But this time, Obama’s sign holders won’t be protesting him. While his HRC dinner was picketed by angry gays, Obama’s Wednesday ceremonial signing of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 — which you care about because it includes the Matthew Shepard Act — will be met by “parents of gays and lesbians, teachers and activists” organized by the education-focused group Equality Forum. Attendees will hit up 1600 Pennsylvania at noon “carrying photos of hate crime murder victims including Harvey Milk and Matthew Shepard.” You know, to point out the obvious. Maybe Bash Back or Queer LiberAction will show up too, and we can do a group photo?
Yes, There Will Be Demonstrators Outside the White House When Obama Signs the Matthew Shepard Act
More in Politics*
Thirsty for more?
Subscribe to our newsletter to indulge in daily entertainment news, cultural trends, and visual delights.
Orpheus_lost
Passing the Matthew Shepard Act is a good step forward, but only the smallest step of many needed. The next, much more important move must be ENDA, followed by DADT and DOMA. Without (a trans inclusive) ENDA, hate crimes legislation is of little use. GLBTs will still be fired, kicked out of their homes, unable to sue for recourse for discrimination, etc…
I’ve made a mental deal with myself that if Obama signs ENDA and a DADT repeal BEFORE 2012, I will work for his re-election. If he can’t manage to muster up successful votes for those two initiatives in congress when the vast majority of Americans favor them, then I won’t be able to muster up the energy to bother to vote for him.
naprem
I find it amusing and oddly appropos that because of the size of the window I was reading this article in, the headline was edited down to “Yes, there will be demons.”
Brian
Orpheus-Lost:
Does Obama have a magic-wand? 68 Senators are anti-LGBT and oppose repealing DADT and DOMA. They oppose based on their religious convictions or those of their constituents.
Hate Crimes is a small gesture to punish people. ENDA was first proposed in 1967 – 42 years ago, by Rep. Bella Abzug.
DOMA has NO chance of repeal on a direct vote. If they can craft a “send it back to the States” cover-story, maybe it will be repealed. But, with 68 Senators against you – it won’t be some magical moment for LGBT persons – or Obama.
Orpheus_lost
@Brian
You’ve pushed that bullshit number before, yet every time I challenge you to show your proof that there are “68 Senators” against ENDA and DOMA you just slither back into the cracks. Either put up or shut up! List out these senators and show where they’ve stated or proven their opposition within the last 10 years (going back to 1993/1996 doesn’t cut it since many, many have stated their changed minds since that time) or admit to being a liar.
Also, you’re “magic wand” comment shows that you’re part of the Talking Points Brigade that runs around the internet spewing bullshit and trying to create antipathy in GLBT activism. I find the same wording at TPM, DemocraticUnderground, Crooks and Liars, etc… all with the same buzz words and talking points.
So why is it so important for you to make us all believe that there’s no way we can achieve equal rights?
Brian
Orpheus_Lost: Make your own list.
You asked: So why is it so important for you to make us all believe that there’s no way we can achieve equal rights?
Have you heard of false hope? You need to understand that “equality” and “equal rights” are two very different things. Equal Rights means passing laws to “tolerate and/or protect” us – if we had equality (were equal) we wouldn’t need to be tolerated or protected.
The LGBT Community should focus on creating equality – not demanding equal rights which would confirm that we need “minority” status or need to be “protected.” I’m a gay man and I don’t need or want either distinction. I just want equality.
Perhaps you’d like to tell us how the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ended racism? The truth is you cannot make laws to create equality. You can only punish bad behavior with laws. That’s just a small accomplishment.
If you really want to be equal – you must change minds. That’s the real work that needs to be done. Every other person in America believes we are “morally wrong.” THAT is the problem. Waste all the time and money you want on “civil rights,” but it won’t change what people believe.
Here’s the religious reality of the 111th Congress:
Members of the 111th US Congress:
Mormon (13) 100% Anti-LGBT
Seventh Day Adventist (2) 100% Anti-LGBT
Presbyterian (48) 75% Anti-LGBT
Protestant (45) 75% Anti-LGBT
Baptists(73) 74% Anti-LGBT
Methodist (53) 74% Anti-LGBT
Christian Scientist (3) 67% Anti-LGBT
Lutheran (23) 61% Anti-LGBT
United Church of Christ (5) 60% Anti-LGBT
Episcopalian (40) 56% Anti-LGBT
– – – – – – – –
Eastern Orthodox (8) 50% Anti-LGBT
Catholics (161) 43% Anti-LGBT
Unitarian Universalist (3) 33% Anti-LGBT
Jewish (44) 14% Anti-LGBT
Unaffiliated (9) 0% Anti-LGBT
Buddhist (2) 0% Anti-LGBT
Quaker (1) 0% Anti-LGBT
And if you actually believe that the Democrats are supposed to “do as they are told,” ….
