Barney Frank has sold out and is cashing in. That is why this country is in the financial mess – because the one entity set up to regulate banks, Congress, sold out to the banks instead of doing their job. And who was the head of the House Finance Committee, whose designate job is to regulate banks? Barney Frank.

Thanks for the depression, Barney.

Of course, it would just be easier to just blame Bush and Cheney and not go after Frank because he's "one of us."

quote:
I was not in favor of his coming out for same-sex marriage when he first got elected. But I would hope he would be by the time he runs for reelection.

Reelection time is too late, way too late! If he does not honor the promises he already made, why should we believe he will honor his promises he makes in the next election cycle???

Fool me once, shame on you!
Fool me twice, shame on me!

A politician's first priority (Barney Frank's and Barack Obama's) is himself. Everything else is less important, especially the people who elected you. Thank you, Barney Frank, for pointing this out to us.

Nice words of reassurance, Barney. No need for Obama to do anything until after 2012 election? Is it just a coincidence that you happen to live in MA? Wonder if you'd be whistling a different tune if you lived in Utah or Mississippi. If you did, hot boyfriend might be giving you a not-so-subtle hint to get off your smug ass and do something. Particularly if hot boyfriend was also in the National Guard.

It's always the same answer regardless what Democratic Party mouth it's coming from: "Wait. The time to fix (DOMA, DADT, etc.) isn't right yet."

BARNEY'S BIG LIE
Barney is a Democratic Party guy first. He was Clinton's front guy in the DOMA and DADT betrayal in the 90s and he will do the same for Obama this time around.

I knew Frank and the other bastards would trot out the re-election line. You work for us, Frank, not the other way around.

Oh please, folks. I think y'all should understand politics. It's not that easy as you think. Our country is not that open to us, it's odd that you all think it's that easy.

Let Obama play his hand so we can win the smart and strong way. If it was up to this group, we would have lost a lot more than we think.

Um. You can be mad that this is the truth all you want, but he is right. No one could have won the general election who officially supported full marriage rights. Civil Unions maybe. This is the age old political dilemna- do you state your true views/go with what is right and not win or do you fudge it a bit or defer until later in order to win and hopefully have the power to change things down the road. Most political movements require radical elements that push the envelope and more moderate elements that work slowly within the system. If you push too much you won't be allowed inside the system so you had better be good at working outside it. Again, you need both types to be victorious. This was true with the Labor Movement, Women's Movements, and the Abolition and Civil Rights Movements.

I agree with Barney Frank.

Gay Marriage is inevitable. Politics is a creature not known to the common people.

DOMA will be repeal and so will DADT.

Right now, the cards are not aligned for a success on either without the proper political changes needed.

1) The Supreme Court is still swinging conservative. We need to replace a few more of those conservatives with liberals.

2) Democrats do NOT have a huge majority in the Senate.

So, I suggest that we count our blessings of our recent wins and push for state by state while the Federal Gov't moves more closely in alignment with gay issues

Democrat office holders, like their Republican bedmates, are cheap hustlers who ALWAYS put political expediency before the needs of the LGBT communities. Barney Frank is one of the most rancid Quislings in Congress. Barbara McKulski voted for DOMA. Tammy Baldwin voted for Frank’s gutted version of ENDA. Etc.

The Democrats are as bigoted as their cousins the Republicans. They just lie more. A lot more.

Only idiots like Alec take them seriously.

"""The general view, which I shared, was that no one who wanted to get elected president could have been a supporter of same-sex marriage. On the other hand, things have moved very far since then, and I’m more optimistic about 2012 """
_________________________________________________

that is the SAME B.S. they told us about Bill Clinton "Oh, just stay quiet and don't protest or cause any trouble, he'll support gay rights in his second term." And guess what? He never did.

Barney Frank sold us up ther river once before with Don't ask Don't Tell. And now he is doing the same so he can stay on good terms with all his powerful friends. Yeah, Barney, gay rights mean nothing to YOU, YOU'RE a congressman, you don't have to worry about getting fired for being gay, getting mugged, having your partner's family come in and taking all the remmnants of your lves together because your relationship isn't legal…losing kids in a divorce because the judge is homophobic. etc… you're a pwerful elected official, why should you give a shit about the real world?

