Obama, DOMA and you...

[gsdx]

How do you mean?

The government was built on religion and is still ruled by religion. They are virtually one and the same. Is it really a democracy when Christians dictate how the rest of the country should be ruled?

 

[gsdx]

I'm tired of hearing your constant Bitching and Moaning when it comes to this President.

That's sort of how I felt about Bush after listening about his bullshit for 8 years.

 

[davy]

>>>So, since we can't trust the people we elect (shock) and I'm too busy this week to overthrow the government...what do you have in mind?

My belief is that this is a societal change. And societal change, as I've said, happens from the bottom UP, not from the top DOWN. Think of the advances that were made on the gay-marriage front over the last eight years or so. Eight years ago, we were hoping maybe someday there might be some sort of civil union thing. Now, gay marriage seems like an actual possibility, and to some, a near-inevitability. Gay marriage has become legal in a few states, and it seems to be gaining ground in many others.

And all this happened under W. A president who wasn't exactly spearheading the change. In fact, his main move when it came to homosexuals was to warn America that voting for his rival would be tantamount to allowing gay marriage, which was a true threat to "real" marriage and the American way of life. (A stance which, four years ago, helped clinch his victory.)

My point is that great strides were made even under what you might term a hostile regime. And I think a lot more progress can be made under this one. Yeah, if Obama was actively supporting it, I think we'd have an easier time of it. But I wasn't counting on his support. I didn't vote for him expecting him to "do our work for us". I expected him, at very best, to be a passive ally, and voted for him based on other criteria.

I'm not discounting the importance of voting. But there's more to changing the world than putting a HOPE sticker on the back of your car. Politics and change don't just happen every leap year. Change happens daily, down at the local and personal level. The few states with gay marriage didn't sit around waiting for the president to give his thumbs-up. They fostered support at the state and local level, they elected judges who were sympathetic to the cause, and they fought the good fight. And, hopefully, they're continuing to do so to keep things from overturning.

Yeah, it'd be easier if Obama just did it for us. But, as I said, I never expected him to. Instead, it's up to us. To work on things at a state and local level. And I think just by being gay-out-and-proud, we're helping the cause. Most of the people I find out are anti-gay-marriage don't KNOW anybody gay. Once they do, they start questioning their beliefs. Because it's easy to demonize gays if you don't know any. They're just a bunch of sex-crazed, anti-family sinners, right? Then they meet one...and they're forced to think about things. "Why can't Lex and Pubert get married?" Why can't these real-life, human beings enter into a marriage with the one they love? And person by person, I think the tide turns in our favor.

No, it's not fast, and no, it's not easy. But how bad do you want it?

Lex

I want to agree with you on all counts, but there are three facts that make me question whether or not such doe-eyed optimisim is appropiate.

First: regarding electing obama as a "passive ally". Martin Luther King Jr himself warned against making allies out of anyone who called himself a moderate in the cause Dr. King was fighting for. He wrote tons of essays on why, so I'll just sumarize the most important point. The ally that sees our cause as right, but is willing to not help can cause more damage to our cause that our enemies could ever hope to cause. Using Dr. King's reasoning means that we should not be putting any stock or faith into obama and his position can make it more difficult for us.

Second: grass roots efforts we're very effective in the past because they brought the issue home; like you're hoping that living out and proud will do. However, many of those in power then are still in power now, and they've actively been putting in safeguards to help mitigate the effectiveness that bringing the issue home might affect. For example, during the civil rights protest marches, television news brought the images of police brutality to american's living rooms and that helped convinced americans that the civil rights movements were being unfairly disenfranchised. Now, protests are forced by law to be kept in designated areas where people can't see them and the news reporters can't show them on the six o'clock news without fearing for their jobs. This applies to us now because the fundamentalist christian leaders encourage their followers to "love" their gay brothers or gay sisters, but are encoraged to continue hating the sin of being gay. Meaning that a homophobe support can have a gay child and can believe that he still loves the gay child, but still hate gays in general and work ardently to strip away gay rights. To drive this point home: there were many gay-friendly business leaders in california now, who don't understand why gays are boycotting their businesses because the business owners donated to help prop 8.

