten a lot more progressive change through compromise and working toward the common good than some countries have through factionalism and militancy.

Your reference to Cromwell is telling, because for all his good intentions (and although he became a religious fascist I think he did have good intentions) his revolution failed because the people did not have the guts to back him up and take the reins of power. The only people who took any interest in running government were the same politicians who had run the show before.

Call it whatever you want Bill, you don’t have the numbers, and I don’t think most of the people you want to convert have the guts for the kind of militant struggle you are talking about.

And I think you are ignoring the fact that the right wing usually gets the most mileage out of hard times and civil unrest.

Likewise, I think most of your projections for the middle east are simply not going to happen anytime soon, and likely not at all.

But I’m actually trying to have a serious conversation with you, not bait.

You’re from a nation which never had a revolution and kept in a colonial status without true independence until recently.

We’re different in that we’ve had two revolutions, the first completing much of what was left undone by Cromwell and combining it with the constitutional federalism of native Americans. The second overturned slavery, something left undone by the first. A third great revolutionary change is long overdue to end imperial militarism, bigotry and the rule of the looter rich.

I suspect that it’s the lack of a revolutionary past that leads some particularly dense Canadians to imagine that their history is the norm. It’s not; it’s an oddity among advanced nations. Thankfully most Canadians are not that dense and when the time comes will grasp, as we do in this country, that the only change that will end bigotry, as opposed to softening its blows, is fundamental, revolutionary change.

If you continue to lie about what I say then don’t expect me to bother to reply. I have no time for liars.

Go bait tankie, you two deserve each other.

On the other hand… one presumes that a person with left/centre sentiments will just stop voting rather than take out a Republican party membership. More likely the Dems are counting on the chance that people spurned on gay rights will just hold their noses and keep voting for them on other issues.

Of course, that only works so far, especially when it comes to fundraising.

@Bill Perdue:
Why militant, Bill? Do you think the only way to turn public opinion in our favour is through force and fear?
I agree with much of your analysis; it’s your tactics and strategy that are whacked.

In the first place, I don’t think north americans (and many europeans) have the stomach for insurrection, especially if it impacts their access to lattes, cable TV or WalMart.

Secondly, I think you are ignoring the fact that the right wing is just as anxious to exploit hard times as the left. They have a distinct advantage though, in that they are probably better armed, and are not as concerned about breaking a few eggs to achieve their goals.

We are already winning this struggle (slowly but surely).
Turning this into a militant struggle is a mistake in my opinion, first because it will undo our growing public support (which is there even if you do not want to see it). Secondly, I think you are blind to the fact that you do not have the numbers to achieve your goals by force. You would only be helping our opponents and the authorities who would love to portray us as a bunch of out-of-control vandals.

BTW Bill, I heard a radio documentary recently that might interest you:
http://www.cbc.ca/ideas/features/france/index.html
(the “permanent revolution” episode)

Having been over there and seen French farmers regularly overturn and destroy Spanish produce trucks, I can tell you the cops get pretty blasé about violence once it becomes the norm.

Obama, who’s ‘gawd’s in the mix’ doomed same sex marriage in California is following the path pioneered by Clinton who championed DOMA and DADT and by Bush who organized the bigots and surrendered his party to them.

Both parties are ardent supporters of DOMA. It’s unlikely that either will consider repeal of DADT except to stave off reintroduction of the draft. Even then, given the good sense of most in our communities and the country as a whole, it’s unlikely GLBT folks will be enlisting in droves just to get killed or maimed and increase the profit margin of Haliburton and Chevron-Texaco.

The passage of an inclusive EDNA, not Barney Frankenstein’s gutted version, and a hate crimes bill would be useful tools to alleviate some problems but they’ll never end discrimination and bigotry in a society based on the rule of the looter rich and their strategy of divide and rule.

Ending bigotry awaits fundamental, revolutionary changes in US society. The way to get that is not to threaten the Democrats but to break from them and the Republicans, two peas in a pod and launch our own democratically run mass action movement based on cutting edge militancy.

