BTW: I did write Segal , he answered but nothing new.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/...../93/493170

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/4/10/111631/196

Mark and Sarah,

As I’m sure you’ve seen by now, Senator Barack Obama gave a wide-ranging interview to the Advocate on Monday.

From his interview, I hope you’ll note some key passages:

“The Advocate: Let’s start with what’s hot, why the silence on gay issues? You’ve only done one other interview with the LGBT press. I know people wish they were hearing more from you.

Sen. Obama: I don’t think it’s fair to say silence on gay issues. The gay press may feel like I’m not giving them enough love. But basically, all press feels that way at all times. Obviously, when you’ve got limited amount of time, you’ve got so many outlets. We tend not to do a whole bunch of specialized press. We try to do general press for a general readership.

But I haven’t been silent on gay issues. What’s happened is, I speak oftentimes to gay issues to a public general audience. When I spoke at Ebenezer Church for King Day, I talked about the need to get over the homophobia in the African-American community, when I deliver my stump speeches routinely I talk about the way that antigay sentiment is used to divide the country and distract us from issues that we need to be working on, and I include gay constituencies as people that should be treated with full honor and respect as part of the American family.

So I actually have been much more vocal on gay issues to general audiences than any other presidential candidate probably in history. What I probably haven’t done as much as the press would like is to put out as many specialized interviews. But that has more to do with our focus on general press than it does on … I promise you the African-American press says the same thing.”

I believe this echoes my earlier correspondence with you, where I have emphasized the importance of Obama’s speaking out on our behalf in front of general audiences, including audiences that may be otherwise hostile to the issues important to our community. In my opinion, I believe that this is far more important to our interests than giving interviews to specialized press. As Obama said in his interview:

“I guess my point would be that the fact that I’m raising issues accordant to the LGBT community in a general audience rather than just treating you like a special interest that is sort of off in its own little box – that, I think, is more indicative of my commitment. Because ultimately what that shows is that I’m not afraid to advocate on your behalf outside of church, so to speak. It’s easy to preach to the choir; what I think is harder is to speak to a broader audience about why these issues are important to all Americans.”

I am sure you will enjoy reading the article, as Obama addresses a wide range of LGBT issues, including the need for eliminating homophobia, ending Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, and repealing DOMA.

As I mentioned in my earlier emails, I would suggest researching a story on Senator Hillary Clinton’s campaign and whether she has ever spoken out on LGBT issues in front of a general audience, especially in front of an audience that would otherwise be expected to be hostile to our issues.

I look forward to reading your thoughts in the next issue of the PGN.

Many thanks,

http://www.advocate.com/exclus.....p?id=53285

Clinton supporters have now pointed out that information regarding her position on LGBT rights can be obtained through this URL: http://www.hillaryclinton.com/feature/lgbt but I can not figure out how that information can be obtained from the Clinton home page. For example, a casual visitor to http://www.hillaryclinton.com might want to review her positions on various issues. How would that person find the LGBT page?

If there is an easy way to get there that I just missed, would someone please reply to this comment with the menu choices to get to Clinton’s LGBT information.

If there is no way to navigate to that page from the home page, that would be disturbing.

1. Hillary has said that she will not repeal the entire “Defense of Marriage Act” (that her husband signed into law) that allows the Federal and State governments to not recognize gay marriages from other states.

2. Obama has said that he _will_ repeal the act in its entirety.

Now, you tell me: who has the gay’s interests at heart?

Hillary is a wolf in sheep’s clothing! She supported DOMA, “don’t ask don’t tell”, etc.

Open your eyes, people!

Good catch! It just demonstrates what a low-rank bar rag the Philly Gay News really is.

He’s also talked to the black gay publication PULSE:

http://adhc.wordpress.com/2007.....-magazine/

I wonder how Mark Segal missed that?

If you support Obama and not Hillary, that does not make you ipso facto a misogynist.

The people arguing the above are beyond stupid.

