Glee‘s Jane Lynch: Obama ‘a Huge Disappointment’ on Gay Rights


Sue Sylvester calls it like she sees it, and so does Jane Lynch in a new interview with the UK Guardian.

Says Lynch of this year's gay rights battles: "Shouldn't there be safeguards against the majority voting on the rights of a minority? If people voted on civil rights in the 60s, it would have never happened. It took somebody like [President] Lyndon Johnson going, 'F all of you! I'm going to do this.' Obama won't do it. He's a huge disappointment to me."

Lynch also talks about growing up:

"I didn't know what 'gay' was in high school. We used the
word 'queer' when someone was weird – when I finally heard what it
really meant, my heart sank, and I thought, 'Oh God, that's me.'"

And gay actors being out in Hollywood:

"I think if I were an ingénue – if I were Kate Winslet – it probably
would hurt my career, but because I'm Jane Lynch and I'm a character
actor, the world isn't projecting their romantic fantasies on me."

Love her.


  1. Marc C says

    “because I’m Jane Lynch and I’m a character actor, the world isn’t projecting their romantic fantasies on me.”

    Well despite the fact that you’re a homosexual woman and I’m a homosexual man Jane, I am projecting romantic fantasies on you because you have the chutzpah to speak your mind.

    Testify girl!

  2. Sean R says

    Brave Jane – not just a song title by Vaya con Dios!! Her comments are, just like her character Sue, pointed and made with no holds barred. She just said what you’re all thinking, huh?

  3. says

    And to anyone who puts slams down their Kool Aid long enough to flame her for daring criticize their hero, there’s a line from “GLEE” that applies to you:

    “[You] think the square root of 4 is rainbows!”

  4. Sargon Bighorn says

    She is a strong woman and she’s right. Bravo Jane. Obama is a let down. But what about Gay Citizens? Are they upset enough to get involved and call their elected officials and voice their disappointment? Most don’t, but for those that do, keep up the pressure.

  5. says

    Of course she’s right regarding not voting on civil rights, but it would be interesting to see what Obama would do if he had 68 senators as Johnson did. (And Johnson couldn’t run for a second term. It’s all about power for either party.) I think we have to realize our only hope is the courts, because voting is going to (usually) be a let-down, at least for the next several years.

    Also, it’s not like the Democrats are epic fails. Not all the Democrats. Our (or at least my) mistake was in thinking all Democrats are alike, but the moderates and conservatives are no help at all. It’s sad to think of the writing on the wall, that progressives are pissed, will be discouraged, will give up, and the enthusiasm void will be filled by teabaggers and other nutjob Republicans.

  6. OnyxEsq says

    She’s an idiot, just like most of the people who post on this blog. I don’t agree with her, and she doesn’t know what the hell she’s talking about. A second rate actress is the last person I look to for political insight.

  7. robert says

    I love you Jane Lynch! You rule!

    PS ONYESQ you need to calm down dear! Take a breath! That’s right if you try real hard you may just have a bowel movement yet!

  8. says

    @ matthew-agree with most of what you said, but there was no reason Johnson couldn’t have run in ’68, he just chose not to. i remember sitting in front of the TV when he made that announcement.

    i agree with Ms Lynch as well. well said. i don’t see any alternative though. the Republicans sure as hell aren’t going to do anything for us.

  9. says

    The difference wasn’t that LBJ had more Democratic Senators because many of them were racist Southerners. In fact, one of the reasons the 64 Civil Rights Act passed was the leadership of a Republican: Sen. Everett Dirksen.

    THAT’s the difference between then and now: leadership aka BALLS which LBJ and Dirksen had, just like Harry Truman, when he ordered the armed forces racially integrated despite opposition from every white corner, and the current Pres., despite the fact that the majority of the public supports both ENDA and dumping DADT.

  10. DEREK says

    Obama has done more for gay rights that the last 2 presidents combined. She needs to get outside of Hollywood and live in the real world. Ms. Lynch, you are a hugh disappointment to me!