For those of you that believe Democrats are ALL on our side, the truth is 28% of Democrats are Anti-LGBT. 88 of the 317 Democrats in the 111th Congress.
Most of the Democrats that are Anti-LGBT are from States where at least 60% of their constituencies make religion “important.”
Most of the Democrats that are Pro-LGBT are from States where less than 60% of their constituencies make religion “important.”
If either the politician makes religion important, or his/her constituents (+60%) make religion important, they will be Anti-LGBT.
Sen. Kennedy was very Pro-LGBT. In the State of Massachusetts only 48% make religion important. He was one of many Catholic Pro-LGBT politicians from States in the New England and the Northeast that DO NOT make religion important.
Orpheus_lost
@Brian
You came up with that magic number, either support it or expect it to be called out for the bullshit number it is.
As for the religious make-up of the congress, Harry Reid is a Mormon but is on the record as opposing DADT. John Kerry is Catholic but has also come out against it. This means your little religion spreadsheet is worse than useless, its bigoted.
All this makes you a complete, bigoted, liar.
Brian
The issue for being Anti-LGBT is DOMA, not DADT or hate crimes and ENDA. Harry Reid is not in favor of the repeal of DOMA.
The above list has the stated position of all Members of Congress or the record of their positions/votes.
HRC has a useless rating system of whether or not an elected official is “gay-friendly,” but they have never asked the important question: Do you believe “homosexuality is wrong.”
The 68 Senators I referenced as being Anti-LGBT believe homosexuality is “morally wrong” and they have all taken that position. Sure, you have a few Democrats that are Christian and are Pro-LGBT, like Senator Kerry, but as my list demonstrates – Catholics are split 50/50.
Another Democratic Senator – Robert Byrd from West Virginia is Anti-LGBT and he is a Baptist.
Soon, these numbers will be published because, as is the case with your understanding, we are missing the target here. It’s not enough to be hopeful about Democrats and Obama – the beliefs of the elected official and/or the majority of the beliefs of their constituency are what matter most. As long as the majority make us “wrong” we will never be equal – no matter what laws you pass. Changing beliefs is the only way to create equality.
The LGBT battle for “civil rights” does not lead to equality. Stop pretending it does. Enlightenment leads to equality.
Brian
Harry Reid on DADT Repeal:
Sen. Reid: No Sponsors for DADT
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid speaking at a press conference Monday said he has no plans to introduce a bill to repeal “don’t ask, don’t tell” in the Senate. “I haven’t identified any sponsors,” he said. “My hope is that it can be done administratively.”
By Kerry Eleveld
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid speaking at a press conference Monday said he has no plans to introduce a bill to repeal “don’t ask, don’t tell” in the Senate.
“I haven’t identified any sponsors,” he said. “My hope is that it can be done administratively.”
A Democratic aide later clarified that Reid was speaking about the possibility of using an executive order to suspend discharges or perhaps halting enforcement of the policy by changing departmental regulations within the Department of Defense.
White House press secretary Robert Gibbs has continually said in recent months that President Barack Obama believes the only “durable solution” to repealing the military’s gay ban would be to do so through legislative action.
Senator Reid also indicated that he is waiting on the House of Representatives to take action on the bill that was introduced there in March.
“If the House moves on this,” he said, “I would be happy to take it up.”
-The Advocate, June, 2009
President says: Congress should do it.
Congress says: President should do it.
Alex
Queerty asks: “Maybe Bash Back or Queer LiberAction will show up too, and we can do a group photo?”
We think Queer Liberaction in Dallas has finally folded. Thankfully we will no longer have to suffer the embarrassment of their publicity stunts.
Brian
Daily Kos suggests 56 Senators supporting ENDA:
Fri Oct 23, 2009 at 08:49:42 AM PDT
Senator Mark Pryor of Arkansas is a key vote on the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. Meanwhile, Senator Pryor’s cohort, Senator Blanche Lincoln, has come out against ENDA.