I am in complete agreement with Wondermann, Windyloo, and Rob Christofle. They are 100% correct on this. The majority of the US does not support "gay marriage". The majority of Americans, be they gay or straight, do not reside in LA, DC, or NYC. The majority of Americans, rather, live in heartland USA. "Gay marriage" is not supported in these areas at all. In some of these areas there is, however, support for "civil unions." Iowa, right now, is the one exception to this. Our best strategy would have been to support "civil unions" right now so that there would have been some sort of legal framework for our committed relationships. We could have then worked to get additional benefits that marriage has like tax breaks, social security benefits, etc. In my opinion, many heterosexuals are caught up on the word "marriage". There is polling data that suggests that the majority of the same people who are opposed to "marriage" are, however, in support of "civil unions." But the "marriage" or nothing approach at by many in our community will wound up landing our community with no advancement on providing a legal framework for our committed relationships.

@Mollie:

So if these straights are for civil unions, why aren't they asking for them for themselves if they're so equal and why isn't Obama supporting it, he seems to think they are? Its crystal clear they're not…and no straight married couple is going to opt for another form of "union" to get rights if they could. They wouldn't want anything less than the gold standard that is "marriage".

Robert, NYC. Where have you been? President Obama like Hillary Clinton has stated that while he does not support "gay marriage", he supports "civil unions". He has stated that consistently for the last 2 years. I never stated in my post that "civil unions" carries all the same legal rights as "marriage." What I stated was if you can get "civil unions" on the books in states, that that at least provides a legal framework for recognition of our committed relationships that 99% of us do not currently have. You can then go back through the legal system and make seperate cases for issues like tax breaks, social security benefits, etc.that currently included as "marriage" benefits for heterosexual couples. If you take the "marriage" or nothing at all approach that you and others are taking, you will wound up 10 years from now still fighting the same battle for "marriage" and having made very little or no progress on this front. Most Americans outside of LA, NYC, and DC do not support "gay marriage", I hate to burst your bubble. Most of us do not live in those few select areas. Pursuing "civil unions" right now would be a more productive approach and would get the ball rolling in the right direction. Waisting $40 million dollars right now on another prop 8 fight in 2010 just doesn't make any sense.

@Robert, NYC: Actually, if I were to decide to build a life with a man rather than a woman I would prefer to have a civil union. Feminists have long argued that marriage- formed to control women and their sexuality and to reinforce traditional gender roles- is too full of baggage. I want a civil union with an equal partner. If we called civil marriage what it is- a civil union- we would all be better off and I would never have to deal with being a "wife" with all the baggage taht goes with that term.

@Robert, NYC:

And will come right back to your post no. 15 in response to Robert and ask the very same question he posed to you…and which you did not answer.

"So if these straights are for civil unions, why aren't they asking for them for themselves if they're so equal and why isn't Obama supporting it, he seems to think they are?"

And, if Obama is so "for" civil unions, then what was the DOJ brief that has the entire LGBT community (including Joe Salmonese of HRA) all fired-up about?

Obama and the DOJ just likened us to incest.

Care to comment on that?

@Schlukitz:

I did answer the question. President Obama has never supported "gay marriage" and neither has Hillary Clinton and 99% of all of our other national politicians, both democrats and republicans alike. President Obama supports "civil unions". There have been no reversal on "civil unions."I have stated in my previous post that "civil unions" does not have all of the same rights as "marriage". Please go back and re-read the post. The problem with you and Robert's argument that "if civil unions were equal to marriage than why doesn't President Obama and other heterosexuals want it for themselves" is flawed because whether you or I like or not heterosexuals are the majority like by 90 to 10 in the US. For us to secure our rights and protections you either have to have the majority of this same society support your efforts or you have to have the majority of the courts support your efforts. The justices that sit on all of these courts are made up from the same people from the larger American society. Do the majority of your relatives in your family support "gay marriage" and total equality for gays and lesbians? I doubt it. If they do, that is wonderful, but they unfortunatley would be the exceptions. That's the predicament that we are in. You have to, thus, take incremental steps in the right direction. Since when has any suppressed minority in the US been able to gain equal protections quickly. Every suppressed group had to take incremetnal steps to go from point A to point B to point C, etc., until you get to point Z. "Civil unions" is point A in this process.

As for the later question about the DOJ:

Below is an exerpt from an article that appeared on the Huffington Post on Friday June 12,2009.

Justice spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler said Friday that the department is abiding by its standard practice of defending existing law and that the filing doesn't mean Obama has changed his mind about wanting to see gay couples win federal recognition.

"Until Congress passes legislation repealing the law, the administration will continue to defend the statute when it is challenged in the justice system," Schmaler said.