“No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, SHALL BE REQUIRED to give effect to any public act, record, or
judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.”. – http://frwebgate.access.gpo.go.....ubl199.104

Again, from the mouth of OBAMA’S OWN Constitution expert and supporter:

“OBAMA BELIEVES STATES SHOULD BE UNDER NO OBLIGATION to recognize same-sex marriages from other states. Obama believes a long-recognized public policy exception to the Constitution’s Full Faith and Credit Clause exempts a state from having to recognize a same-sex marriage from another state which runs counter to its own public policies. [In relation to state recognition] “SAME-SEX COUPLES …ARE NEITHER BETTER NOR WORSE OFF WITH DOMA REPEALED….”
http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=3468949
Please DOCUMENT ONE TIME that Obama NOT YOU has suggested that he sees “civil unions” as “incremental.” He may support the repeal of the federal definition of marriage as only between a man and a woman but he has REPEATED emphasized:

“I do believe that marriage is between a man and a woman.” – http://obama.senate.gov/speech.....atement_5/

If Obama genuinely believes his version of civil unions would “give same-sex couples equal legal rights and privileges as married couples” when can I expect him to trade my civil union for his marriage? If he does it before April 15th, income tax filing time, I’ll throw in a toaster.

The poor placement on Sen. Clinton’s site of her support for gay rights doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist anymore than it changes the fact that both she and John Edwards had statements about their support on their sites months before Obama did.
Among other things it states that she:

• Supports civil unions. Hillary will work to ensure that all Americans in committed relationships have equal benefits — from health insurance to life insurance, property rights, and more.

OTHER HIGHLIGHTS:
- Throughout her Senate career, Hillary has been an original cosponsor of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act….
- As Chair of the Senate Democratic Steering and Outreach Committee, she met with leaders of the LGBT community to come up with a smart strategy to stop FMA…..
- Hillary is an original co-sponsor of the Matthew Shepard Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act….
- Hillary is an original cosponsor of the Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligation Act, which would grant the same benefits, including health insurance, to domestic partners of federal employees….
- Hillary wrote the Early Treatment for HIV Act, which expands access to vital treatment options for low-income individuals living with HIV…
- Hillary secured $500,000 for the Lesbian and Gay Community Services Center in New York….

In addition to saying she will “End Don’t Ask Don’t Tell,” she DOESN’T suggest consulting with the Pentagon about it as Obama ludicrously does. When would he meet with the foxes to discuss better conditions for the chickens?

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/feature/lgbt/

Hillary’s policy statement on AIDS calls for at least $20 billion more in funding. Obama’s ONLY CALLS for FIVE billion more. WHY?

She criticized Col. Pace for calling gays “immoral” before Obama said anything—and when told some didn’t think it strong enough, apologized and remphasized her disagreement while, for example, when Obama was begged to dump Donnie “gays are trying to kill our children” McClurkin he refused.

She released a statement condemning the murder of Lawrence King before Obama did.

She was interviewed by LOGO TV News. Obama refused.

She was interviewed by “The Washington Blade.” Obama refused.

She was interviewed by Ohio’s “Gay Peoples Chronicle” before their primary. Obama refused but took out a pretty ad.

As for the continuing McClurkingate nonsense praising Obama for saying we should “listen to” our oppressors:

“I simply don’t believe that Obama would have the same reaction, be just as welcoming, if we were talking about racists or anti-Semites. He wouldn’t say that we’re all one big tent. He would kick the racist or the anti-Semite to the curb. I’ve never heard a politician invoke the big tent to mean racists and their victims. So the best way to promote tolerance is to tolerate and embrace intolerance?” – John Aravosis, AmericaBlog

Finally, IF WE ARE SO IMPORTANT TO OBAMA why can you find not one sentence, not one word, not one syllable about us in his official manifesto, the 64-page “Blueprint for Change-Barack Obama’s Plan for America.” Not even in the logical sections to look for us.

Not even under its “Barack Obama’s Plans to Strengthen Civil Rights” section.

Not even under its “Expand Hate Crimes Statutes” section or its “Barack Obama’s Plan to Strengthen Our Military” section.

Not even anything about AIDS under the “Barack Obama’s Plan for A Healthy America” section.

Are WE not Americans, too?

- http://www.barackobama.com/issues/

Go to http://hillaryclinton.com/issues/ and let me know where you see mention of any LGBT issues there [hint: there's nothing there].

Now go to http://www.barackobama.com/people/ and check out Obama’s front-and-center issues discussion on LGBT matters.