We’re at 56 likely yes votes in the Senate. Those last four are getting increasingly hard to find. Senator Pryor is not one of them, though he could be.
They say “likely yes,” not YES, on ENDA. DOMA is much worse – there are only 32 YES votes.
DOMA is the real test regarding LGBT Equality. We do NOT have the votes. Suggestions to the contrary are just intentionally misleading – enough to generate donations to “lobby” politicians. You can’t lobby away a religious conviction. God doesn’t allow that.
PopSnap
@Brian
People very rarely if ever stay true to their religious beliefs. The only ones who are able to, usually live in rural areas hence the country bumpkin stereotype of a religious person.
Which is why by suggesting that just because one belongs to a religious denomination which says homosexuality is wrong, doesn’t mean they vote against it. My own family is Catholic and support me, my right to be married, my right to live free from harm and prejudice. In violation of Catholic teachings. I’ve had evangelical friends stand by me and stick up for my right to be who i am… in violation of their religious teachings.
90% of Americans under the age of 30 have had sex before marriage. In direct violation of Christianity.
What you’re supporting is a brand of populism: you’re grouping people together and saying THIS IS WHAT THEY BELIEVE, THEY ALL THINK THIS WAY!!
You’ve been told numerous times to stop posting nonsense like that, but you never stop, despite how incorrect it is. Senators are people too and EVERYONE, yes even the right-wing nutjobs, is an INDEPENDENT THINKER.
Brian
@ PopSnap:
I didn’t say all Christians and I actually gave you a breakdown of the 111th Congress and their position on LGBT as well as their religion:
Here’s the religious reality of the 111th Congress:
Members of the 111th US Congress:
Mormon (13) 100% Anti-LGBT
Seventh Day Adventist (2) 100% Anti-LGBT
Presbyterian (48) 75% Anti-LGBT
Protestant (45) 75% Anti-LGBT
Baptists(73) 74% Anti-LGBT
Methodist (53) 74% Anti-LGBT
Christian Scientist (3) 67% Anti-LGBT
Lutheran (23) 61% Anti-LGBT
United Church of Christ (5) 60% Anti-LGBT
Episcopalian (40) 56% Anti-LGBT
– – – – – – – –
Eastern Orthodox (8) 50% Anti-LGBT
Catholics (161) 43% Anti-LGBT
Unitarian Universalist (3) 33% Anti-LGBT
Jewish (44) 14% Anti-LGBT
Unaffiliated (9) 0% Anti-LGBT
Buddhist (2) 0% Anti-LGBT
Quaker (1) 0% Anti-LGBT
Only 43% of our elected Catholics are Anti-LGBT. But, check the others – then you’ll understand the problem. DOMA is DOA because of “religious beliefs.”
Brian
PopSnap: “Senators are people too and EVERYONE, yes even the right-wing nutjobs, is an INDEPENDENT THINKER.”
The politicians that do not support LGBT issues are from States where 60% or more of the voters “make religion important.” They vote what their constituents want – which is how it is supposed to be. It is very rare to have a politician, on any issue, vote against their voters – you know … the people that elect them.
Suggesting that they are all “independent thinkers” is way beyond naive – it’s stupid.
Andrew
@PopSnap
Actually what Brian has been saying is that the origin of the “belief” that we are “wrong” is religion – including Christianity. It is the only institution or group that has for centuries taught that homosexuals are wrong. It has branded us as wrong, sinful and deviant.
He’s never said “all Christians.” He just confirms that religion is the source. Yes, many Christians do not follow their faith “religiously,” but how can we tell? Catholics are split evenly.
I think the list above is very telling. Mormons are 100% AGAINST LGBT, and Unaffiliated are 100% FOR LGBT. Most of the Denominations are (majority) against us. In the States with less “religion” we have done much better – Maine, NH, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut and New York.
So, Brian’s point is very helpful. A Senator will not vote against his/her constituents. Or, they themselves are very religious. The “beliefs” these politicians have, or those of their constituencies determine the political outcome.
If we want equality, we must figure out how to change beliefs, not votes. Passing laws that make us a protected class does not make us equal. We will not be equal until people believe we are. You can’t ignore religion if equality is your goal.
