On the other hand, I think an Obama/Biden administration is realistically the best chance we have at the moment to make a gain in rights. McCain and Palin represent a step backwards, what with Palin advocating a federal Amendment to ban gay marriage. This despite her state’s rights stance.

I personally don’t think Biden slipped up or contradicted himself at the debates. I think his words were very consciously and purposefully chosen. Here, let’s review:

Absolutely. Do I support granting same-sex benefits? Absolutely positively. Look, in an Obama-Biden administration, there will be absolutely no distinction from a constitutional standpoint or a legal standpoint between a same-sex and a heterosexual couple.

This sounds good, right? Notice the specific use of the words “constitutional” and “legal.” It seems to me that he uses these words precisely to specify what he’s talking about so that he can come back later and talk about a kind of marriage that is non-constitutional and non-legal.

The fact of the matter is that under the Constitution we should be granted — same-sex couples should be able to have visitation rights in the hospitals, joint ownership of property, life insurance policies, et cetera. That’s only fair.

It’s what the Constitution calls for. And so we do support it. We do support making sure that committed couples in a same-sex marriage are guaranteed the same constitutional benefits as it relates to their property rights, their rights of visitation, their rights to insurance, their rights of ownership as heterosexual couples do.

Again he reiterates that that, from a legal standpoint, same sex couples are to be treated the same as opposite sex couples. This is a far cry from McCain’s stance, which basically “allows” us to spend thousands of dollars in lawyers fees to enter into contracts that garner us only some of the rights that opposite sex couples get with one document.

This is not a gift, McCain, we can do it already, and it doesn’t work out so well.

No. Barack Obama nor I support redefining from a civil side what constitutes marriage. We do not support that. That is basically the decision to be able to be able to be left to faiths and people who practice their faiths the determination what you call it.

Here’s the line that gets hisses and boos. Again, though, I think the wording here is again very deliberate. Notice how in the first sentence he says they don’t support redefining marriage “from a civil side” and how it’s up to people of faith how they define marriage. This is where that non-legal marriage idea comes in. This is where he’s reassuring the religious that the government isn’t going to come into their places of worship and telling them what to do, rewriting their holy books, etc.

This is good, because the government has nor right doing that. From the legal and constitutional standpoint, however, Biden rightly says that marriage is equal for hetero and homosexual couples.

The bottom line though is, and I’m glad to hear the governor, I take her at her word, obviously, that she think there should be no civil rights distinction, none whatsoever, between a committed gay couple and a committed heterosexual couple. If that’s the case, we really don’t have a difference.

Here again, he repeats the stance of the Obama campaign; that homosexual couples are equal in the eyes of the law to heterosexual couples.

If you’ll remember, the Connecticut Supreme Court said the exact same thing a couple of years ago and left the legislature to decide how to make gay couples equal in the eyes of the law. They chose civil unions. The reports came in, civil unions were not garnering gay couples the rights they were promised by the courts and thus the courts revisited the case and determined that gay couples could not be denied access to marriage.

Honestly, you’re right, the rest of the country should take this as a lesson, but in a way this does show that civil unions are a stepping stone to marriage equality

If, as you say, Obama is elected and pays us no mind, then we will of course fight. We’ll fight anyway, either way, as long as we are denied equality in the eyes of the law. Like you say, sometimes you lose a battle and win the war, but I say we should choose our battles wisely. Electing Obama is a stepping stone to equality and a potentially uneasy alliance, electing McCain is fighting for the other side.

Of course we’re not accepting second class citizenship, but we have to not only fight hard, we have to fight smart.

Electing Obama is not capitulating to segregation, after all, there’s nothing that stops us from continuing the fight after the election. And we will be doing it from a better position than if we elected McCain to abuse us like we’ve been abused for the past eight years because we’ll have these promised with which to squeeze Obama. No such luck with a McCain administration, in which we will be lucky to be treated as fully adult human beings.

Biden slipped up and inadvertently crossed the party line when he said that “same-sex marriages should be treated the same“, and then he backtracked and said that he believed that: “Marriage should be between a Man and a Woman.” Sort of inconsistent, wouldn’t you say? Was that a Freudian slip or a little sliver of his conscience peeking through?

That is exactly what is so repulsive about the DEMS. They know they are on the wrong side of history, but they still try to herd us down that nowhere path anyway. Sure, the Republicans are to GLBT community what the Dixiecrats in the Deep South were to Blacks during their civil rights struggles of 1950s and 60s. But at least then they had a President Johnson who stuck his neck out to give his full support to the 1964 Civil Rights Act — even though he regretfully acknowledged that the Dems would lose the South because of it.

But Johnson said that it was the right thing to do. I cannot see Obama making such a sacrifice for us. He is not a moral man of the same caliber as Johnson was. Throughout his political career, President Johnson never hid his desire to see equal rights codified into law for Black people — and he was from the South. Texas was a not a friendly place for civil rights activism.