The article goes on to say:

In the papers, Justice Department lawyers said federal court was not the right venue to tackle legal questions raised by Hammer and Smelt, who got married in California last year during the five-month window in which the state sanctioned same-sex unions.

Lambda Legal's Pizer said the government's stance in some ways marks an improvement from Justice Department positions taken on the Defense of Marriage Act when George W. Bush was president.

The brief acknowledges that gay couples who tie the knot in the six states where same-sex marriages are permitted are legally married and does not cite the oft-used argument that children fare better in households headed by a married man and woman, Pizer said.

At the same time, it repeated several arguments made under Bush, including the argument that a union between a man and a woman is "the traditional, and universally recognized, version of marriage."

The Obama administration will have more opportunities in coming weeks to weigh in on the subject. Another challenge to DOMA brought on behalf of married couples in Massachusetts and a lawsuit seeking to overturn California's gay marriage ban under the U.S. Constitution are making their way through the courts.

The sad truth is that the religious radicals still get more votes than the LBGT/Ally crowd when it comes to rallying the masses. So, in all actuality, as much as it sucks, Frank (who knows his politics) was pretty much 100% correct. I don't agree with the principle, but I do agree that its an unfortunate necessity.

@Rob Christofle:
1) The Supreme Court is still swinging conservative. We need to replace a few more of those conservatives with liberals.
====

This is next to impossible to do. USC seats are life term until someone dies or is impeached. That means that the conservatives just stay on the bench until a conservative can replace them and a liberal just stays on the bench till a liberal can replace them. Its not very often that sides are switched, and about the only way to change the make up is to hope that a conservative dies with a liberal in the white house.

===========
2) Democrats do NOT have a huge majority in the Senate.
======

Its filibuster proof. That means they can do whatever they want in reality except pass amendments with the numbers they currently have in the Senate.

@Robert, NYC: While I agree with you. I'm from Ohio, if they want to call it civil unions and that means I get the same rights as marriage (over 1000 different rights) I will gladly take them if that means I get to see them sometime in the next 20 years. What you say is admirable and true, but the majority of the gay community in my state give a shit less what its called as long as they get the rights associated with it.

Also, current "civil unions" differ greatly in the amount of rights they provide. Its all in how the legislation is written. The "civil unions" of NJ provide all the rights marriage does while the "civil unions" of other states provide hardly any rights at all.

@Galfefan2004:

"the majority of the gay community in my state give a shit less what its called as long as they get the rights associated with it."

Completely agree with that. As long as the word "marriage" is utilized, there will be no improvement on this issue. The majority of Americans have a problem with the word "marriage" being applied to gays and lesbians. Unfortunately, this will not change anytime soon. That is a major reason why I say "civil unions" is the better path to get started in the right direction. Otherwise, 10, 20 years, etc., we will still be sitting in this same square.

@galefan2004: "The sad truth is that the religious radicals still get more votes than the LBGT/Ally crowd when it comes to rallying the masses." That's an accomodationist lie.

The sad truth is that Obama and his minister of Pandering Joshua Dubois not only organized the christers into support groups for his campaign but galvanized their vote with his infamous bigoted statement that "'gawd's in the mix." He got elected, we got screwed with cut glass in the lube.

"So, in all actuality, as much as it sucks, Frank (who knows his politics) was pretty much 100% correct." He was wrong to collaborate with bigots and oppose same sex marriage. He was wrong to betray us to the bigoted bosses and landlords by gutting ENDA and denying civil rights to most gays, lesbians, bisexuals and all transgendered people. He was wrong to gut ENDA to save the Chamber of Commerce from lawsuits that ENDA would have made easier to win for ourselves and our allies.

"I don't agree with the principle, but I do agree that its an unfortunate necessity." What you really mean is that you don't have the stomach for the fight.

Here’s some advice for you, Mollie, Rob Christofle and your hero Barney Frank from another Massachusetts politician;

”If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen."

Sam Adams, Boston, 1776

@Bill Perdue: It might be an accommodationist lie, but it is all I have ever seen in my local area and in my state, so forgive me for buying into it. When I said Frank was correct, I meant he knew what it took to get elected. Is he morally bankrupt for selling out? Hell yeah. However, he is a politician. I think I've seen one politician in my entire life that wasn't morally bankrupt by default.

Oh, trust me, I have the stomach for the fight. I have fought long and hard to get my views and my principles recognized. I just fight on the state and local level. I never pass up an opportunity to get involved in the fight. I have fought the last 2 elections to get the people I thought should be elected elected. I have fought all through college to bring gay/lesbian awareness to my local small town college. I have fought my entire life to bring awareness to my small town. However, thank you for your opinion.