Jason, I’ve been espousing this for years but every time I do, I’m castigated by the likes of people who support HRC and other “gay” equality organizations telling me that we have to be polite to them and be patient because dems are our only hope. To hell with that. Where has it gotten us all these years, just delay delay delay, any excuse. We wouldn’t see any change or difference if the economy was booming. We’re the last group to hate, the scapegoats for all that is wrong with this society, you name it, we’re responsible for it. There are right wing loonies who post here claiming we’re to blame for the decline in out of wedlock births and African American men not marrying, in other words, same sex marriage is harming theirs. Others claim we’re responsible for the soaring divorce rates, yet they’ve continued to rise long before marriage equality was an issue. Go figure.

Do any of the apologists really believe that they’ll see repeal of DADT before November of 2010 or 2012 now that Obama has deferred to the military leaders to resolve it….many of whom are right wing christo-fascists. None of our nato allies had to rely on their military to allow their gay citizens to serve openly, it was swiftly legislated by the parties in power. This is nothing more than a cop out.

As for repeal of DOMA….forget about it, not going to happen.

Bill, thanks. Keep your comments coming, a lot of people who post here are averse to the truth or reality of what is going in our political system. Check out Mary’s comments, No. 98.

Mary, as a gay male with a lot of life experience, probably a whole lot more than you when it comes to being on the receiving end of discrimination, let me explain a few things to you that most straights are unaware of.

My first partner and I were together over 13 years, he died of lymmphoma before he’d had a chance to live his full life expectancy and died way too soon. We had to pay thousands of dollars to lawyers to draw up documents to protect what we had together including our home we bought together. After he died, one his relatives, an aunt (his parents predeceased him) took me to court to challenge my partner’s will which bequeathed everything to me. It cost me more than $10,000 to defend it, I subsequently won but at considerable cost. Here in NY state, its very hard to contest a will if one is married, under the law, the surviving spouse always inherits even if the other spouse dies intestate. The surrogate court always rules in favor of the surviving spouse after probate, one of the 1324 benefits of marriage that we are denied.

As for hospitial visitation rights, you are incredibly wrong when you say that anyone can visit if not a relative. I had to pay to have a legal document drawn up in order to visit him in intensive care. I was first asked what my relationship to him was. No straight married spouse has to go through any of that let alone face contestation of a spouse’s will. A gay partner cannot even collect his deceased partner’s social security either, among many other things such as filing a joint tax return that you take for granted, another benefit of marriage.

Regarding adoption. Perhaps it would be better if it were mandated that every school in this country had to teach sex education and birth control regardless of parents’ wishes, in that way the number of straights procreating and giving up children for adoption or abandoning them on door steps might be curtailed. There are far more incidences of incest among straight families than there are among their gay counterparts if that’s one of your reasons opposing gay couples adopting and I suspect it is because most right wing conservatives view incest as a purely gay phenomenon. Obviously they haven’t checked the facts or the government statistics. It has been documented and is a fact that children raised with two gay parents have been shown to thrive extremely well and in many cases fare better than some who are raised by married couples where one is abusive or neglectful. The majority of us I might add are no more predatory than our straight counterparts.

As for gays serving in the military, our closest ally the UK among almost every European Union country allows its gay citizens to serve openly. The UK in fact recruits publicly for gay men and women to serve as well as run for public office. These are same men and women who’ve been fighting alongside our own in Iraq and Afghanistan without incident. The British commander of the military has even advocated for and supports openly gay men and women to serve in all three branches and has praised their service to their country.

You are aware of course of the rising number of sexual assaults perpetrated by straight soldiers against female personnel in our own forces? Some have even become pregnant as a result. There has not been one reported incident of a gay soldier involved in any sex scandal in our military compared to offenses committed by straights. This clearly debunks the myth that having openly gay men and women serving would lower morale and cohesiveness and the bulk of our military leaders concur that DADT should be overturned.

If we can fight and give our lives for our country, pay taxes and live by the law, then we should be accorded every right that you take for granted. Why should we have to fight for them?

NO school in our country is forced to “take an LGBT class”. Children should however be taught about sexuality. The reason why homophobic bullying in schools is rampant is because of ignorance and the lack of education. Gay school children are committing suicide because of it and people who think as you do. Homophobia and hatred is learned behavior, usually taught in the homes and a lot of it fueled by right wing christian bigots. Here in NY State, the right wingers tried to start a campaign of fear just as they did in California, much of it supported by the Catholic church and some other right wing evangelical groups, spreading lies about gay people that if same sex marriage were allowed, children would have to be taught about it in schools, that we would be marrying our brothers, sisters, even our pets and other disgusting tings. Fortunately, our education authorities issued an official statement discrediting everything they were saying. It was a red herring thrown out by the right wing to instill fear in people, something that the party of hate excels at and which cost them the last election.