I really doubt if Obama gives our struggle for equality any attention at all once he takes office. His excuse will be that there are more pressing matters than our petty concerns. Like too many other minority members, I truly believe that he resents us being put into the same category as “legitimate” (i.e. race, religion, gender) disenfranchised members of society. Certainly he will give shallow lip-service to us in order to harvest our votes and campaign contributions, but his actions bespeaks more of someone who still thinks of us as sexual oddities — not to be taken too seriously after the election.

I find it unbelievable that someone whose own parents’ marriage was illegal in the state where they resided should then support segregation as a viable alternative for another minority. My spouse and I live in the very same state where his parents lived and where, today, our legal marriage is likewise nullified. Obama’s dehumanizing “final solution” to our oppression says a lot about his lack of moral character when he cannot even associate it to his parents‘ struggle for equality.

The Supreme Court of California was correct in ruling that these repulsive contrivances (Domestic Partnerships, Civil Unions, etc) are an objectionable indignity meant only to degrade and stigmatize a whole class of people into an inferior position in society. Discrimination was wrong and acceptable in the 1950’s and it certainly isn’t welcomed now.

I hope Gays and Lesbians never capitulate to political pressure from sell-outs in our own community (for whatever political expedience they try to justify) and accept second-class citizenship. If you ask for less, then that is what you will get. Sometimes you have to lose major battles in order to win the war. That has always been the pattern of every civil rights struggle. Why are we so different?

One thing is for sure though — that is, you don’t EVER settle for less than what you think you are worth. Never stop demanding your equality. Equality is not somebody else’s gift to you that can be parceled out a little at a time if you toe the party line or something that can be withheld by a hostile majority for the sake of preserving their own personal privilege. It is none of those things — it is your birthright, pure and simple. Freedom is something all kinds of people have fought and died for, it’s about time we start fighting in earnest for it too.

~ Bud Evans

My post was about the VP debates where Biden said that “in an Obama-Biden administration, there will be absolutely no distinction from a constitutional standpoint or a legal standpoint between a same-sex and a heterosexual couple.”

To me this is full legal marriage equality. It may not be full religious equality, but that should be a non-issue anyway, because of separation of church and state.

…Hey, AR, perhaps you should go back to your favorite reading, the National Enquirer, and check on how the Bat-headed Baby is doing and whether Brittany Spears is really the hybrid child of space aliens. That should keep your Attention Deficit Disorder under control — for a few minutes anyway.

I must concede though, given the choices, I have resigned myself to a Obama presidency. That doesn’t mean that I have voted for him (I didn’t — I voted early), but I understand the GLBT community’s fear and frustration with the GOP using us for a piñata for the last eight years during election cycles. Personally, as much as the GOP has bashed us during those elections cycles, the Democrats, in equal proportion, have either marginalized us or ignored us altogether.

But in a close election, they do this at their own peril. Although, no one has ever told them that, like leaders in the Jewish or Black community would have done so, in no uncertain terms, by now. The Dems have no respect for us, because they do not fear losing our votes. We have been deluding ourselves (with ample help from HRC) into thinking that the Dems care about us after election day. Uh…not so much.

John what you said about the judiciary is so very true, as well as the fact which you pointed out that not every Democratic politicians is as “gay-friendly” nor as reliable as some moderate Republicans in Congress in regards to our rights. One must remember that during the Clinton administration that at least one third of all the Democrats in Congress joined the Republicans and gave us DADT and DOMA. Moderate republicans from the some of the Northeastern states opposed anti-gay legislation, whereas most Dixiecrats from the South and Midwest joined with the homophobes. So please, don’t let anyone think that all the Dems are steadfast and trusted friends to our community.

Ask yourself this, would you vote for an anti-gay Democrat over a gay-friendly Republican out of party loyalty? Now, if you point to the necessity of maintaining a majority for the appointment of federal judges in order to shape your answer, just remember arch-liberal Al Gore voted to confirm Scalia. Not all Democrats did, so why did he? The term Dixiecrat ring a bell again? At least a third of the Congress is infested with them.

“The Clinton Administration strode into office in 1993, having promised it would pass the Freedom of Choice Act. The FOCA would essentially codify the basic rights to abortion under Roe v Wade, removing most impediments to obtaining an abortion. As a Senator, Gore refused to sponsor the FOCA in 1989, 1990, or 1991, after he supposedly evolved into an abortion rights supporter. It was the perfect world for pro-choice activists: a Democratic administration in the White House, and a Democratic majority in Congress. Anti-abortion forces feared the Hyde Amendment was doomed. On July 30, 1993, the House revisited the matter, and passed a slightly watered-down version of the Hyde Amendment. However, after an attempt to kill the Amendment on procedural grounds failed, 98 Democrats crossed the aisle, giving Hyde a 255-178 majority. When forced to go on the record about public funding, many pro-choice members of Congress chafed… (Insight on the News, 8/13/93). The FOCA also floundered in the Democrat-majority Congress. “ from http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Articles/Sunil_DarkIsThisLongNight.htm

Here’s another, more contemporary one, from the Washington Post:

“Shortly after winning the leadership post, Reid suggested to NBC’s Tim Russert that he might vote for conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia if Bush were to nominate him to be chief justice. Other Democrats and abortion rights advocates jumped on Reid, who opposes abortion rights.” http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A5396-2005Mar3.html

Democratic Sen. Harry Reid again on the Senate floor:

“I believe marriage should be between a man and a woman. I believe in our federal system of government, described to me in college as a central whole divided among self governing parts. Those self governing parts—the 50 states—have already decided this on their own in state after state. For example, in Nevada the constitution was amended to prevent same sex marriage. Congress and President Clinton passed a law that gave the states the guarantee that their individual laws regarding marriage would be respected. The Defense of Marriage Act creates an exception to the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution so that no state can force its laws of marriage on another.”