What I really meant was, I understand that morally bankrupt politicians will do and say whatever it takes to get votes, and I would much rather see an Obama deny support for gay rights and win because of it and do nothing than see another Bush win and try to pass yet another anti-gay marriage amendment. I never called Bareny Frank my hero. I wouldn't go that far. I don't even think I would go as far as voting for him after reading his stance on this issue, but I understand where he is coming from.

Oh, and please don't even go there, I do not love wealth at all. I would gladly live on the streets and still volunteer for causes I believe in if it meant I was helping to improve this world. I will never be a sell out. I've left jobs that have asked me to sell out. My dignity and my morals will NEVER be for sale at any price. Then again, that is why I get involved behind the scenes in politics and not on the front lines.

@Bill Purdue:

Here is some advice for you and others in our community that shares your views. Until you realize the reality that most Americans(black, white, asian, native american, hispanic, rich, poor, etc.) DO NOT SUPPORT "gay marriage", you will continue to fight unwinnable battles. You could not secure "marriage" in so-called progressive California, New York, and DC. The longer it takes for you all to realize this, the longer our advancement and making our lives better as gays and lesbians will be prolonged. You can live in denial all you want, but you will continue to loose these initiatives state by state. What will the vast majority of us gays and lesbians that do not live in New Hampshire, Iowa, Connecticut, Massachussettes, or Vermont do for legal recognitions of their committed relationships? By pursing a "marriage or nothing at all strategy", you are denying posssible legal recognition for our relationships. "Civil unions" is the plausible first step.

I get really tired of everyone throwing around the "morally bankrupt" card when talking about politics. Politics is the social instutition through which we make decisions about what we are going to do as a society. While I agree that there are serious issues with campaign finance, the reality of having to appeal to a majority of voters in order to get elected is not going to change as long as we have any form of democracy. Are you suggesting that a politician should simply proudly state all of their positions regardless of the fact that they may be supported by a minority of their constituents? Or that they should stick to those positions when elected even if that means losing their office or not having others willing to work with them at all? What is the point of this? It simply means that person would have no power to do anything. At least if they get into office they may be able to slowly work on something. While I completely support those who want to push hard and work outside the system this is the system we have. I don't see revolution in the near future as our system- flawed though it is- is one of the best in the world. So whe also need people in office who are sympathetic to our causes and may try to do something about it when they can. I don't care what anyone on this site says- we would all be worse off under Republicans.

@Windyloo: I think they should stick to what they feel is in the best interest of their constituents and to what they feel is right regardless of rather it is popular or not. If that costs them the office they are in then so be it. Anything else is truly selling out. You would be surprised what running on a campaign of honesty and integrity gets you, and take it from a person that lives in a congressional district that has a reputation for being the seediest in the nation, it was nice to have an honest man in office for a change.

@galefan2004: Barney Frank is a Quisling. If you're right about the bankruptcy of Democrat and Republican politicians, and you are, then oppose them instead of apologizing for Frank or ‘explaining’ his cowardly opposition to same sex marriage.

Don't refer to our political position in terms of the needs of Democrats, who are our open enemies. We've lost most battles concerning our right to be married because both parties are against us but not because most Americans are bigots. How could you miss seeing the reality of that home truth about US politics?

The fight for our equality is not for apologists. As Oscar Wilde said "Disobedience, in the eyes of any one who has read history, is man's original virtue. It is through disobedience that progress has been made, through disobedience and rebellion."

@Mollie:, before you get too deep in the sewer of opposing GLBT rights you might want to take a look at the trend in polling on this question. We, those who support the right LGBT folks to be married, are moving forward. The religious right, which you so eagerly kowtow to, are the ones losing. And we’re winning our basic human right to be married in more states. We’re winning the battle for equality. It's you, Barney Frank and bigots like Obama and Focus on the Family who are losing.

Get a clue.

@Windyloo:
Windyloo, your typical flag waving paytriotic Obot informs us that we should accept second class citizenship because “we would all be worse off under Republicans”. Get a clue, Windyloo. We are we are under the Republicans, only these Republicans are the ones that call themselves Democrats. But they’re Republicans nonetheless. And they don't like GLBT folks at all.