Mary, seven countries now allow same sex civil marriage. The sky hasn’t fallen in, it hasn’t effected anybody else’s marriage because straights are still marrying last time I checked. Nobody is cancelling their wedding because of it. Religion does not own marriage, the state does. Religious denominations do not issue marriage licenses, the state does. Religious denominations are EXEMPT from marrying same sex couples, contrary to the lies that many of them have been spreading. You’ve become a victim of the fear mongering, you’ve allowed your religious views to trample on our basic civil rights as Americans and guaranteed under the 14th amendment of the constitution. Proposition 8 IS about hate when people resort to aggressive pursuit to deny millions of people their inalienable rights based on lies. How would they like it if we as a powerful voting bloc supported a similar proposition to ban religious marriage, or to remove the tax exempt status of religious denominations meddling in the political process to legislate for discrimation against an entire group of people? Maybe if you had a dose of your own medicine, you’d think very differently.

You would do better spending more time trying to help your fellow straights clean up their act first. The divorce rate is soaring, more than 50% of them as a result of adultery, philandering and financial problems, hardly the fault of same sex marriage as many try to claim it is, because its been going on long before marriage equality was an issue. Remember, people who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones. “Judge not lest ye shall be judged” obviously has fallen on deaf ears among the opponents of same-sex marriage. When you get a chance, check out http://www.fallwell.com……..you might learn something about the religious people who think that discrimination against us is ok using their beliefs to justify it.

A couple points:

1. If a person is very sick usually only next of kin are allowed to visit. Without laws making partners family, legally you are not.

2.The problem with wills is 50% inheritance tax if you are not a husband, wife, or child of the deceased.

3.The only problem with civil unions is the 1,135 Federal rights that are missing.

4. Affirmative-action type employment laws do not include gay people because legally gay people are not minorities. Therefore gay people can be fired just because they are gay.

5. DADT is a law that legally makes gay people of a lesser class than straight people. All people should be equal in the eyes of the law.

6. No comment.

6.

So that there will be no speculation about my background:
Gender: Female
Age: 20
Orientation: Straight
Politics: Libertarian/Republican (basically Conservative, but not entirely settled in one party).

Nice to meet you. Now I get to make you really mad with my opinion–which of course is not my intention, but (put bluntly) it’s kind of hard to post on SSM with gay people since it usually ends the same way: “You’re a homophobic b**** and I hope you get raped to death, you stupid cow!”
Not a homophobe. Just a Conservative. The two things are not synonyms. Just wanted to make that very, very clear.

1] I have not heard of, nor seen, nor found any proven occurrence of a nationwide ban on gay people visiting relatives or partners in the hospital. As far as I know, gay people can go visit whomever they want, when they want, wherever they want; just like anyone else.

2] Individuals can use wills, regardless of sexual orientation. It really just involves going to a lawyer and saying, “Hey, I want to leave So-and-So this and this and this…”
Just like anyone else.

3] Civil unions are in a lot of ways like ‘normal’ marriage, as far as I know. It would prohibit adoption by gay couples, and while I know that adoption would make a lot of couples very happy, I have to say that I don’t have a huge problem with adoption being prohibited. I feel like the cons might outweigh the pros. I understand that you disagree, and the reasons why–but these are children we are talking about, and considering how incredibly bad our foster system is, the kids might end up with a creep. There’s probably a very low chance of that happening, but it still worries me. It could be that it also worries a lot of other people. I understand that judging an entire group by a few individuals is not the best idea, but it happens. I do try to keep an open mind, so my feelings about SSM are mixed, although I lean toward being against it in favor of civil unions.
Again–not trying to offend, just stating my feelings.

