What’s my point? If you want to engage in mainstream politics, it’s really not helpful to sit back in an arm chair, philosophize and pontificate, and demand complete satisfaction for your agenda. Instead, it’s really important to engage in [mainstream] politics the way it’s been done for many years, and that requires a lot of hard work. It takes donations, attending meetings, holding signs on street corners, cultivating support, cultivating future candidates, strategizing, lobbying, writing letters, making phone calls, and, probably most important of all, being willing to engage in “horse trading” (I’ll vote for you on this vote if you vote for me on that vote) and incremental progress (we get part of our agenda now and wait for the more controversial parts of it).

Six years ago, in 2002, gay marriage wasn’t ON THE MAP for most of us. (It came into my awareness in the summer of 2003, when Canada granted marriage rights and the Massachusetts court decision came down.) So, given the way that [mainstream] politics works, I don’t think it’s fair to demand that a presidential candidate support us on the fledgling issue of gay marriage, when it hasn’t adequately worked its way through enough states to build mainstream political traction, yet. (Contrast that with 20 states having antidiscrimination laws, an over 50% polling approval for such laws, and McCain refusing to support ENDA. Obama supports ENDA. Why? Because we did the hard work for that part of our agenda, and its time has come. Same with repealing DODT. We’ve done the grunt work already, and it’s time to “get ‘er done.”)

I used the word “mainstream” a lot, because more radical, street-level politics exists, and I think that that kind of politicking is a very useful part of the process. It’s that kind of activism that pushes the boundaries, is more creative, and gets us thinking about and positioned for the future. In my twenties, I protested in the streets and got arrested on the steps of the Supreme Court to protest Bowers v. Hardwick. Activist political activity? I get it. It’s just that I’m 47, have a bit less energy, a bit more money, and am a bit more practical. I’ve shifted over to mainstream political activity. (But you GO activists!)

—————————————————————————

I see… hmmmm…so that means that any one who has a different political point-of-view is a “troll” — according to you.

Relatively speaking, then wouldn’t that make you a Democratic Troll?

I personally am a Independent Troll. We eat little DNC and RNC Trolls up! …

Mmmmmm…yum…yum!!!

Seriously speaking, what we really need is a viable Third Party. We, as a community, can not really afford more angry Judaists defecting to the Republican Party and more slavish Uncle Toms embracing the Democratic Party. REAL change means dumping both of them.

If only ten per cent of the Congress was comprised of members of a liberal third party, something like a Labor Party, which most governments have in much of the English speaking world, then they could demand that favorable legislation be passed that recognizes all citizens’ constitutional equality in all aspects of American life. National Health Care could pass without kowtowing to the self-serving conflicting interests of cold-blooded, greedy health insurance lobbyists and carnivorous medical industry profiteers. The Democrats and the Republicans would be forced to appease this Third Party in order to get portions of their own legislative agenda passed. And it would be more likely compromise legislation where all three parties could claim victory — and not winner take all.

But on civil rights, no compromise would be necessary. Democrats and Republicans alike could deny principal ownership of any “Gay Friendly” legislation and blame it on the “Third Party“. Which would be fine, since this Third Party would exist mainly because of consolidated minority and true progressive support anyway, and not have to answer to the same status quo imposing lynch-mobs that both the Democrats and the Republicans are beholding to.

Both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party are more about corporate interests than about ordinary people. A third party run for president is unworkable at this time, but district by district and even in state-wide federal Senate races, this could be the best thing that could happen to the US Congress and in America.

You ask what Obama would sacrifice? I can assure you he would not sacrifice anything. He is a career politician as is Biden.

And Larry, I completely agree with your comment on the antiquated electoral system. I think that it’s very unfortunate that we do not allow territories to vote.

So listen GLBT community,and especially HRC, Obama is not the great Messiah. Just remember, Ronald Regan nominated U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy who wrote the majority opinion in the pro-gay ruling in Romer -v- Evans and wrote the majority decision in striking down the ignorant so-called “sodomy” laws nationwide in Lawrence -v- Texas. And a Republican Chief Justice on the California Supreme Court wrote the deciding opinion decreeing same-sex marriage in that state.

Also recall Bill Clinton’s knee-jerk reaction (before the Mass. Marriage Ruling) when the Hawaiian Supreme Court was pondering Marriage Equality and how Clinton was all to enthusiastic in his endorsement DOMA so that our rights wouldn’t become a distraction and a re-election issue that might have put his sorry ass on the line.

If Democrats wont go on the record as supporting our complete equality, unconditionaly, we should not support them unconditionally.

There are still so-called “Liberals” who would still support this hypocrite, Barack Obama, because he doesn’t have a problem with members of the GLBT community sitting at the back of the bus — as long as the GLBT community knows their place. Jeeez!

I never thought I’d live to see the day that a formerly oppressed minority would get all “Jim Crow” on another minority, and then be so proud about it. “Separate but equal(?)” indeed — how shameful.

Some “liberal” straights call us selfish for wanting the same rights that they take so easily for granted. Selfish like Martin Luthern King who fought for the civil rights of his people when there was an even bigger war going on in the 1960s. Remember Vietnam anyone?

And then there was President Johnson who sacrificed the Southern vote in order to ensure equality for Blacks by pushing the 1964 Civil Rights Act. What would Obama sacrifice for us?

I’m not saying don’t vote for him — the lesser of two evils and all that. I’m just asking: What has he done to earn our loyalty when he doesn’t even consider us worthy of full equality in these un-United States of America?