Hmmmmm…so how far do you think the repeal of DOMA is going to get under the Democrats, eh? Or even Gay Rights in general? As usual, we’ve been had. The Republicans and the Democrats have one thing in common — both parties think that we are inferior to the heterosexual majority. The only difference, which has a lot of gays running to the Dems like scared rabbits for cover, is that the Republicans use us for votes by exploiting homophobes and the Dems uses us for votes by exploiting our fear of homophobes. That is it in nutshell, really. The GLBT community is impotent because it is scared, and no one respects a coward.

With our ten percent of the voting electorate combined with tens of millions of other disenfranchised liberal, pro-human rights voters, and pro-labor union supporters we could create a viable third party. Maybe not on the presidential level just yet, but on the congressional level.

Just look at how that back-stabber, former Democrat (as well as former Vice Presidential candidate in the Democratic Party), now Independent, Joe Lieberman had the Dems in the US Senate by the balls by threatening to turn the Senate over to Republican control if the Dems didn’t kiss his ass and give him Senate Committee Chairmanships because of the 50/50 political margin in the Senate. Then, as thanks, he throws his support behind John McCain. Oh, I can just smell the payback coming after this election day.

If one person like Lieberman had the control of the Senate in his hands, imagine the power that at least ten percent of the Senate and even ten percent of the House in the hands of a third party could do to affect change. In the future, we may wish to seriously consider electing members to Congress from a third party. Just ten percent of the seats, in both houses of Congress, in the hands of a third party could act as a power-broker. This would almost certainly assure that our concerns would be addressed. Both Democrats and Republicans (neither in a clear majority) would have to court the voting bloc of this third party which could advance minority concerns in legislation more effectively.

A coalition of different parties in Congress is the only way our equality will be addressed in Congress. Not one of the two major parties is going to stick their necks out for us alone on this. Watch and see. An independent liberal third party just might break the stalemate on this kind of legislation, as well as on other socially progressive legislation — such as national health care reform.

We got to start working on that possibility. We got to stop thinking about there being only two ways (Democrat or Republican) of approaching government. Most other Democracies worldwide have more than just two parties in their legislative bodies. Is the United States so unique or is it just stuck in a rut because its people are either too apathetic or too scared to change anything that might actually benefit them?

~ Bud Evans

———–

Full equality? Obama has made it quite clear that he wants to segregate gays into a “Separate But Equal” 2nd class citizenship. THAT IS NOT FULL EQUALITY. And no matter how much you cheerlead Obama, it doesn’t change his stated position. Which is one of segregation. And it’s not just me saying that. The Connecticut Supreme Court just ruled that the policy that Obama advocates IS DISCRIMINATORY TO GAY PEOPLE!! So I guess it’s your job now you to convince everyone that the Conn. Supreme Court is actually just a bunch anti-Obama trolls?

If not, then no, I’m not responding to your comments.

I don’t think I overstate anything. I merely restate what the man and his running mate have said before.

Do I think he will get all that accomplished right away? Of course not.

I just intend to hold him to his words to make a good faith attempt to make them a reality.

Yes, it was purely ideology, no I don’t think I need nuance, and I’m not cheerleading.

I’m not voting for the man because I think he’ll be able to deliver on all his promises, I’m doing so because in making those promises he’s given us the leverage to lean on him.

I think you’re overstating your case. There are plenty of Republican appointed judges – post Clarence Thomas – who are doing a fine job. Once appointed, judges tend to mentally remove themselves from their previous politics. Among these include Chief Justice Margaret Marshall in Massachusetts (appointed by Weld in 1996 and elevated by Cellucci in 1999). Richard Kramer, the San Francisco County judge that originally ruled in favor of same-sex marriage, was appointed in 1996 by Pete Wilson.

Besides, your argument lacks any sense of nuance. It is pure ideological cheerleading for a vanguard party and its leader. And that’s always dangerous because you’re getting swept up in a ‘cult of personality’ rather than making sound decisions.

I’m no fan of the Republicans in general. And I find the RNC’s race baiting and gay bashing quite repulsive. But even I recognize that a Lincoln Chaffee or Arnold Schwarzenegger is a vast improvement over George W. Bush. And when the Democrats nominate some passionless drone like Phil Angelides, you’d be a fool to not consider the alternative. Although I vote Democrat most of the time, I would never rule out voting for a Republican. Being “disloyal” is the only leverage we have over the ruling class. You would have us give that power away for no good reason.