4] Calling straight people ‘breeders’ as a pejorative term is not the best way to be assimilated into society. As it is, affirmative-action type employment laws have made it so that if minorities (gay, black, etc etc etc) apply for a job, they almost have to be hired, sometimes instead of a more qualified candidate. Quotas, etc. If a 6’5″ man in drag applied to work as a cashier in a store that sold rosaries–and was denied employment for the simple reason that the kind of clientele that shops for rosaries might feel uncomfortable with a man in a dress at the front desk, which would then mean that the employer would lose business (and therefore profit)–the man in question could then sue the owner of the store for discrimination.
Technically, it is discrimination–but it’s the kind that generally happens with employers. If you own a business, you naturally don’t want to hire someone that would drive away your clientele, as it would be a bad business move (people with lots of piercings might not be hired as MRI machine technicians, for example) and would be detrimental to the business.
However, suing the employer for making a business decision is not so much advocating equality so much as it is advocating special treatment. Special treatment is the opposite of equality.

5] I don’t have a problem with gay people in the military. However, straight male military members have a distinct “protect the girl” streak, and if they instinctively acted on that (I’m not saying that this is what definitely would happen, but I am mentioning it as a possibility, and nothing more) impulse, it could mean a great deal of danger for the entire platoon.
As it is, women in the military sometimes have trouble throwing grenades far enough (no, I am not saying all gay people are effeminate–I am using this as a comparative example), which means that in the field, that would, again, be a danger to the entire platoon.
Frankly, I personally feel that if any good patriotic American wants to suit up and fight for their country, go for it. But I do think that the one-size-fits-all, “there’s zero difference” idea does not always apply, and unfortunately may need to be taken into consideration.

6] Obama lied to everyone–and is continuing to do so. Frankly, I feel that liberals have been lying to gays and other minorities for ages to get the votes they need. The common argument to that statement is, “Look at the Republicans! They hate gay people!”
No, conservatives don’t actually hate gay people (and if some do, it’s a fringe crowd, trust me). We’re just not too keen on the marriage thing, or anything like they did in Cali recently where elementary school students are being forced to take an LGBT class. (The parents objected to the class. This is not indicative of intolerance–rather, it is indicative of parents not wanting elementary-age kids being told about relationship stuff. At that age, kids probably shouldn’t be told about relationship stuff, regardless of the orientation viewpoints. If a certain parent feels otherwise, they should have the right to choose if they tell their child, and how much they tell their child about the subject–not have it mandated by their state.)

Point is, Obama lied to get your votes. He will continue lying. He is not a good person. I feel that he is really just exposing the undercurrent feeling of the Democratic party–ie, “exploit the minorities to get their votes, then screw them over by abandoning their pet causes that you pledged to support”).

I know most, if not all of you will disagree with every single thing I said. Again, I hope I didn’t offend anyone, but I probably did, which I feel bad about. I’m sorry for the long post, but I wanted to be as clearly phrased as possible.
Anyway, just my 2 cents.
Hope everyone has a good day, and I wish everyone the absolute best.

It cuts to the chase and exposes the craven hypocrisy of Obama and the Obots. For most of them there is no betrayal great enough to woo them away form their delusional projected image of Obama, who in reality is just another sleazy political hustler like Bush and Clinton.

There should only be one class of citizens, not our current system that devalues people who aren’t rich, aren’t Euroamerican, male and heteronormative into a second class status. In our case that’s enforced legally by bigot laws like Bill Clintons DADT and DOMA.

I do disagree on one point though. He’s not “disengenous”. He’s a sleazebag liar of the first water and a nearly perfect clone of other members of the world’s second oldest profession, like the Bushes, the Clintons, Biden and Cheney.

Obama is disengenous when he states he believes in equality for all Americans. How can he if he believes in legal segregation via civil unions for one group and not another, assuming both are equal, which they are not? He is even more incorrect when he states that the federal government should not be in the business of defining marriage. The fact of matter is, it DOES via the federal benefits that can come only via marriage.

M Shane, just how naive are you? Marriage does NOT guarantee monogamy. Explain why one in two straight marriages fail. The primary reasons for that are financial and adultery, a proven fact.

If straight married couples or those intending to marry choose not to rear or cannot produce offspring….I think they too should be banned from marriage by your definition of marriage. What about widows and widowers with children? Next you’ll want to ban them because they refuse to re-marry to raise children to fit your view of what marriage should be in your distorted view or reality.