  11. Arturo Beeche says

    Although I am disappointed by thus administration’s lack of concern for gay rights…I am also aware that President Obama doe snot have the absolute majority enjoyed by President Wilson. On the Democratic side of the Senate we have a bunch of Judas’ like Ben Nelson and Joe Lieberman…Republicans wearing Frmocratic skins…betrayers of their constituency, ideology and party…traitors to the cause of equality…an orphan and a Jew who have forgotten that they were discriminated against and now discriminate against others…zero conscience!!

  12. says

    Oh, Derek, puhleeeze!

    Could you be thinking of the lifting of the HIV travel ban? That was signed by BUSH and simply finally implemented by Obama.

    Nothing Obama’s done equals Clinton’s executive order lifting the ban on gay federal employees that had existed since Eisenhower. And another Clinton executive order added a hate crimes enhancement to military law. He appointed the first out gay federal judge, the first out gay US Ambassador and Consul General. First gay meeting with a President in the White House. Ditto: Clinton. First President to speak at an HRC dinner. Ditto again: Clinton. And many of the gays Obama’s hired were previously hired by Clinton. And THIS First Lady has yet to do what First Lady Hillary did: march in a Gay Pride Parade!

    Obama does have THIS distinction: he has smile fucked gays more than ALL Presidents combined and blown so much smoke up our asses that the EPA should declare him a part of Global Warming.

  13. pacnwjay says

    Obama has gone out of his way to throw gays under the bus. He lied to us when he told us he’d be a “fierce advocate.” Instead, we get an administration that files hateful briefs, calling us pedophiles and perverts. We get an administration unwilling to expend any political capital on our behalf.

    Matthew…. progressives have every right to be angry. Obama has abandoned US, not the other way round. Every step of the way (on issue after issue) he has tossed progressives under the bus.

    Unless this administration makes some seismic shifts, I sure as hell won’t be supporting it in 2012. Perhaps Democrats need to learn the hard way.

  14. says

    @pacnwjay: but what is the alternative? you can’t possibly feel that ANY republican by 2012 would do more for us. They’re already starting to purge their ranks of even the ‘plain’ conservatives. The republicans by 2012 will be teabaggers and those even further to the right. i’m not happy at all with the current Dems, but i’d rather have a party do NOTHING for us than one that actively seeks to take away our rights en masse. at least that’s how i see it.

    and Derek: please list ‘everything’ that Obama has done for us…

  15. Jelly Bean says


    Don’t worry I really hope he doesn’t run or lose in 2012 to one of those

    And the little bit he has done that isn’t being acknowledged by you angry queens. I hope the republicans OVERTURN it all!

    I really do! You only accept white homophobia so then when they get in office and do it. Lets see her ass return with that statement.

    And of course Miss Michael meathead Matlovich Bedwell or whatever the fuck you call yourself.

    The Clinton’s are so fucking great. That proves my point totally about accepting WHITE homophobia they both presented it to you and you still LOVES the ground they walk on.

    Bill: D.A.D.T, AND D.O.MA.
    HIllary: Does not belive in Gay Marriage

    So your asses would not advanced any fucking where…GET OVER IT!

    And back to Ms Glee cunt She’s a dumb ass bastard and only speak the WORST of this community!

    STUPID BITCH She’ll never be a screen actress neither!

  16. KevMusic says

    Before we give Clinton the ruby red slippers, let us not forget that he signed DADT and DOMA, both of which he says he regrets. But in his defense regarding DOMA, he said it was a move to prevent a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, which the Republicans wanted…and still want. Yes, Obama has been a disappointment so far but it has only been one year. I think progressives need to continue to voice their concerns LOUDLY. But not just to him. To your congressmen and senators as well. The change we want wasn’t automatic after election day. That’s when the battle truly began.

    Over the summer, the nut jobs and tea baggers took control of the dialogue even though they didn’t and don’t have the majority while we sat back and said, “look at those idiots.” As the old adage goes, the squeaky wheel gets the grease. Progressives need to start squeaking. And again, LOUDLY.

    I’m not an Obama cheerleader but let’s be real here. Bush and his cronies were allowed eight years to fuck up this country. I think it’s more than just a bit unrealistic to expect it to be cleaned up in one.

