Comments on: Russian gays express disappointment in Clinton

By: Debra

Debra — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 18:52:13 +0000

FWIW…I am a fan of Obama’s…I did vote for him over McCain, but I voted Hillary in the primaries.
The distinction I see here is when she went on the other trip, it was specifically with the intention of uplifting women in the world. That was the main goal, and she approached it with that in mind. Perhaps there are words that could have been said in a subtle way to uplift gays in Russia. My issue with the Hillary talk is expecting her to do what is the President’s job to do…give us a voice! We aren’t far from the Jamaicans or Iraqis with the treatment some of our community has suffered here, and from a large segment of our population the offenders get a pat on the back. The vitriol has escalated since the election, and it’s getting worse on BO’s watch, not better as we all expected. Sign something already! Damn! It’s the small focus on Hillary that gets the boards all ablaze with chatter, and it’s infuriating to me. She doesn’t have anything to do with effecting laws that will change our lives here and now. The buck stops with the WH, and he needs to step up his game. Until then, words in Russia are meaningless in the big picture scenario.

By: Gerry Fisher

Gerry Fisher — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 18:34:21 +0000

>I still don’t see why she should be expected by all to go to another country and say anything about how they treat their gays, but everyone is entitled to opinions.

You’re talking out of both sides of your mouth. On the one hand, she’s this hypothetical defender of our community, ’cause she woulda overturned DADT quicker. On the other hand, our country’s lack of progress on gay rights is a COMPLETELY UNDERSTANDABLE reason for her to *do* *nothing* when given a golden opportunity. (What is the most common phrase used when bashing Obama? “Do nothing”?!)

And let’s take this from another angle. A few months ago, there were press releases and stories about how Clinton was going to make women’s rights a focus of her international efforts. I, for one, cheered.

I don’t think anyone of us would say that she should be demur about women’s rights because of our lack of progress in women’s rights at home. For that issue, we all recognize that it’s obviously not an excuse for not putting efforts into making it better. But we’re going to turn around and use that as an excuse for not working to make things better for gay people?

Makes no sense.

FWIW, I’m very much Pro Hillary. My criticism of her not saying anything during the unveiling of the statue is minor. I still thing she rocks and will continue to rock on as secretary of state. But I believe it’s important to speak the truth (of course, as I see it), even if it’s a little issue or even if it is a disagreement I have with someone I basically like and support.

By: Debra

Debra — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 18:22:49 +0000

Gerry…it’s either excuse making or bashing here it seems. Yes, I said if she were POTUS now these things would be done, and that is my opinion based on what I have seen from BO so far which has been token gestures thrown in our direction. I still don’t see why she should be expected by all to go to another country and say anything about how they treat their gays, but everyone is entitled to opinions.
As for your second comment in a row “expect her to decry..”, you will have to discuss that with GayStudent. And, thanks for the lesson on getting my point across. I really appreciate it.

By: Gerry Fisher

Gerry Fisher — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 18:14:04 +0000

My favorite quote about sexuality between males comes from Whitman. I seem to recall him saying that it was an “athletic” form of love.

…well, the best sessions were, anyways.

By: Gerry Fisher

Gerry Fisher — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 18:08:54 +0000

>expect her to decry homophobia

How about praising Whitman’s “brave portrayal of love, including love between men” in her speech? If she had done that, she would not have been directly confronting the leader on any specific policy, while simultaneously honoring our community’s value of opening up the closet door.

There are ways to make your point without being directly confrontational.

By: Gerry Fisher

Gerry Fisher — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 18:04:37 +0000

>And, I would put money on it, if she were President today, DADT would be done and done as promised by her. She has the balls our current leader seems to have misplaced

I love this. You give her credit for a hypothetical yet refuse to hold her accountable for her lack of brass tubes DURING THE UNVEILING OF A STATUE OF A GAY ICON.

I’m not anti-Clinton by any stretch of the imagination. But I’ve had to put up with a TON of impatient skewering of Obama, so it makes it hard to stomach this kind of excuse making for Clinton.

By: Debra

Debra — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 18:02:50 +0000

Facebook User…why would my 20/20 vision offend you?

By: Gerry Fisher

Gerry Fisher — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 18:01:25 +0000

>Whitman transcended his sexuality

You’re not wrong. This is deeply offensive. Especially since his sexuality deeply informed his art, and parts of Leaves of Grass had been censored because of it.

I agree with people who say that it is too simplistic to say that Whitman was “gay” (because of our culture not being developed yet in history and because the word/concept “gay” was not being used then). However, one is naive or malicious to ignore the same-sex love that permeates both his personal biography and his poems.

By: Facebook User

Facebook User — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 20:04:55 +0000

@churroboy: indeed – Whitman’s homosexuality was the raison d’etre of his srt.

@Debra: are you 15? your myopia is offensive.

By: gaystudent

gaystudent — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 02:28:20 +0000

I don’t really know exactly what this unveiling was all about but I think it’s silly to expect her to decry homophobia on a visit. She’s not our LGBT leader…that’s not her job.
As stated, we aren’t even a country to speak seeing as we’re behind The Netherlands, Belgium, Canada, Spain, Norway, and Sweden on LGBT issues…