Come to think of it…..why should secular state governments be in the business of issuing licenses to people who have a religious marriage that brings them hundreds of federal rights? A direct conflict between separation of church and state. If they want those rights, they should be compelled to have a civil marriage and then have it solemnized in their place of worship if they so choose. Religion does NOT own marriage, least of all civil marriage, the state does.

I doubt she’s one of ours; if she’s down on Americans for your gay rights I don’t think she could even stand to set foot in our country either.

Also, I looked up “Dutty”.
My guess is she’s from the caribbean, where they DO say y’all.

“It’s for the kids who are still getting beat up”

AMEN! While ALL of them are counter measures in their own way, marriage equality, DADT, immigration should be secondary to this issue.

He couldn’t spare 10 minutes with Matthew Shepard’s mother to talk remotely substantively about the hate crimes bill NAMED FOR HER MURDERED GAY SON after inviting her to the White House to do just that; it is because, two days after Hillary issued a statement during the primaries about Lawrence King’s murder, he issued a statement, and now he can publicly condemn the murder of a late term abortion doctor and SAY NOTHING about two 11-yr. old little boys KILLING THEMSELVES in one month’s time because people terrorized them with homohatred.

Yes, I, too, am still moved by the fact that A man of color and his family are finally in the White House, but it is because of things like that that I no longer believe THIS man of color genuinely cares.
[img]http://www.douglasmack.com/Images/mattfence.jpg[/img]

Do you think he’ll still love you after you tell him about the Mandingo thing?

Here’s the trailer, if you need to explain it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YkR4-n4b7gg

I won’t tell you the name of the trailer that follows it, but it’s horrible offensive and has a great theme song.

Is it still possible to buy an Obama Stonewall poster?

You got the money, Honey, they have the time to get you one. ENOUGH money that is.

The latest pitch clogging my mailbox reads:

“We’re reserving two seats at the biggest political event of the summer. If your name is chosen, you and a friend will be flown out to Washington, D.C., where you will be provided lodging and two tickets to our special Democratic dinner. There, you will get to meet the president and have your picture taken with him. It’s a night you’ll remember for a lifetime.

But first, you have to enter. And we’ve made that easy: All you have to do is make a contribution of $5 or more to the DSCC before midnight tonight, and you will be automatically entered in our contest. Each additional time you contribute earns you another chance at winning.”

Why goodness me!!! HOW could any gay person pass up such a chance to be photographed with God. After all look at what all my donations last year got me.

Cue “…..this t-shirt” joke.
[img]https://donate.barackobama.com/page/smartproxy/www.barackobama.com/images/email/pride_tshirt_e_wide.jpg[/img]

I don’t write very well, I’m sorry: I meant that I don’t think you are the person as YESON8WON, not that I don’t think one person wrote all the posts under your handle. I meant that some of your language has been over the top enough that I thought you might be a homophobic troll.

If you are gay, Jay, some of your attitudes are really sad. I hope you’ll consider the possibility that you might actually be equal to a straight person, that not all white gays are racist, and that mixed race couples may actually love each other.

I get angry when people call me selfish for pushing for LGBT rights. It’s not for me. It’s for the kids who are still getting beat up. It’s for the gays in third world countries who do not have truly have an ally in our government yet. Mostly, at this point, it’s for the transgendered: we probably agree that the decisive battle in the gay rights struggle, barring reversal, was Lawrence v Texas, which struck down sodomy laws. Gay people are second class citizens in the United States today, but the transgendered are barely considered citizens at all. If I don’t push for them, who will?

I love the president. I watched both hours of the special, mostly thinking how proud I was. Thinking how, for the first time, I have a first family that I love, that I feel truly represents the best of our country. I am hugely glad that he won the election, and, frankly, I don’t think anything he does on gay rights will endanger my vote. I know he’s smarter than I am, and I think he has our best interests at heart. That will not stop me from being angry when I think he is wrong, knows he is wrong, and does not need to be. We’ve got to give the Democrats our votes but withhold our love and our dollars until they are fully on board with our equality.

“duh..that must imply this lady is stupid and off point..”

Umm…if the shoe fits?

“Im leaving this disgusting site..”

Bon Voyage. Oh…and NO thanks for stopping by.