PopSnap
Or, we could take a more likely route and go to the Supreme Court, because unless we wait until 2020 where estimated 25% of the US population will be nonreligious, athiest, or agnostic (an enourmous number), we’ll never have equality, then. But people critize the Boies lawsuit too; although the Supreme Court is ultimately the only way we will get equality in the end.
Orpheus_lost
@Brian
You don’t get to choose what is anti-GLBT and what is not. I said that I would not vote for Obama unless both ENDA and DADT were overturned in his first term. I said nothing of DOMA in this context. As your own post proved, a majority – including Reid – supports overturning ENDA and Reid also supports ending DADT. Both things back up my original statements.
Now, if Reid and Obama can’t convince our super-majority of Democrats to vote for equal rights then there’s really no purpose to them being there in the first place.
reason
@Brian
I agree with you to an extent. No law is going to change a person’s social belief, but it can provide conditions or an environment where the social beliefs will begin to erode. For example when the Supreme Court ruled on Brown vs. Board of Education that ruling didn’t strike the beliefs that individuals had in their mind, but it provide a scenario where there was a mixing of people with different complexions. As time passed people realized that the evidence that their beliefs were predicated on was incorrect, thus leading to a social change in many individuals. The path was paved for legislation, which is more representative of the people, of the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act, which still didn’t directly change social beliefs. It’s important to note that why the judiciary and legislative branch’s impacted the process the change did not come easy or expediently, it began to come with societal upheaval lead by but not limited to deaths, violence, and emotional abuse: with all of the unsavory events and struggles, decades later we are still not there yet.
In are personal lives we have to be what we want to see in the world, meaning treating everyone fairly, decently, and with respect (even those that don’t afford the same); it is difficult but only then can one be optimistic that someday they will be universally treated in the same way.
As far as congress goes, they are generally beholden to their constituents, but sometimes you will be surprised as in George H.W. Bush going against the Texas grain in voting for the Fair Housing Act of 1968. I would take pause in putting to much weight on religion, but it definitely plays a role. Religion is something that can be used to aid the cause of getting rights and being treated well, but if they would ever feel that homosexuality is not wrong I can’t at this time provide an educated opinion.
As far as whip counts go on senators I have yet to see one on DOMA or DADT, but I have seen one for the House http://www.actonprinciples.org/ on the left side of the page.
Brian
@ Reason:
1. The Whip Count on DOMA is 68 Senators against. ActOnPrinciples.com will catch up soon.
2. Religion is very important because of the belief it has created: “homosexuals are wrong.” It is the primary reason politicians vote against us. It is either a strong personal belief such as Senator Robert Byrd or the politician is in a State where “religious importance” in more than 60% of the constituency. For instance, look at these States:
Alabama 82% say “religion is important.” ALL 9 (100%) Members of Congress are ANTI-LGBT (3 Democrats, 6 Republicans)
Virginia 68% say “religion is important.” 10 of 13 (77%) Members of Congress are ANTI-LGBT (8 Democrats, 5 Republicans)
Georgia 76% say “religion is important.” 12 of 15 (80%) Members of Congress are ANTI-LGBT (6 Democrats, 9 Republicans)
Massachusetts 48% say “religion is important.” ALL 12 (100%) Members of Congress are ANTI-LGBT (12 Democrats, 0 Republicans)
Religion does matter. Religion is also changing. We have the opportunity to marginalize the “literal” Christians by embracing the “progressive” Christians that will put equality before religion. That would change the “importance of religion” in many States, providing cover for politicians.
3. As for “laws changing personal beliefs,” ask Blacks how that’s working out. I do not believe it is the LGBT Community’s best interest to continued to be defined as a “protected class” or “minority.” Our entire effort is directed at laws to protect us and none is directed at changing beliefs. Laws cannot “order” a change in beliefs – maybe enlightenment and persuasion can. We don’t know – because we’ve never tried that.
I am an advocate for LGBT Equality. We will be equal when people believe we are.
Brian
@ PopSnap:
The Supreme Court cannot give you equality. Only your fellow citizens can. Laws can only punish bad behavior, they don’t change beliefs.
We don’t need to wait until 2020 for your 25% non-religious estimate. The deal is whether people think religion is “important.” In the US about 60% think religion is important – until you ask about equality, then it goes down to 40%. Less important than full equality – including ours.