  17. William says

    Jelly Bean = crackhead. Why can’t someone vote for Obama, support Obama, acknowledge that Obama is a better alternative than the teaparty crackers YET still be pissed as hell that he has no balls when it comes to gay rights? He promised a lot and hasn’t done any of it. It’s disappointing, but also stupid. He’s alienating a huge group that put him into office while trying to appease people that will never support him ….ever. BTW, Jane has been in many movies, dumb*ss, including: Julie & Julia, 40 year Old Virgin and more.

  18. nic says

    jelly bean is an inconsequential little fairy. she has no sense of history. i am sick and tired of queers complaining about the clintons. dadt and doma was the best clinton could do at the time. were it not for them, 16 fucking yrs ago, starting the dialogue about universal heath care, we may still not be talking about it now.

    i agree with jane lynch. obama has been largely a let-down. he promised hope and change, and he has delivered on neither. the dems have had control of both houses of congress and the white house, but they have been mostly flaccid. i can’t help but think that hillary would have had larger balls than barack as it pertains to congress. the “hope” anthem has become nothing more than homeletics. i will no longer forgive the wasting away of time and political capital that obama has done. he has failed at leadership. he surrendered control of the health-care bill. he is bereft of any presidential agenda or bully-pulpit will. he has thrown up his hands and abandoned all of his liberal and progressive allies. he had a fucking mandate, for cripes sake. and he’s pissed it all away trying to be president cool. there is no passion in that man. there is no kennedy, no johnson, no clinton in him. yeah, he talked a big game, and defeated hillary. but where’s the beef? it is a sad state of affairs when the sec of state commands more respect than the president.

  19. Jeff Dunivant says

    JELLY BEAN, it doesn’t matter what Obama’s race is he could be purple it still doesn’t change the fact that people are not given full equality across the board. As for repealing anything; it is Law, and cannot be changed, STUPID ASS. Republicans are in the shitter and they will do what Bush did and shred the Constitution, the Republicans approval rate is at 28% and there is so much infighting between the teabaggers all I can say is “are you naive” or just plain STUPID? Wait till Monday when California will be the 7th state to allow gay marriage. Bill and Hillary Clinton are in favor of marriage equality, Bill himself said that it is wrong and discriminatory.

  20. says

    Hillary has never said she supports marriage equality. It’s easy for her or Bill to say so now, though, since neither is in a position where voters will get a chance to vote them out. (Though Hillary’s decision not to agree with her husband on the matter might indicate she hasn’t given up on running in ’12 or ’16.)

    I find it hard to disagree with Nic—it seems illogical considering polls are showing that our electorate is becoming more and more conservative, but I think it’s absolutely true that if Obama had been MORE progressive (instead of trying not to rock the boat), he’d be more popular (he’s at 52% in Gallup) and the electorate would be less conservative (because progressives would be as fired up as conservatives).

    I do think he botched the health care debate. His team probably thought, “How can we go wrong?” and that was a failure.

    But we also have to look at how thinks actually work. Obama isn’t king so he has to get the Senate and House to vote for his initiatives. The Republicans have decided to vote in lockstep against ANYTHING he does. Therefore, getting health care through, albeit watered down, will be miraculous. It’s almost there, but in another example of how progressives are damned if they do and MORE damned if they don’t, if Massachusetts fails to elect Coakley to replace Kennedy it will be because not enough progressives are jazzed to vote because they’re not seeing enough progressive stuff happening, and it will result in a Republican teabagger going to the Senate…which will mean Obama has to make sure health care = accepting the Senate bill exactly as it is. So the end result of not supporting anything but the ideal = the opposite of the ideal.

    I worry about placing such a priority on gay-rights issues. I don’t think it’s wrong for us to fight like hell for progress, but to use that as a litmus test on if the president or the Democrats are worth electing is dangerous unless you’re a gay person whose only progressive trait is in thinking that gay people are normal and deserve rights. Because not supporting the imperfect Democratic party = indirectly supporting the Republicans, who WILL keep pushing for a Constitutional amendment, especially if this year the Court decides in our favor.

