Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

1. By noontime, Hilary will counter with her own LGBT support council. I do not disagree with Obama's opinion on equality for same-sex couples in the way of civil unions, but this is politics, nothing more.

   Posted by: Stephen | Aug 9, 2007 9:21:59 AM

   
   

2. Thanks, Stephen, for proving you are as retarded about what's already gone on in this campaign as you are about marriage equality and any number of other things [politics are politics, you imbecile].

   Hillary, like Edwards, released her initial list IN APRIL, which included Billy Jean King and has since added out Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin and others.

   Don't know what took Obama so long, but I'm happy to see it now, and look forward to his making LGBTs a higher priority in his campaign. Hopefully, the combined moral example of all the Democratic candidates' nearly identical positions can shine needed light on the moral black hole that the Repug candidates have created.

   537

   537

   537

   Posted by: Leland | Aug 9, 2007 9:48:09 AM

   
   

3. That's my point, Leland: Hilary will release an revised initiative just to trump Obama here.

   Now, go take a sedative.

   Posted by: Stephen | Aug 9, 2007 10:07:39 AM

   
   

4. All of the Dems who want the White House are against same sex marriage (except for a notable few who have a very slim chance at getting the nomination). Now if partisans want to argue that one candidate is better than another, that's fine. However, let's not delude ourselves in assuming the Democrats are on our side.

   Posted by: James | Aug 9, 2007 10:10:47 AM

   
   

5. Well some of them are talking about health care, foreign policy issues, getting out of Iraq, dealing with the disappearing middle class and other things which also affect my life, which affect my life more than gay marriage actually.

   Posted by: Charles | Aug 9, 2007 10:17:48 AM

   
   

6. Charles,

   Excellent point. And that's the rub that all minorities have to grapple with. The balancing act between our particular issues and the larger trends that we also have to deal with.

   Posted by: James | Aug 9, 2007 10:45:08 AM

   
   

7. thank you, charles. while equality issues are tantamount, there are other issues that will effect my life just as much.

   Posted by: titus | Aug 9, 2007 10:48:19 AM

   
   

8. Yes, Hillary has released a list of her months ago.

   "However, let's not delude ourselves in assuming the Democrats are on our side."

   In politics, there is an enormous difference between being against us and not being the most publicly for us a candidate can be. It's cynical and dealing with lessers of evils, but there is a difference between the Democrats who support us in everything but marriage (stopping there for, unfortunately again, political reasons), and the Republicans who are actively against us and not supportive of us in any way. These Democrats take their positions because of election politics, and would never act, if they do act at all, against us, legally, in terms of actually banning marriage, etc.

   Posted by: Bryan | Aug 9, 2007 10:53:25 AM

   
   

9. James & Charles - I agree 100%

   Posted by: gabriel | Aug 9, 2007 11:03:25 AM

   
   

10. Bryan,

    Really? Who put in "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." What about the "Defense of Marriage Act." I'm no fan of the GOP but this line has nothing to do with history.

    "...would never act, if they do act at all, against us, legally, in terms of actually banning marriage, etc."

    Posted by: James | Aug 9, 2007 11:09:04 AM

    
    

11. Hillary started her LGBT council in April? Big fucking deal!
    She also initially voted for the Iraq war,and then changed sides as the tide of popular opinion shifted. Obama was against it from the start.
    All this is just political posturing. Elections are over a year away people. How can you possibly place any importance on this story? Sheesh.

    Posted by: soulbrotha | Aug 9, 2007 11:09:33 AM

    
    

12. Well the primaries are being shifted, so the first primary may actually be at the end of this year, so we will know who the final candidates are very early. And considering the mess the next president is going to have to clean up after Bush and Iraq and the continuing threat of terrorism and threat of a severe recession...yeah, I think this is important. Sorry it's not entertaining enough for you.

