Time’s running out for the presidential candidates.
The Iowa Caucuses are a mere 52-days away and trust the the hopefuls have been doing double time trying to persuade voters that they’re the real deal. Take, for example, Barack Obama…
The Senator from Illinois spent some of his precious time readdressing the Donnie McClurkin anti-gay gospel gaffe. Obama writes for The Bilerico Project:
The events of the last several weeks are not the occasion that I would have chosen to discuss America’s divisions on gay rights and my own deep commitment to GLBT equality. Now that the issue is before us, however, I do not intend to run away from it. These events have provided an important opportunity for us to confront a difficult fact: There are good, decent, moral people in this country who do not yet embrace their gay brothers and sisters as full members of our shared community.
We will not secure full equality for all GLBT Americans until we learn how to address that deep disagreement and move beyond it.
Yeah, that’s totally true, but wouldn’t it just be easier to shame them into social submission? It is, after all, only fair. As for them being “moral” – sorry, babe, but we disagree. They can be good and decent, but saying gays burn in hell doesn’t qualify as “moral”. Misguided, yes, but not moral.
Obama goes on to highlight his homo-friendly political record, as well as vow to pass civil unions, the same lame legislative mechanism the New York Times calls “flawed”. Obama writes:
How about we take this to the next level?
Our newsletter is like a refreshing cocktail (or mocktail) of LGBTQ+ entertainment and pop culture, served up with a side of eye-candy.
…I also believe that the federal government should not stand in the way of states that want to decide on their own how best to pursue equality for gay and lesbian couples – whether that means a domestic partnership, a civil union, or a civil marriage.
We won’t hold such political optimism – or willful thinking – against Obama, or any other candidate, but we have to point out that relying on federalism does not guarantee equal right for all, the main tenet of our constitution. But who wants to get into a legal debate? There’s an election to win!
Matt
Yeah, I think I could live with him saying that those opposed to equality for gay and lesbian Americans are good and decent, just uninformed — I’m sure I know some here in the Midwest — but “moral”? Not by any reasonable measure I can think of. And it’s lovely to say that the federal government shouldn’t “stand in the way” of progressive states’ right to pursue equality for all their citizens; but the States’ Rights song was sung for a lot of years by those opposed to equality for all citizens (as Sen Obama is no doubt well aware, but jaw-droppingly dismisses gay/lesbian equality as “not at all the same thing” as the civil rights struggle). As history has demonstrated, sometimes it’s good and right for the federal government to compel (or at the very least nudge) the states to adhere to the letter and spirit of the Constitution.
None of the likely Dems are singing from our songbook, though. It just seems to me that Obama is flailing around on this issue more than most.
Dawster
i wouldn’t really say “time is running out”… we have another year… really….
Dan Kelly
Maybe, you could help me out with a little history. The info I have received so far indicates that there has been no nation exist(long-term) that has embraced homosexual lifestyle. Also, please help me with what would happen to our family structure as we move seriously into this agenda. Use facts of true history please. Who was that guy that said “THEY THAT STUDY NOT HISTORY ARE DESTINED TO REPEAT IT”?
Bitch Republic
Donnie McClurkin is clearly not good or decent. And neither is Obama for associating with him.
Dawster, we only have 2-3 months ’til the primaries, not a whole year. Time is running out for Obama who will lost the nomination to Clinton.
http://www.BitchRepublic.net
equalityforall
Dan Kelly-what is your definition of “embracing homosexual lifestyle”? If it’s nationwide legalization of same-sex marriage, then the Netherlands is your example, having legalized it in 2001. Their country hasn’t fallen into shambles yet, and neither has Canada, legal for over 2 years. If you’re talking more about tolerance, World War II was the last of the major “search and destroy” missions against homosexuals.
What will happen if we “move seriously into” this? Life would continue as it has since the dawn of humankind. Homosexuals have existed as long as humans have existed and honestly, I don’t see any harm that they have caused anyone else’s family. Last, your quote is incorrect. It is “Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it” from George Santayana, poet and philosopher.