Third: societal changes come and go without grass-roots efforts. It's true that they can be speeded along when some sort of campaign is pushing its agenda through, but change happens anyways. If we're going to place our hopes one people realizing that something just isn't right: (1) the change takes a VERY long time and (2) the change can easily be done in the opposite direction. Take mexico on the late 19th and ealy 20th century, for example. There was social change taking place whereby the peple were beginning to shake off the dogma of the catholic

 

[davy]

...
My belief is that this is a societal change.
...
Yeah, if Obama was actively supporting it, I think we'd have an easier time of it. But I wasn't counting on his support. I didn't vote for him expecting him to "do our work for us". I expected him, at very best, to be a passive ally, and voted for him based on other criteria.

...
And I think just by being gay-out-and-proud, we're helping the cause. Most of the people I find out are anti-gay-marriage don't KNOW anybody gay. Once they do, they start questioning their beliefs.
...
Lex

I want to agree with you on all counts, but there are three facts that make me question whether or not such doe-eyed optimisim is appropiate.

First: regarding electing obama as a "passive ally". Martin Luther King Jr himself warned against making allies out of anyone who called himself a moderate in the cause Dr. King was fighting for. He wrote tons of essays on why, so I'll just sumarize the most important point. The ally that sees our cause as right, but is willing to not help can cause more damage to our cause that our enemies could ever hope to inflict. Using Dr. King's reasoning means that we should not be putting any stock or faith into obama and his position can make it more difficult for us.

Second: grass roots efforts we're very effective in the past because they brought the issue home; like you're hoping that living out and proud will do. However, many of those in power then are still in power now, and they've actively been putting in safeguards to help mitigate the effectiveness that putting a name and face on the issue might bring. For example, during the civil rights protest marches, television news brought the images of police brutality to american's living rooms and that helped convinced americans that the civil rights movements were being unfairly disenfranchised. Now, protests are forced by law to be kept in designated areas where people can't see them and the news reporters can't show them on the six o'clock news without fearing for their jobs. This applies to us now because the fundamentalist christian leaders encourage their followers to "love" their gay brothers or gay sisters, but are encoraged to continue hating the sin of being gay. In other words: they're being very careful not to put the blame on gays and being very careful to say that they don't think being gay entitles us to "special rights." Meaning that a homophobe supporter can have a gay child and can believe that he still loves the gay child, but still hate gays rights in general and work ardently to strip away gay rights. So now, the focus isn't whether or not you're gay but whether whether your life style should grant "special protections," so being out and proud to your homophobic mother doesn't mean that she'll stop supporting some homophobic leader.

Third: societal changes come and go without grass-roots efforts and that change happens whether its direction is morally right or wrong. The only way you can ensure that change happens in the way you want it to happen is with the top down approach. Take mexico on the late 19th and early 20th century, for example. There was social change taking place whereby the people were beginning to shake off the dogma of the catholic church and look towards the competorary social and scientific leaders. The change would have happened on its own, but the church was very easily able to stop that tide by pulling its own strings. In taking another example: the civil rights movements in the 1960's weren't able to make appreciable movement until popular consensus was behind them and that didn't happen until very powerful players, like president johnson, jumped into the game.

 

[davy]

I hate it when I accidentally double post.

The second posts explains my views more clearly than the first.

I hope that a mod can delete the first post.

 

[2243]

The government was built on religion and is still ruled by religion. They are virtually one and the same. Is it really a democracy when Christians dictate how the rest of the country should be ruled?

I disagree and I think that even though the majority happens to be christian it doesn't make the U.S. gov't a theocracy in reality, but that's just my opinion. Obviously I wouldn't have suggested the word marriage be removed if I shared your opinion.

 

[chatolandia]

I am glad I vote for neither


Honestly, neither party represent me, so why should I vote or support them

 

[techboywi]

Educate yourself on what civil unions are as compared to marriages before making statements like this. Civil unions do not hold the same legal rights as marriages do. This isn't about what name is used completely, it is about the rights afforded to each person. Yes, having it called one thing, the same across the board, is a major issue but you cannot say that civil unions are the same as marriages just because a couple you know 'act married even though it is a civil union.' Ask them how they feel when one partner is dying and they cannot make decisions for one another. Ask them what happens when they try to take out insurance together.

Civil Unions as they stand are not equal, I agree with that. They need to be changed. I believe they should be changed so they are legally equal to marriage

 

[metta]

Demand President Obama push for complete equality for LGBT Americans, as he promised during his campaign. Go to this link:


http://www.eqca.org/siteapps/advoca...J9MRKrH&b=4025663&aid=12444&tr=y&auid=4968419