    Posted by: Charles | Aug 9, 2007 11:15:59 AM

    
    

13. Oh, Stephen, how lame. Even for you. You dishonestly try to salvage your faux fact while consistently misspelling her name. Note it's TWO l's not one. And you think I need meds? May I suggest you domestic partner with a gun to your temple?

    Posted by: Leland | Aug 9, 2007 11:21:39 AM

    
    

14. Could someone please tell me exactly WHERE in Los Angeles this event is taking place?

    Posted by: David Ehrenstein | Aug 9, 2007 11:36:20 AM

    
    

15. First, James, as you may recall, if you think a LITTLE harder, it was MR. Clinton not Mrs. Clinton who was President when DADT and DOMA were created.
    While they certainly relate to issues possible within Bryan's "etc.," they are already on the books. As for your implied suggestion that Dems might ban marriage, not only is that NOT, as many mistakenly believe a part of DOMA, but Hillary [and Edwards and Obama] have said they support elimination of the part of DOMA that denies federal benefits for state-sanctioned legalized same gender relationships. [The other part, empowering states to deny recognition to marriages from other states is effectively superfluous as states have passed their own versions]. Further, Edwards has specifically said his administration would do nothing to interfere with the legalization of marriage equality.

    You may not be a "fan of the GOP" [or you could me a mole], but, in any case, you appear to not be a fan of details either.

    Posted by: Leland | Aug 9, 2007 11:37:25 AM

    
    

16. Leland,
    So when exactly DO you behave like a human being and not a rabid dog?
    

    Posted by: Stephen | Aug 9, 2007 11:42:14 AM

    
    

17. Now ladies pleeze!

    For someone living across the pond [Ireland to be exact], can someone comment on the significance (or otherwise) of Obama's list? I am not familiar with any of the names. Don't know why people are quibbling about the GOP, they have not and will not do anything for LGBT rights - so what does the Democratic Party offer this time out apart from someone who looks good with a pearl necklace... and Hillary Clinton...?

    
    

    Posted by: Sean R | Aug 9, 2007 11:52:48 AM

    
    

18. Leland,

    My posts never accused Mrs. Clinton of anything. I did point out that a Democrat put DOMA and DADT in place. And I wasn't trying to imply a same-sex marriage ban. Just pointing out that when it comes to marriage rights, the major Democratic contenders agree. My larger point is this: just like with the black vote, the Democratic party takes the gay vote for granted. Promises are made during campaigns and once in office, those same deals are broken. Our vote needs to be in play and we need to hold both parties accountable.

    As for the mole comment, others can decide if that applies.

    Posted by: James | Aug 9, 2007 12:11:51 PM

    
    

19. Funny line, Sean! When did "June Cleaver" announce? LOL.

    As for your question, it's a little hard to answer, and all answers, including mine, can't help but be subjective. From the very rough standpoint of influential local, regional, or national name recognition, I'd say these are Obama's best so far:

    Bevan Dufty, CA, San Francisco Board of Supervisors
    Chris Hughes, IL, Founder, Facebook
    Rebecca Prozan, CA, Chair, Alice B. Toklas Club, San Francisco
    Nicole M. Ramirez, CA, City Commissioner, San Diego
    Donna Red Wing, CO, Activist
    Gene Robinson, NH, Bishop

    But he also has several other names who bring their own list of contacts and compatriots from the organizations, such as the DNC [Democratic National Committee], HRC, etc., as well as other local elected officials. While it would be sadly easy for many even in the US to believe that the top of any LGBT pyramid here consists essentially of Reichen and Rosie and Ellen and Carson and HRC, the positive fact is that there are thousands of out LGBTs throughout American politics and multi-issue community groups and corporations. The negative fact is that our "power" is disproportionately small to that number.