    For me, the solution is to criticize the Democrats and to not support any conservatives (Democrats included). More and better Democrats and/or liberal Independents.

  21. says

    Re the Johnson comments, maybe I’m ignorant of the facts, but I had always been under the impression that Johnson did not run because he did not feel he could win based on his popularity at the time?

    And you’re right regarding Republicans. In those days, the parties were not as unified. Or I should say, the Republicans were not monolithic. (The Democrats still are not, which is unfortunate when a Democrat is president and it’s his initiatives that are being screwed over.)

    But part of my point is: The president has to work with these people. I guess the criticism of him being weak comes into play in that he COULD be bullying these people a lot more, leaking things to the press to pressure them, etc. Unfortunately, he doesn’t seem to be built that way. I think back to when I was supporting Hillary and that was one reason for it; I liked the idea of someone who would be shamelessly Democratic, the perfect antidote to Bush. Fighting fire with fire. That is still one of her best traits, and one that might or might not be called upon. (If Obama has shit ratings a year and a half from now, will he really run again? I really don’t know.)

    For the person who said it was said when the Secretary of State is more popular than the prez…that is hardly unusual. Rice was far more popular than Bush. It’s a position that is much easier to do without controversy because you’re being a statesman and not having to get your hands dirty in legislation battles. Not that I take it away from her—she’s been great.

  22. gaylib says

    Matthew, until we do apply a litmus test we will continue to be ignored. It took boycotts and sit ins to ramp up the civil rights movement in the 60’s. Until complacent gays like you join the rest of us in just saying no to lying politicians like Obama we will get nowhere. you’re analysis that not voting Dem=supporting Repubs is simply not true and is exactly the kind of propaganda that the dems use to keep us afraid and in line. And Jelly bean–before you start throwing around accusations of racism, how about you check your own rampant sexism. You’re nothing but a loud mouthed hypocrite.

  23. says

    gaylib: how is ‘not voting Dem’ NOT supporting Republicans? that just makes no sense. i totally agree we need to be supporting the liberal Dems over the Blue Dogs, but any vote that doesn’t go to the Dems in the voting booth, is a + in the Republican column. how do you see it the other way? you can’t possibly feel we’d be better off under the Republicans, ANY republican.

  24. gaylib says

    Casey I don’t know how to make it any more simple for you. Voting for a party that plays on our fears and feeds us the same propaganda that you’re spreading here does not deserve the support of our community. That doesn’t mean that you have to vote republican. If you vote only out of fear of the alternative then I feel sorry for you. I’m not afraid to withold my vote from people who lie to me and make empty promises, regardless of the consequences. There are alternatives to further our civil rights, including boycotting the party who has continually used us only to ignore us once elected. it’s called holding your elected officials accountable. That’s what democracy is all about. You may be afraid of the Republicans, but I’m not. I’m pissed as hell and I’m not going to support anyone who doesn’t support me, period.

  25. Jersey says

    I agree with the stop voting for dems crowd. I’ll not be falling for their bullshit any longer either. If they want to block repubs getting back in then they better start REALLY giving me reason to vote for them.

  26. Marcel says

    The “analysis that not voting Dem=supporting Repubs is simply not true and is exactly the kind of propaganda that the dems use to keep us afraid and in line.”

    “Voting for a party that plays on our fears and feeds us the same propaganda that you’re spreading here does not deserve the support of our community.”

    And there you have it. 100% agreed. AMEN!

  27. Charles Rice-Gonzalez says

    Would love to see Jane go at it with Wanda Sykes. Interesting how differently the perspectives of a white lesbian and black lesbian can be about gay issues and all the issues affecting us and Obama’s first year in office.

    I not only listen to what is being said, but who is saying it. And how does what is being said serve who is saying it.

    So, we may all get riled up and respond to a posting, but as a community, I hope that our/your actions don’t end with a posting on a blog or website, but also extend into activity locally and nationally.