That’s the work that needs to get done – not passing laws or looking for a solution in the Supreme Court.
Brian
@ Orpheus_Lost:
What makes you believe Harry Reid supports the repeal of DADT? I don’t believe he’s ever said that. He asked that Obama do it – administratively.
reason
@Brian No. 18
1. Do you happen to have any names and positions that would be useful.
2. Religion maybe changing but the bible, the word of the Lord, is not. The bible never said that you should treat someone else unjustly or like second class citizens because they are sinners (I’m not saying gays are). Jesus treated all those among him with respect and dignity including the prostitutes, so those among the religious communities that are prosecuting gays because they believe we are sinners are doing so against the scriptures teachings. By educating the religious about the teachings in the bible one can sway the true believers into doing what is right, after all no person is with out sin and will only inherit the Lords kingdom through his mercy. The strange thing about Christianity is a lot of “Christians” have never read the bible, or understand the teachings of Jesus. Even nonreligious gays should read the book in-order to call people out on there B.S.
3. You should reread and think about my post No.17, I am agreeing with you, I am just adding how laws can have an indirect benefit in heading toward equality. Yes African Americans will tell you equality has not been accomplished, but there has been significant progress. Although Brown vs. Board, The Civil Rights Act, and The Voting Rights Act did not create equality it is undeniable that it played a role in where we are as a nation including but not limmited to electing an African American president.
Orpheus_lost
@Brian
Unlike yourself, when asked to back up my claims I do it.
“We’re having trouble getting people into the military,” Mr. Reid told reporters when questioned about whether he could support an 18-month moratorium on enforcing a prohibition on gays in the armed forces. “And I think that we shouldn’t turn down anybody that’s willing to fight for our country, certainly based on sexual orientation.”
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/141327/harry_reid_says_he_wants_to_repeal_%22don%27t_ask,_don%27t_tell%22/
I can do it because I’m not blowing smoke out my ass like you are with your imaginary whip counts and generalized bigotry against Christians. Notice how I not only provide a quote but link to it so that you can see whether I’m being honest?
Why don’t you try backing up something once in awhile? You might find it refreshing to actually tell the truth.
Brian
@ Orpheus_Lost F a c t C h e c k
Harry Reid did not say he supported a “repeal of DADT.” The Washington Post reported the following back in July:
Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) today threw his support behind an effort to legislatively suspend the controversial “don’t ask, don’t tell” executive policy regarding gays in the military. The move could lead to a vote on the issue as soon as this week.
Reid said he backed an amendment by new Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) that would suspend for 18 months the military’s policy of discharging people who are openly gay. The provision, which would reverse a policy from the Clinton administration, would be added to a defense spending bill now moving through Congress.
Harry Reid supports suspending DADT for 18 months. That is not a repeal and he hasn’t done anything that even resembles his commitment to repeal DADT.
Recently he asked Obama to “suspend” DADT by Executive Order.
reason
@Brian
I would like to get your opinion on my post, including what you think of #2.
Brian
@ Reason:
1. I will make the Senate Whip Count and religion analysis available to ActOnPrinciples soon.
2. As far as religion is concerned the big divide is whether people believe “literally” that the Bible is the Word of God. Only 1/3 of “religious” people do. Others are more moderate or progressive and put equality before religion. As I have pointed out on Queerty, we have little chance of support from Mormons and Baptists. But other faiths are showing great promise – Catholics are 60% in favor of LGBT equality. This may prove that Christianity and LGBT Equality are compatible for the majority of Christians. We don’t know yet. But, that is the source of our equality – not new laws, but rather new beliefs.
3. I would prefer we help our fellow citizens stand up for equality and support us than passing laws that threaten them. We wouldn’t have the “religious” problem that exists today if we separate Christians into two groups: those believing in equality and those that do not believe in equality. The problem is it’s hard to identify them now. That will change soon.
Having an honest conversation about our equality must include the last remaining taboos: Religion, Sex and Racism. We can achieve equality without new laws if we have the courage to have honest conversations… like this one.
Thank-you.
Orpheus_lost
@Brian
I guess you didn’t bother to click the link I provided in order to read the next paragraph where it says:
“Mr. Reid said he would go the proposal, being considered by Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, Democrat of New York, one better and support a permanent repeal of the ban.”
