Barack Obama‘s tapped Tim Kaine to run the Democratic National Committee, which is sorta good and sorta bad for the gay community as Kaine was the only candidate who responded to the Washington Blade‘s 2005 request for Virginia Governor’s candidates to answer questions about gay issues (and said all sorts of nice things),but then once Governor, he signed the Marshall-Newman Amendment, which defines marriage in Virginia as being between a man and a woman, even though he had previously opposed it.
So, Tim Kaine is polite and nice to gays, but lacks the political fortitude to stand-up to anti-gay measures; he really is the perfect person to run the DNC.
Barack Obama runs the DNC. Tim Kaine will simply be an extension of Obama’s positions. He’s basically like another cabinet selection.
I guess the Democrats are truly KAINE enABLErs!
@ Michael W
And what is exactly Obama’s position? Against gay marriage. Has said nice words. Invited virulent homophobes McClurkin and Warren to speak to gain political points. Is pushing the repeal of DADT back. Basically it is all words. Kaine evidently also opposes civil unions but feels that we should not be discriminated against in housing. So nice of him..
So the extension of Obama’s policies is not necessarily a good thing, everything Obama has done so far for the GLBT community is bad or just talk.
@GJR: I didn’t say whether it was a good thing or not. Just wanted to make it clear that the DNC will be an arm of Barack Obama.
For Warren, Kaine, and Josh DuBois
I could not agree more. Kaine is just another mealy mouth homophobe. He says nice things to our faces, then stabs us in the back with discriminatory legislation.
Pr. Elect Obama is a politician. Unfortunately he doesn’t have eg a solid 3/4 majority of both houses of congress who will do what he wants. He does support civil unions, and what this country needs to do is totally split the idea of religious marriage from the legal part of marriage, which is the area where so many traditionalists have a problem re gay marriage.
It should be civil unions only for the legal benefits and rights currently given to married people. Retroactively, as well as going forward, in laws that overide state definitions of marriage. Leave the word “marriage” to only have a religious definition, with no rights granted.
Then we would split the homophobic haters apart from so many good people who are relgious, I’ve met lots of them, who want gay people to have equal legal rights, but can’t break apart in their own minds, the idea that marriage means two different things, and they see “gay marriage” as imposing requirements on their religion, and rebel.
Of course, that isn’t going to happen soon, so civil unions are really a step on the way towards it for gay folks. Along with state laws that say that any legal benefit granted under “marriage” must also be granted to people with “civil unions”. This would, in some gay peoples minds, be “second class”, which I understand how they feel. But the real thing is that it would all be part of breaking down the closet of homophobia. Good religious and non-religious people would begin to ask why do we have two separate names for what is really the same thing – rights to legal and contractual benefits. And then, the walls of ignorance, fear, and yes hatred in the name of God would come tumbling down.
And yes, some churches of the right wing, who have so brainwashed themselves that they don’t even realize it would never be happy. But they would be in a minority, and ultimately end up either changing or preaching to the dust in the pews and the dust of their departed.
Another step of progress for mankind.
Will Leah Daughtry remain as Karl Rove (er, DNC COO?)
Comments are closed.