@ Bill Purdue:

You really have alot to learn. Do you not realize it is NOT just the "religious right" who are opposed to "gay marriage". Are you not aware of that? Most people in the US while they consider themselves to be Christians, at least 75%, the last time I read polling data, are not right-wing fundamentalists. There is a difference. The two are not synonomous. Out of all of my family members who are opposed to "gay marriage", not one of them are right-wing fundamentalists. They are Christians, yes, but not right-wing fundamentalists! You need to go and travel outside of your "gayborhood".

Also, if "we are winning the gay marriage battle" then why is it that you do not have "gay marriage" in California, New York, or DC? Would you not say these are supposedly "gay friendly" territories?

@Bill Perdue: I get very involved in politics, and I hardly ever vote for candidates that I am not very familiar with, and I don't vote a strict party line by any means. I vote for the person that I think is most qualified on a large selection of issues not just gay rights (although gay rights is definitely important to me). I just believe, based on what I have seen both in the trend with religion (the gay/lesbian accepting church is becoming much more the norm as churches are switching to a love everyone like Jesus did approach) and with in my local community which is back woods Ohio (I don't want to say I'm hot, but the "straight" men in my community are coming out of the woodwork to want to try it with a man). It seems to me that gay marriage for this nation is inevitable. If you look at the whole black rights movement it took over 100 years. I really hope that the gay rights movement doesn't take that long, but I honestly do believe that eventually we will get there.

Windyloo: Yes exactly. But clearly Obama has lagged, now that he is President, in his overall agenda regarding gay rights. His actions and statements, or lack thereof, regarding gay issues does not fit in with the sometimes Herculean efforts this administration has made in pretty much all other areas, and in less than half a year. I think our arguement is coming together and making sense to increasing numbers of Americans, and pretty quicly. The recent legal briefing re DOMA4 plus the upcoming Biden gay fundraiser plus recent highly publicised DADT firings, adding to the general zeitgiest in favor of equal rights for all.

@Mollie: Maybe you were asleep. I've said in all my comments that it's not just the religious right who are our enemies. It's also the entire bigoted leadership of the Democratic (sic) and Republican parties and their apologists – like you.

The fight isn't over. We were betrayed by Democrats like Obama in California "gawd's in the mix" and members of the Senate in NY who switched parties to avoid jail time. Nevertheless prospects look good for us. I don't live in a gayborhood, but I'd like to. If Las Vegas keeps growing maybe one will develop but save yourself the trouble and don’t apply for a visa.

I fail to see the distinction you make between most christers who oppose equality and bigots. Bigots are people who oppose equality in marriage, like Obama. He, like most christers oppose SSM, which means they're… bigots.

@Bill Perdue:

My point is that the majority of the US does not support "gay marriage". The majority of those people, while Christians, are not right-wing fundamentalists like Pat Robertson, James Dobson,etc. The mistake that some make in this debate is to assume that the majority of Americans who are opposed to "gay marriage" are mostly just right-wing fundamentalists. They are not.

Also, your comments that if a person opposes "gay marriage" that they are bigots, needs to be explored. There are many people like Rev. Joseph Lowery, SCLC, who support every gay and lesbian issue except for "marriage". Lowery supports "civil unions". So do the gay community just say to people like Lowery that eventhough they support us on 99.9% of the issues, we are going to still throw them under the bus and call them bigots because they disagree with the our community on one issue? Sorry, but that does not make sense to me.

@Mollie: If Joseph Lowery opposes equality in terms of marriage then he, like Robertson, Obama, Warren, Dobson want to throw us under the bus, and do, repeatedly.

While you stand on the pavement playing apologist hand puppet for these bigots.

Not very pretty.

@Mollie: You and Bill have very intersting points and counter points. What I would say is that any religious freak that can't think on his own and only follows what his favorite religious book "tells" him to do is a bigot rather being told to round up 6 million Jews and kill them, lead a crusade into Muslim lands, or fly a plane into a building. Its all religious fundamentalist freakism and it all is unacceptable. I swear to god, if the people that wrote these books 2000 years ago realized how much they would be taken out of context and abused over 2000 years they would have never written them.

I am not an Obamoid. I can criticize the man when I think it is called for. Would I like to see him take a stronger stand on gay rights? Of course. I would also like him to speak more forcefully about the terrorism confronting abortion providers in this country. But the truth is, he isn't going to do the former anytime soon because the LGBT community is a small minority not necessarily supported by many white Americans and certainly not a majority of the black or latino communities- the latter being the fastest growing group in the U.S. He is pushing for issues that have the possibility of appealing to a significant chunk of the population- economic and healthcare reform for example. He is a little more forceful on reproductive rights because women make up 52% of the population and even more of the Dem voters and a majority of us support safe, legal, abortion.