Once again, here’s the link,
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/141327/harry_reid_says_he_wants_to_repeal_%22don%27t_ask,_don%27t_tell%22/
So now I’ve twice provided quotes with verifiable links and you still can’t manage to do the same. Of course you do this in order to twist facts and represent the exact opposite of the truth, making you a liar.
Why do you want, so desperately, to lie to everyone at this site? What’s in it for you?
Brian
@ Reason:
Further RE: #2.
The only way to have a very honest and open conversation about religion is to admit that “we don’t know” for a certainty. Now, some believers have chosen a religion and that works for them – that doesn’t make it the “truth” or certain, it is what they believe. They are able to believe because they use faith. Not everyone does and that doesn’t make them any less of a person. To each his own.
I am not religious, but rather spiritual. I don’t disrespect anyones belief and expect the same in return.
Therefore, I don’t think we need to change the minds of “religious” people because of a different interpretation of the Bible. I think that’s counterproductive. Two-thirds of “religious” people believe in equality. We need to enroll them in our efforts. The ones who believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible (Leviticus, etc.) and conclude that “homosexuals are wrong, sinful and deviant,” actually believe we are not equal. The good news is they are less than one-third of all “religious” people. I say ignore them and focus on the others. We don’t need the denominations that cling to a bigoted belief system.
Our equality is much more important to me than religion. It is the same for many religious people.
reason
@Brian
“I would prefer we help our fellow citizens stand up for equality and support us than passing laws that threaten them”
That statement clarified to me where you are coming from, while I am not sure I fully agree with the approach, I do see the merit in your argument. That would be an interesting social experiment that I am not sure we will get to see. One thing that both approach have in common is that the equality would not come easy or fast. Do you have any references of your perspective in history?
Brian
@ Orpheus_Lost
Again, Senator Reid did not say that, but the Reporter who wrote that article your linked did. Reid supports “suspending DADT,” something the President must do. He also sent a Letter in September asking the President to suspend DADT.
Read the Washington Post’s “Reid Supports Amendment Suspending ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell – from July 14, 2009 (with Reid’s actual quote) here: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/capitol-briefing/2009/07/reid_supports_amendment_suspen.html
If you have a link that quotes Senator Reid saying he wants to repeal DADT, please post it.
B
Brian wrote, “@ PopSnap: I didn’t say all Christians and I actually gave you a breakdown of the 111th Congress and their position on LGBT as well as their religion:…”
In other discussions, you accused me of being ‘religous’ for merely pointing out that ‘Christians’ (and members of other religions) have a variety of beliefs regarding homosexuality. You obviously didn’t like that statement yet are now claiming otherwise. You were mad as hell at my suggestion that you target the sects causing the problems, not Christians in general. At which point were you lying or did you suddenly change your mind?
Brian
@ Reason:
I think the equality-minded Christians are waiting for us to ask them. We never have. I believe that most human beings are kind, considerate and fair. They understand our plight, but we need to ask for their help.
It is the beginning of a “movement” and I know it is taking form in several US cities, including Dallas, Phoenix and Los Angeles.
I don’t know if it will work, but the numbers are encouraging. The group is called Equality United. I’ve been to two of their meetings. It makes sense – so far.
reason
@Brian
Leviticus is the old testament which Christians do not feel bound to. The new testament is the Christian guide and I don’t recall where it says to treat someone as subhuman for any reason, “judge not lest ye be judged”. You really can’t reach true equality if a third is left behind.
reason
@B
There is no reason to use personal attacks, if he took the time to consider your point of view you should be pleased.
reason
@Brian
Is there a website?
Brian
@ Reason:
Regarding that difficult one-third: We don’t have to “leave them behind.” I just think we get the open-minded two-thirds first. The others will take longer, but we will have achieved a majority of “believers in equality.”
Orpheus_lost
@Brian
Once again, we’re not playing by your rules. This is either a discussion or nothing. I’ve provided proof that Reid is in favor of repealing DADT permanently and you refuse to believe it. Is this due to some innate knowledge that you have that no one else is privy to or are you just projecting what you want to believe?
It appears from this discussion that you don’t support laws that enforce equal rights for the GLBT community, favoring the concept of changing popular opinion instead. That may well be why you are willing to lie and distort in order to fight against our human rights, but you need to realize that just because you don’t want equal protection doesn’t mean you have the right to try to withhold it from others. Of course there was racism after the Civil Rights Act of 1964, but it was no longer legal to allow that racism to keep African-Americans from obtaining work or living where they wished. Even a child understands the difference between bigotry of thought and bigotry of action, so why don’t you?
And what the Hell? Here’s the link with good old Harry’s actual quote since you refuse to believe a Mormon could support the repeal of DADT:
When asked about a proposal being offered by Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) that would suspend the discharge of gay and lesbian servicemembers for 18 months, Senator Reid declared his support and went even further, saying, “If Kirsten offers this amendment I will support it…my only difference I would have is I would make it permanent.”
http://stonewalldemocrats.org/node/828
What now? Will you suggest the source isn’t good enough? That he could be talking about a perm for Gillibrand’s hair? Maybe it’s an alien Harry Reid or his good twin brother? What excuse for not believing will you have next?
Brian
@ Reason:
The group is holding collaboration meetings. I don’t think they are launching until they meet people all across the country. It makes sense, it’s an important conversation – better in person.
They said one thing that got me involved (paraphrasing) “if we are to have a real, sustainable movement we will need to get the whole community involved. The movement will be lead by ideas, not organizations or any individual.” That made a lot of sense to me.
reason
@Brian
I agree it is an important conversation: keep us informed on what is going on, and how it is progressing.
Brian
@ Orpheus_Lost: Last chance.
From the link you posted: Stonewall Democrats applaud Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid for his recent leadership on issues of importance to LGBT and allied Democrats. Senator Reid’s public call for a “permanent” moratorium on the discriminatory “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy…
Harry Reid is reluctant to use the words: “I want to repeal DADT.”
This is not splitting hairs – it’s how politicians work. Harry Reid wants you to believe something he never actually said. That’s the game. You posted two links that exaggerated Reid’s comments.
I would like him to say he is for the “repeal of DADT,” but it’s very hard for him to say because of the Mormon anti-lgbt stance.
Andrew
Orpheus-Lost:
The point Brian is making is that Reid has suggested something that doesn’t exist: “a permanent moratorium.” That’s not a “repeal.” If Sen. Reid wanted to repeal DADT he could actually say that and he could support a “Bill to Repeal DADT” in the US Senate – he hasn’t.
To me, it seems like double-speak from Reid and not a firm stand on repeal of DADT. This is the kind of behavior that makes us dislike politics and politicians.
The effort (you dismiss) to change “public opinion” about us is the only way we actually gain equality. Blacks have been trying to change public opinion for 50 years and end racism. If I understand Brian’s point about religion, it is that we as a community have suffered because we have been “defined” by religion and we need to “re-define” ourselves – instead of always being on the defensive. We should proactively define ourselves and enlist the support of Christians that aren’t hung up on Leviticus.
I would prefer that people see us the “same,” as opposed to passing laws that “order” people to accept/tolerate us. If we are the same (equal) we don’t need to be a protected class. Our goal should be to get the majority of Americans to actually believe we are equal in every aspect. Brian suggests that the majority of our fellow citizens would do that, but we’ve never asked for their help. I think it makes sense.
Orpheus_lost
@Brian and Andrew
Are you two serious? Reid says he wants to make Gillibrand’s 18 month moratorium on DADT permanent and you both see this as not a repeal? Its the very definition of a repeal. Honestly, what world are you living in? Your inability to understand basic communication is staggering. If the law is made null and void through a permanent moratorium it is repealed. It is done. It is over. Gone. Kaput. Vanquished. It has shuffled off its fucking mortal coil. What the Hell do you think permanent mean?
As for your insistence that we change the hearts and minds of those who hate us INSTEAD of enacting legislation that guarantees our legal rights, I can only say you are either extremely naive or highly cynical. The equivalent is that of a slave trying to make his master understand how much happier everyone would be if he were set free while telling congress not to bother with that silly amendment (its the 14th – look it up sometime). Just because you think you can spread sunshine throughout the country doesn’t mean my right to live as an equal member of society shouldn’t be encoded in our legal system.
The funny thing is that I’m glad there are people out there trying to change things from a social perspective; its a necessary part of moving our society forward. However, when these same people actually work against the guarantee of our human rights, then I have to question whether they are really working on the things they say they are.
So, I’ll ask both of you (if you really are separate people), why are you working to keep GLBT civil rights legislation from being enacted?