You wrote: “Obama has made it CLEAR, he is against gay marriage, and is in the same boat as Hillary, and he was even a bit shaky on the civil union issue as well.”

You are only partially correct. Obama has indeed stated that he does not currently support the phrase “gay marriage” due to the fact that the phrase is a non-starter with the opposition. He prefers an incremental approach that will get gays and lesbians exactly the same rights as married heterosexual couples as quickly as possible. This is the same stance as Hillary Clinton on this issue.

As to civil unions, you’re just flat wrong. You can easily pull up this official statement on the barackobama.com website under LGBT issues:

“Barack Obama supports full civil unions that give same-sex couples equal legal rights and privileges as married couples, including the right to assist their loved ones in times of emergency as well as equal health insurance, employment benefits, and property and adoption rights. Obama also believes we need to fully repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and enact legislation that would ensure that the 1,100+ federal legal rights and benefits currently provided on the basis of marital status are extended to same-sex couples in civil unions and other legally-recognized unions.”

Pray, tell me how to find any mention of LGBT issues on the Clinton website or her strident support of civil unions.

You wrote: “he told gays to treat Homophobes with dignity”.

First of all, he didn’t say that. He said that we have to engage with people we disagree with, which is kind of, I don’t know, the JOB of the President and any elected leader worth their salt.

Our community has far too often taken an “all or nothing” approach to advancing our interests. Too often we demonize reasonable people on the other side of the aisle because they hold antiquated or incorrect views.

We get nowhere by demozining people. Sure we might a win a battle or two but in the long run we don’t form meaningful catalytic relationships that ultimately lead to much bigger change.

If you’re with the “if they’re not with us, they’re against us” crowd then, well, we can agree to disagree.

However, if you’re part of the reasonable majority that realizes that we need to stress our outreach to allies and enemies, then we can talk.

Obama has made it CLEAR, he is against gay marriage, and is in the same boat as Hillary, and he was even a bit shaky on the civil union issue as well.

Hillary is all for civil unions.

Take your history revisionist bullshit, onto another site.

Obama just can’t Canada, to tell them that his stance on Nafta, was all rhetoric, just as his campaign staffer came forward and outed that his views on the Iraq War were also bull.

Obama did the worst — he told gays to treat Homophobes with dignity, because they didn’t know they were wrong. He also gave us the finger twice, when we told him to get rid of McClurkin.

Stop trying to make this guy into something he is not. He has real issues with the gay community, and no amount of manipulation is going to change that.

This article comes after a long line of others stating exactly the same thing. Obama’s “gay problem”, has played out over a year now.

Fat chance!

I understand what you mean about the paranoia of the times. However, as I mentioned, it really seriously is nearly impossible to amend the US constitution without some insane public consensus behind it. I am a lawyer and lived through the 90s. I can tell you that there was nothing even approaching this level of consensus – especially considering that a large chunk of conservatives opposed a constitutional amendment on grounds of federalism.

In order to amend the constitution, 2/3 of both chambers of Congress must approve. THEN, The approved amendment then must be ratified by majority votes in the legislatures or conventions of three-fourths of the states before it can become part of the Constitution.

I know people were scared about all the sabre-ratting but the only reason it was an issue is because Republicans used the threat of it as a political tool to get elected. Hardly any of them actually thought it was a political reality.

I hope the Philly Gay News readers show their disappointment in your headline.

DB

Philadelphia

You wrote:

“FACT: Sen. Clinton supports the repeal of DOMA that prevents federal benefits to gays.

CLAIM: Obama “supports a federal civil union recognition law”?????”

I don’t get what your point is exactly.

Obama supports full repeal of DOMA and Clinton supports only the repeal of Section 3, which bars federal recognition of gay marriage/etc.

Hillary Clinton does NOT support repealing the parts of DOMA that prohibit interstate recognition of gay marriages.

I don’t know if you understand the law or not but if Section 3 of DOMA were repealed (which prohibits federal recognition), you will still need to pass a LAW to require the federal government to recognize state gay marriages/civil unions/etc. in order to grant federal benefits!

Please be informed befroe you post, especially when you refer to things being stuck up someone’s ass.

FACT: Sen. Clinton supports the repeal of DOMA that prevents federal benefits to gays.

CLAIM: Obama “supports a federal civil union recognition law”?????

See an emergency proctologist IMMEDIATELY! There must be other HUGE FAKE THINGS stuck up your ass!

PLEASE don’t buy this COMPLETELY debunked line of crap spin from Bill and Hillary Clinton. This is the completely mendacious claim that Bill made when he justified to us why he signed DOMA and its the same medacious load of crap coming from Hillary.

Yes, there was a proposal to amend the Constitution to prevent gay marriage, but it HAD NO CHANCE OF SUCCESS. ZERO. Amending the US constitution is an obscenely difficult process, which has only happened a handful of times during the life of our country. There is not an iota of a chance that the requisite number of states would have ratified such discriminatory crap, much less gotten out of Congress.

Bill Clinton sold us down the river on DOMA and ran ads in the South touting the fact that he was a conservative good ol’ boy on gay marriage because he signed DOMA.

It was PURE political calculation (i.e. throw gays under the bus, win centrist votes, have arguably plausible explanation for why I threw them under the bus).

FACT: Obama went missing in action when the Illinois LGBT rights bill [NOT US Senate for anyone unclear] that actually passed was introduced. He COsponsored a similar one introduced at about the same time that died in committee. He had nine months before being elected to the US Senate to join as a cosponsor of the bill that clearly had a chance. WHY didn’t he? His replacement in the ILL sennate did.

FACT: Even WORSE he directly lied to “The Advocate” in his McClurkingate Damage Control interview claiming he had been a “chief cosponsor” of and was even responsible for it “passing.” As noted he wasn’t even IN the ILL senate anymore when it was voted on. Equality Illinois and the “Windy City Times” never even mentioned his name in their post victory accounts.

SEE: http://www.ilga.gov/legislatio.....#038;GA=93

FACT: After some 30 years of trying, such a bill passed by only ONE vote. Obama’s OTHER combo close friend and spiritual advisor the Rev. James Meeks is also State Sen. James Meeks. He is a rabid homophobe who ran for governor on an antigay platform. Despite intense lobbying from gay groups he refused to vote for the bill. If Obama can’t convince those close to him to support gay equality how is he going to be the imagined great change agent with a Congress filled with homo/transphobic members?

FACT: Obama’s support for “full repeal of DOMA” is a political hat trick in terms of its Section 2 regarding the responsibilities of states as he is on record as having the same unfortunate position that Sen. Clinton does that the states should be able to do anything they want. His Constitutional law advisor told ABC News last fall that

“Obama believes states should be under no obligation to recognize same-sex marriages from other states. Obama believes a long-recognized public policy exception to the Constitution’s Full Faith and Credit Clause exempts a state from having to recognize a same-sex marriage from another state which runs counter to its own public policies. “Same-sex couples …are neither better nor worse off with DOMA repealed….”

http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=3468949

FACT: While true that Obama frequently drops the G-word in speeches, the claim that he frequently talks about “gay RIGHTS” in his speeches is a willful delusion—no less so because it is claimed by him and believed and repeated by so many gay supporters. It’s a MYTH. Document THREE examples where he has actually used the word “rights” when it has NOT been in response to a question in an interview or debate just as Sen. Clinton has.

He talks about people in Red States having gay friends and not blaming gays and embracing gays but homohaters of the “hate the sin love the sinner” ilk can walk away thinking they aren’t bigots and that neither they nor LAWS needed changed.

FACT: Another myth is that Sen. Clinton tries to hide her support for gay rights from the nongay public. Tell that to the millions of residents of New York state who have either personally seen her marching in the bright sunshine in at least three NYC gay pride parades or seen it on TV or read about it. She proudly and repeatedly did this knowing that such images as her marching AS FIRST LADY “behind a group called the Radical Faeries, which featured a man on skates who wore nothing but a silver cape, a tiara and a jockstrap [NY Times]” could be used against her by the religious right in future campaigns.

SEE: http://visiblevote08.logoonlin.....parade.jpg

OR VIDEO: http://www.cbsnews.com/section.....d=1749986n

Compare that to Obama refusing in 2004 to be photographed privately with STRAIGHT SF Mayor Gavin Newsom because Newsom was then Mr. Gay Marriage—even at fundraisers for Obama’s US Senate campaign that Newsom had hosted.

FACT: However much one attempts to dismiss the Philadelphia Gay News or its publisher, the fact remains that it is not the only gay media that Obama has refused to talk with for the last three + years. Unlike Sen. Clinton, he has also refused a one-on-one interview with LOGO News, an internationally available TV network. WHY?

And the recent gay fundraiser for Obama in NYC mentioned above was closed to the press. WHY?

I hardly think PGN and Mark Segal are hypocrites for not blasting McCain – he isn’t pretending to care about Gays! So why bother commenting?

And I hardly think Hillary was “bought off” or only gave an interview to PGN because of a lousy thousand dollars!

And for “Sweet Johnny” – maybe Hillary could come out swinging more for our community, but I read your quote of her interview and I understand what she was saying. If the Federal Constitution WAS amended, it would be a lot harder than overturning STATE Constitutions. ETC. ETC. A pure, 100% true to their ideas politician CANNOT exist because they would never appeal to enough people to get elected.

Either Obama or Clinton would be far preferable than McCain but my gut tells me Obama is promising everything to everybody and CANNOT deliver.

“Barack Obama supports full civil unions that give same-sex couples equal legal rights and privileges as married couples, including the right to assist their loved ones in times of emergency as well as equal health insurance, employment benefits, and property and adoption rights. Obama also believes we need to fully repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and enact legislation that would ensure that the 1,100+ federal legal rights and benefits currently provided on the basis of marital status are extended to same-sex couples in civil unions and other legally-recognized unions.”

As I mentioned above, if you want gay “marriage” in your state, call and write your local state governors and representatives. The Federal government doesn’t marry people.

If your state, like Massachusetts, creates gay “marriage”, or, like Vermont, creates “civil unions”, then Obama’s proposals would recognize both and grant the Federal rights appurtenant thereto to couples in each type of civil partnership.

Once DOMA is repealed, gay marriage/civil unions/domestic partnership is a STATE ISSUE. The Federal government doesn’t marry anyone. Obama supports Federal recognition of a state-granted gay marriage/etc. and supports reciprocity between states recognizing gay marries/etc. granted in other states.

What more do you want?

Hillary Clinton does NOT support repealing DOMA. Period.

Then he feels perfectly justified in disallowing gay couples the same opportunity. No, separate but equal is fine for us he says, yet he has no timeline of actually even getting that done during his term.

When I posed this question to his camp, I got a canned answer that didn’t answer my question, got signed up for his newsletter, and they asked me for a donation.

“Not a typical politician”, my ass.

Segal should apologize to PGN’s readers and to his staff.

LGBT rights are integrated into Obama’s stump speech – NOT Clintons.

Obama would eradicate ALL of DOMA – NOT Clinton.

Obama co-sponsored a bill to protect the trans community/and lgbt community based on gender identity and expression – NOT Clinton.

It is very unfair to portray Obama as less “pro-gay”.

On a different topic, an earlier commenter pointed out that the paper (supposedly) asked all three major presidential candidates – Obama, Clinton, and McCain – to sit down for an interview. Ask yourself this very obvious question: if only Clinton accepted, why isn’t McCain being lambasted on the front page just like Obama? That tells you pretty much all you need to know about Mark Segal’s politics.

Finally, read the interview with Clinton. It ain’t exactly a hard-hitting piece of journalism. She’s allowed to get away with some rather blatant non-answers to important questions:

PGN: How would you respond to those friends if they asked you why they can’t get married?
HC: What I say is that marriage is in the province of the state, which has actually turned out to be lucky for us, because we didn’t have to get beaten on the Federal Marriage Amendment because we could make, among other arguments, that it was such a stretch for the federal government and it was wrong to enshrine discrimination in the Constitution. And that states are really beginning seriously to deal with the whole range of options, including marriage, both under their own state constitutions and under the legislative approach. I anticipate that there will be a very concerted amount of effort in the next couple of years that will move this important issue forward and different states will take different approaches as they did with marriage over many years and you will see an evolution over time.

…and the interview continues from there as if Clinton didn’t just totally evade the question. Oy. I do wish my fellow queers could actually bring a critical eye to this kind of stuff – too many of us get swept up in the manipulations of people like Mark Segal, to our detriment.