As for politicians going far with honesty- I have rarely seen that work if your views are too far outside the mainstream of your community. I am from the South. I was raised in Alabama and now live in Virginia. My now home state has recently tilted from purple to pale blue and is hanging there by a thread. The southern part of our state is red red red and the north is blue. How have we made strides? Moderate dems who don't really speak too forcefully on issues that are going to enrage the redish folk. There is no way anyone who was publicly supportive of gay marriage would get elected in this state. I will take my moderate and somewhat dishonest dem governor and senators over the alterative any day.

@Bill Perdue:

Bill, you do not appear to understand basic US politics? Do you think that every alliance that African-Americans had during the civil rights struggle were all with people that agreed with them 100% on the issues? Rather what they intelligently did was forge alliances with people that agreed with them on the majority of issues. That is how they achieved their equality. African-Americans realized that they were only 12% to 13% of the US populous. They did not take the disposition that unless you agree with us 100% on the issues, we will not have any associations with you. Had they taken that approach, African-Americans may not have achieved civil rights today.

I am not an apologist for "bigots" as you say. I am a realist and a pragmatist. Rev. Lowery supports the gay community on all other issues. If a group that is in the minority (10% or less) like those of us who are gay are, then you have to realize that you will not win equality unless you form alliances with people that agree with you on the majority issues. Very rarily in life will you find that someone, even including a lover, that will agree with you 100% of the time. It is not realistic and is counterproductive. That is why our community has not advanced on a variety of issues. Looking for people who agree with our community 100% of the times is not productive. That strategy does not many sense to me.If our community does not build broader coalitions, we will still be having this debate 50 years from now.

@Windyloo:

I completely agree with your post. I was born and raised in southern Virginia and you are correct with your analysis of this area. My family have lived in southern Virginia for hundreds of years. I think some in our community view some things through "rose-colored" lenses. No candidate could get elected dog catcher in Virginia if they stated they supported "gay marriage." While our state voted for Obama, first time Virgina has voted democrat for president since 1964 with Lyndon Baines Johnson, it is still a moderate to conservative state. Every person who moves to this area, finds that out quickly.

While, I disagree with Barney Franks on issues sometimes, I understand that he works with these people in our congress everyday. He knows what can pass the congress on a vote and what cannot.

@Mollie: Trying to build coalitions on the basis accommodating to bigotry, as you advise, is little counterproductive.

But just imagine the kind of coalition we could build if we agreed to keep DADT and DOMA and gave up on hate crimes and ENDA. Every right wing christer bigot in the country would be on board for that. And then we could build a big, big closet and…

—————————-
@Windyloo: Obama's economic program consists of rewarding the looter class and demanding concessions and austerity from workers and unions. According to the CNA/NNOC, the nurses union of the AFL-CIO, his health care program is a giveaway for HMO's, Big Pharma, insurance companies and other criminal elements. So his bigoted attitude towards same sex marriage is right in line with all this other right wing programs.

And you point is?

With Democrats like these who needs Republicans. I mean, really, what’s the difference.

@Bill Perdue:

What you are espousing makes very little sense. Again, if African-Americans had waited to form coalitions with people that agree with them on 100% of the issues, would they have secured their civil rights today? The answer is no. I would take Rev. Lowery and his support of our community on 99% of the issues anytime over some in our own community who refuses to realize that you do not live in this nation by yourself (my way or no way strategy). A person or group with that mentality will never gain civil rights. Do the math Bill, we are only 10% or less of the US. Heterosexuals are 90% or more of the US. 90 versus 10. You tell me how you form coalitions that are needed to advance our civil rights if the standard criteria is looking for others who only who agree with our community 100% of the time? That is a loosing strategy. Obviously, if someone stated that they hated gays and lesbians, that would not be someone that you would seek out for an alliance. But if someone says to me that I support the gay community on ENDA, repeal of don't ask don't tell, supports hate crimes legislation, etc., but supports "civil unions" instead and not "marriage", an alliance with individuals like this should be formed. Again, Bill, if you are waiting for agreement on 100% of the issues before you would form an alliance or coalition, you are going to be very lonely in your quest for civil rights. Under your logic, there would not be any organized political party, democratic, republican, libertarian, etc. Another analogy, you have gay conservatives, gay progressives, and gay who are independence. Do you think that there would be 100% agreement with gay members of the aforementioned groups? Hardly.