    I am a little surprised that Obama's list doesn't include more LGBT "heavyweights," but most have already committed to Hillary, Edwards, and the others. From the standpoint of financial and political clout [the latter by way of years of hands on experience and influence in organized political campaigns, e.g., Dufty for Obama; Geto, Hochberg, Baldwin for Hillary; Mixner for Edwards], I'd say Hillary has the best list of LGBT backers and Edwards the second best. She also leads so far, as you may know, in self-identified gay money donors, while Obama leads in donations overall.
    

    Posted by: Leland | Aug 9, 2007 12:21:26 PM

    
    

20. I'm a little shocked at everyone's back and forth on this topic...and not ONE of you said anything about Dennis Kucinich. He's the only one not playing politics here and he is 110% for everything we stand for! Wake up and look beyond CNN / NBC / and the 24-months-prior-to-elections hype!! Can't you see that all the other candidates are not willing or brave enough to stand by you like Kucinich is and will. ? Be brave like him and give him your vote...don't waste it on someone who won't stand for you 100% post-election.

    Posted by: Jerry in Rhode Island | Aug 9, 2007 12:33:06 PM

    
    

21. Jerry... that is because that conversation started in another comments section (Poll: A 'Gay Rights' Candidate is a Swing State Loser)

    Posted by: gabriel | Aug 9, 2007 12:39:22 PM

    
    

22. Maybe I’m having gay fatigue. Maybe I’m just at an age where I wonder about things in a completely different way. Tonight, we have the Democratic hopefuls sitting down in West Hollywood to debate gay and lesbian issues. Which is nice. But how important is it, really? For the most part gay people go about their lives with relative ease. We see ourselves portrayed rightly and wrongly on television and in the movies. We party, we fall in love, we seemingly have more sex than most and we have this odd little community. We thrown into a mix of people we don’t really know: lesbians, transgender, and bisexuals. But apparently we are all in the same boat. Somewhere in time, we, or some decided that it was time we had a wedding. We couldn’t leave it at domestic partnership; we demanded that most sacred of heterosexual institutions: marriage. While it would seem that having rights, like if your partner becomes ill, or dies, that you have some legal protection would be paramount, that doesn’t seem to be the case. We want marriage. Any reasonable person would have to admit that gay rights in this election, when compared to the bounty of other issues, seem paltry. I would like my candidate to be for me, but if my country is falling apart, which could happen, I would like to think they have a vision for the country, not a particular club.

    Posted by: zuke | Aug 9, 2007 1:05:06 PM

    
    

23. If I have to 'settle' for civil unions but we get the hell out of Iraq and somebody does something about healthcare, well then, that's a compromise I am more than willing to make.

    Posted by: Gregoire | Aug 9, 2007 1:09:59 PM

    
    

24. Just to set the record "straight", it was a Republican congress which passed the Defense of Marriage Act, although it was signed by Bill Clinton--mostly because he had to work with a Republican congress and had very little political support in Washington at the time. Besides, I think all can agree that the Defense of Marriage Act is better than a federal marriage amendment. Don't Ask, Don't Tell was an improvement over a time when people could be removed from the military simply for rumors about their sexuality, or could be questioned and humiliated by their superiors. Granted neither are ideal, but when you have a Republican congress passing the laws, you obviously aren't going to get an ideal government.

    Posted by: Justin | Aug 9, 2007 1:22:28 PM

    
    

25. The Democratic Party takes blacks and gays for granted? So what? Blacks and gays take the Democratic Party for granted. You're not going to see Hillary, Barack, John, Joe and the others speaking before one of those conservative, "family values" type groups where all the guys secretly give head because they're afraid of big black men in the park...at night. Must be lights in the park.

    The Democratic Party did what I wanted it do 40 years ago, and for that I'm loyal. The Republican worked for me 150 years ago, but they've used me as a weapon to get white racist votes since the 1960s. I hate Republicans.

    Does my comment have anything to do with what y'all were talking about?

    Posted by: Derrick from Philly | Aug 9, 2007 1:35:15 PM

    
    
Next (more comments...) »

Post a comment

Name:

Email Address:

URL:

Remember personal info?

Comments: