Because otherwise, they’ll fall behind Republicans’ fundraising. [Red State]
Why the DNC Is Desperate to Have Its Gay Fundraiser
Help make sure LGBTQ+ stories are being told...
We can't rely on mainstream media to tell our stories. That's why we don't lock Queerty articles behind a paywall. Will you support our mission with a contribution today?
Cancel anytime · Proudly LGBTQ+ owned and operated
jake
Obviously we have the wrong coin when attempting to Shop Washington–like going to Walmart and trying to pay in euros.
dontblamemeivotedforhillary
Where would the Democrats be without Gays and Hollywood? The Poorhouse!
Allen
Gays should be giving their money to the Libertarian Party. The Republicans and Democrats have turned their backs on us.
Yet another John
The DNC doesn’t deserve one gay dollar. Not one! If they come through for us on DADT, VISA’s for HIV positive visitors, and repeal DOMA (or at least try one of these–which they haven’t)–I’ll open my wallet and sing their praises. Until that time, no $$$ for the Democrats, they are simply using us. We must stand united and DEMAND our rights from the party that is in power and that we help put in power. No more bull shit excuses, no more waiting until next year. The end of gay dollars for the DNC has come.
queerunity
no money for no work, get your act together dems!
http://queersunited.blogspot.com
Cam
Trust me, I dispised Bush, however recently a DNC phone caller was trying to argue with me about how the Dems have always done much better for the gays than the GOP. So when I pointed out that the two major pieces of legislation…Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell and DOMA were signed by President Clinton (DOMA was signed while he was 16 points ahead in the polls) she got very quiet.
I’m not saying I want the GOP in control. But my issue is that it hurts much worse when a supposed friend stabs you in the back, than a stranger or somebody you already don’t trust.
The DNC will not get one more dime of my money until they do ANYTHING related to gay rights.
SM
The Matthew Shepard Act passed the House BEFORE Health Care legislation in this country did it not? Obama has a statement on the White House webiste flat out saying DOMA is DISCRIMINATORY does he not? Sayiny the Democrats do nothing for you is a LIE.
Are you all ever happy with anything. You have been kicking and screaming since November.
Learn how to communicate…..
Fucking Peter and the Wolf crowd
Steve
@SM:
The Democrats haven’t done accomplished anything yet. The Senate version of Matthew Sheppard Act is stuck in committee. Just because it passed the House, doesn’t mean it’s a slam dunk. I mean a Democratically controlled Congress gave us DADT. Hate crimes legislation is a lot easier than fixing healthcare, something the current plan in Congress will not do. Mandatory insurance with subsidies to the poor and taxes on benefits is not an actual healthcare solution.
And words on a website are nice but they aren’t action. Action is a DOJ brief that goes above and beyond defending DOMA. Action is stopping the enforcement of an unconstitutional law. Action is leading the repeal of DADT from day 1 as was promised (“all it takes is leadership” sayeth Obama). Leadership by who? Obama? Pelosi? Reid? These people are passing bucks so fast I can’t tell which cup has the ball under it.
You have a strange idea of what Congress and President do all day…like they can’t handle more than one thing at a time.
Obama had time to send me a very nice email about volunteering today. I already do…it’s part of the Green Party platform, thank you very much. But while we’re all out volunteering for the summer, I’m sure he’ll some time to think about gay rights…after all, he doesn’t have a ranch to hide on.
@Cam:
DOMA passed a Republican controlled congress with a veto proof majority thanks to Democrats.
I really wish that Bill could take credit for it but I largely agree with the analysis that DOMA kept a constitutional amendment from being introduced and passing. Every time one has started, people say “we don’t need it, we have DOMA.” Of course, DOMA is unconstitutional on at least 3 grounds. Full Faith and Credit, Equal Protection and Freedom of Religion….something a 3rd grader could figure that out. Nevertheless, DOMA will die easily some day, if not today. A constitutional amendment would have been harder to repeal.
Frankly, I want all states and the federal government to declare civil unions for everyone and let the various religions marry whom they may.
SM
@Steve:
The Democrats haven’t passed health care legislation or energy legislation either. What’s your point?
Sometimes positive reinforcement WORKS much better in life than negative. The LGBT has been nothing by negative towards Obama since he won the election.
galefan2004
@Yet another John: I don’t agree that HIV+ people should get visas to come to this country and move around freely. I also fail to see how it is a gay issue. I do agree about DADT and DOMA though. Honestly, I don’t even base my politics completely off of gay issues (like some of you make it sound like you do), and I’m more likely to support the candidate that I like overall (with all issues considered) than to give money directly to the DNC. Also, money does matter, but a good campaign matters more and unless you are talking about the presidential campaign, the DNC doesn’t need more money than the RNC if they run a better campaign. I have been behind a congressman that spent $100,000 as compared to $3 million and he still won the election because his campaign was simply ran better.
galefan2004
@Cam: DADT (ON PAPER) was a much better policy than what the military previously had. DOMA was a much better solution than an anti-gay marriage constitutional amendment which was pretty much the other option (and also removed Clinton completely from the equation and only needed 3/4 of the congress to pass and 3/4 of the states to ratify and it would have happened easily at the time). I think that Clinton also believed that DOMA would eventually be easily repealed in the USSC. However, if it never makes it there (because of Obama), it can never be repealed there.
Nathan
What’s it mean when the headline is longer than the article? DO COME RESEARCH OR ANALYSIS!!!
AnoniaCit
Why http://google.com better http://yahoo.com?