@Mollie: Civil rights like the right to vote are meaningless absent economic democracy. The fight for equality for African Americans is not exactly over.

The only losing strategy is to give up and accept the bigots ideas of our worth as humans and citizens. That's what you do when you agree with them that we're second class citizens who only deserve second class marriages, i.e. civil unions. That's what Democrats and Log Closet types have always done.

That loser attitude gave us DOMA and DADT.

No thanks.

@Bill Perdue:

I would agree that equality for African-Americans, which I am one, is not exactly over. But you cannot deny that African-Americans have come along way from slavery to current United States President. That does not happen if we had utilized your strategy of only forming coalitions and alliances with people and groups that agree with us on 100% of the issues.

No thanks.

The gay community is only 10% or less of the US. Forming coalitions with people or groups that agree with you on the majority of issues is not "giving up". That is the intelligent strategy, given the current US environment, to pursue.

Can't you see how awfully sad this argument is? You are giving Barney Frank a pass because of the state of politics? Pathetic. Yes, politics is horrible. Our government needs to be overhauled. But that will NEVER happen when people just shrug their shoulders and excuse politicians who sell out because that's the nature of the game. Our government is complacent, and we are too. We really need to wake up.

CHANGE takes TIME.
All he promised is that he would [eventually] make changes, not fix the whole fucking world in 6 months (let alone fix the political system whatsoever). Politics is just a big fucked up game, in which Obama is a player (on our side, no less). Don't hate the player, hate the game!

@Ethan:

Ah. But, the player's are the ones who perpetuate the game and keep it alive.

No players. No game.

@Mollie: You persit in wanting to give up our agenda to make friends with bigots and in denying that bigots are bigots.

That's a loser game. We're not playing it anymore.

Good Morning.

From a religious point of view, i can tell you that widespread acceptance of gay "marriage" is not going to happen. This year or in 100 years time.

The bible is very clear on the sin that is homosexuality and its consequences. And as long as the bible/torah/qu'ran continues to run in print and "true" religious groups continue to spread God's truth to the masses…Gay marriage will never ever be accepted. Oh i am sure that the Federal Court will someday succumb to this and indoctrinate laws that protect the farce that is gay"marriage". But that union will never be accepted in the eyes of God or the laws of morality in the world.

My prayer is that God will touch and influence all the gays amongst you to find His truth and healing for the sin that you languish in. Homosexuality is not a genetic thing. It is an insult to God to say He made you that way because you imply God is a sinful one. May He forgive you for this blasphemy.

Kindly visit http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=1302

@GodLovesUs:

http://www.queerty.com/does-jo...../#comments

Kindly get lost and spout your religious ignorance and bullshit elsewhere. It's not welcome on this site.

@GodLovesUs: is a perfect example of why we need involuntary court-ordered mental health treatment for people with religious disorders suffering from like supersititon sickness and rabid ignorance syndrome.

Clearly insane. Talks to things that go bump in the night. Believes hundreds of impossible things at once. Thinks the Exorcist was a documentary. What a loser!

Massive doses of lithiuim? Aricept? Paxil in suppository form? All of the above? Yes.

http://jesusneverexisted.com/

"christianity is the worst disaster in human history."

@GodLovesUs: You're an idiot. Seriously. And you sure as fuck don't belong here.

You religious bigots are the worst kind. Never mind that there are plenty of churches, plenty of christians/jews/muslims who disagree with you on this issue…you're the one with sole ownership of "truth" and "righteousness."

Alleged "people" like yourself are precisely the reason that no one with half a brain and a quarter of a heart would be caught dead in one of your little god-cages you call churches.

Here's a prayer for you: I pray that the fucking rapture hurries up and happens so us real humans can finally be rid of scum like yourself.

Good morning to you, too. Cunt.

Barney Frank is a thieving clown anyway. And still talks like Elmer Fudd.

Its not my place to convince you that God exists. It is not. That is your choice.

I do have a choice..no an obligation to speak out when you people want to befoul the very virtue of marriage. I mean honestly only the sinful ignorant will say "gay marriage"..
Do u think marriage is only about love..really????? If that is the case then incest is allowed, bestiality is the norm and paedophilia is permissable.

Marriage is btw a man and woman.. that is the way it is meant to be.

God can change the perverse life you live. Pray to him

I'm glad we are having this discussion. I would like to know what those who oppose our political system would lke to see as an alternative? There are people fighting in the streets right now for a system that more resembles ours. It is flawed- no doubt about it- but I still wouldn't exchange it for any of the current alternatives. While I support a shift toward a more mixed economy that involves more of a safety net, I see no legitimate alternative to our political system. I may believe that Barny or Obama or any number of other polticians should do more to support Gay rights but do you really think that them getting themselves voted out of office is going to lead to people who are more supportive of this issue getting elected in most areas of the country? The answer, for now, is no. So unless you have an alternative political system this is what we have to work with. Spend your time trying to change peoples minds on the ground so they will cast a different vote.

As for the above statement about the union views on Obama's policies- my father was a Unionized worker until his retirement. He was a pipefitter. He was lucky he retired when he did becuase shipyards were being closed down and shipped over seas left and right. The reality was- accept concessions or we will move this business to India and you will have no place to ply your highly skilled trade. Welcome to low paying service jobs! The real villain in all of this is a country of people that for too long have wanted nothing but cheap products and a capitalism that is based on ever-increasing profit. Put those two things together and American workers who want to earn higher wages and benefits cannot compete. Unless we plan on isolationism a balanced approach that lowers our expectations while negotiating with those involved in the world economy is really the only option.

@GodLovesUs:

So marriage isn't primarily about love? Then why marry? RELIGION DOES NOT OWN CIVIL MARRIAGE, get it through your thick skull! There is NO marriage ceremony in the bible and if there were, who conducted it and what was the ritual? Every reference you use to denigrate us was written by Jewish MALES. Incest is permitted in the book of Exodus by the way. I've also seen polygamy mentioned elsewhere, among other things. According to Genesis, Adam & Eve must have committed incest after they had their children. Otherwise, how on earth would the planet have become populated since [they] were there the first parents? It can only be assumed that incest occurred between the parents and their childen and the children among themselves.

Regarding perversion….what about your straight sex traffickers importing women from emerging nations and elsewhere for the benefit of straight male gratification? What about the straight males who impregnate single women and then desert them? What about the straight philanderers (the married ones)? What about the straight rapists? What about the straight sexual harrassers of women? What about straight pedophiles…yes straights are pedophiles too you moron! What about the soaring straight divorce rates that have been occurring long before same-sex marriage was a dot on the landscape?

In the history of bestiality its actually a straight phenomenon, go check your facts. Odd that you bring that up, maybe you've indulged yourself? Quite common in rural agricultural areas where sheep are pervasive, among others.

@vernonvanderbilt:

Well said, Vernon! They always play the victim card when we bash back.

@Bill Perdue:

Bill, RIGHT ON! We should have mandatory deportation of religious wackos to some of those middle eastern countries. They'd find they have much in common with Sharia law and I'm sure, would feel quite comfortable in that evironment because they are just as bad as Islamic extremists, if not worse.

@GodLovesUs:

You sound like a so called "ex-gay" every time you open your mouth and spew that nonsense! Can't get a hot date or can't stay away from the men by coming here to rant your religious screed?? Get yourself into legitimate permanent therapy, and fast. Now run along!

OK, shock! i had no clue Barney frank was a gay man. what? what is he saying about DADT, DOMA et al. he was there during clintons time also? when DADT was enacted? please say it ain't so.

@galefan2004:

Gale, these are the same people who blamed gays for 9/11, Katrina and other natural disasters. They are NO different than islamic and jewish extremists.

@Mollie:

So, the argument that civil unions for gays only is equitable to marriage equality@Windyloo:

Well, that is my point when I asked Mollie why Obama doesn't support civil unions for straights if he considers them equal to marriage? The fact of the matter is, FEW straight couples would be prepared to forego civil marriage for a civil union and you have to ask yourself why? If Obama or whoever legislated for that, you can bet you'd see a straight back lash, especially from the right wing religious fundamentalists and other cults. I'd like to see a national referendum aimed at straights and I think the result would be overwhelmingly in favor of marriage over civil unions. Why do you think Holland, Belgium, Norway, Sweden, Spain, Canada and South Africa abolished them? Straight governments in those countries legislated for marriage equality, far ahead of anything we can envisage in this society.

@GodLovesUs:

"Pray to him"

I would suggest that you start praying to your own imagined sky-pixie to save your own sorry ass for being the self-righteous, hateful scumbag that you are.

I'm bored with Barney Frank and his excuse-making. The time for action on equal rights is now, not later in 2012, when the gay community will have endured yet another campaign year of empty promises. Barney Frank is wrong, dead wrong. The time for action is NOW. Write your representatives immediately, and repeatedly. Ignore Barney Frank. He doesn't know what he's talking about.