    There is no way a president or leader can affect change without action and activity on the ground level, but things like the Equality bus, and being out in our communities for those of us who don’t move to gay ghettos, and being involved with local gay initiatives, and owning that we are just like straight people in some ways and absolutely different in others, can cause change that supports the efforts and decisions of our leaders. It wasn’t leaders who stopped many of the Gay Marriage referendums, it was voters. So, the argument or tactic that “we are just like you” is not going over and it doesn’t matter how many long term committed relationships we have or how many children we have or adopt.

    So we do have to hold our leaders accountable, from Obama to Senators, Mayors and local elected officials, but we also have to look at ourselves, value all the parts (the “like them” and “unlike them” parts) and ask what are we doing, what are you doing to affect change for the LGBT community?

  28. says

    OK. let’s just say you don’t vote for the Dems. what is the obvious outcome in our 2 party system? do you really think we’ll be better off under the Republicans? i’d rather have a party in office that does NOTHING for us, than a party that actively seeks to wipe us off the face of the earth. can i make that any more simple for you? do you seriously think a LIbertarian or a Green Party candidate will ever win office in the next 50 years?

    if we had a ‘no confidence’ vote, i’d be right there with you, but we don’t.

  29. Marcel says

    “OK. let’s just say you don’t vote for the Dems. what is the obvious outcome in our 2 party system? do you really think we’ll be better off under the Republicans?” …

    See, now this is the argument that really gets under my skin. “You don’t like the Democrats, but where else can you go? The Republicans?”

    That is exactly the same bullshit the Obama campaign pulled on the Hillary supporters after she suspended her campaign in June 2008, and unfortunately it worked. Now, it’s the same song and dance in the run-up to 2012. “Where else can you go?”

    At what point do we decide when enough is enough and we stop settling for the best of the worst?

    The way I see it, the Obama Democrats are just as bad the Republicans because they refuse to do anything with their majorities in Congress and their hold of the White House. They are certainly going to lose their stronghold in either or both the House and Senate this year, so then what?

    Obama refused to even squeak out a word of support against Prop 8 after he’d clinched the nomination, and let the campaigns for equality slide into the gutter without acknowledgement in New York state and New Jersey and Rhode Island. Where’s the “fierce” advocacy for our rights in those situations? Is he even going to speak up for the upcoming trial in California?

    I was a Hillary supporter but I switched to Obama soon after she endorsed him, giving hundreds of dollars to his campaign to beat the sh** out of McCain/Palin. Not gonna make that mistake again. He has to get his shit together in the next 2 years before Nov. 4, 2012, no ifs and buts, or “when he gets reelected” nonsense. No more.

  30. crispy says

    Jelly Bean said: “STUPID BITCH She’ll never be a screen actress neither!”

    Julie & Julia
    For Your Consideration
    Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby
    The 40-Year-Old Virgin
    A Mighty Wind
    Best in Show

  31. DJ says

    God, once again all the fucking bitching, whining and complaining about Obama.


    Yes, it of course would better if Obama spoke out and did more. But it isn’t just up to him and people need to take action now and not depend on one person to solve their problems.

    Enough is enough!

  32. says

    but Marcel, i’m not trying to be difficult, you STILL haven’t given an alternative. i totally agree with you about Obama, and candidates in general, but if your alternative is to simply not vote at all, then you deserve whatever you get. i’m not willing to let some teabagger vote for me. i’d rather feel like i had at least cancelled out one of their votes.

    am i missing something? all i hear is NO. just like the Republicans.

    i get you’re mad at the Dems. i do, i really do. but WHAT IS YOUR ALTERNATIVE? GIVE ME A CONCRETE EXAMPLE.

  33. Jersey says

    The dems aren’t going to change and actually do anything for us, and don’t give me any shit about we need to do stuff, I’ve been doing stuff for 25 years, until they realize we aren’t voting for them anymore because they don’t hold up their end of the bargain. They’ll start treating us with respect when they have to come crawling back with tails between their legs because they’ve lost to repubs for a while. They are already going to get trounced in 2010 and I suspect 2012 because of their complete suck-dom on issues from job creation, banking reform, rolling back abortion rights via health-care not to mention gay issues. Fuck them for lying to us in their campaigns. Toss the liars out.

  34. says

    “toss the liars out”

    do you remember the 2000-2008 period? do you remember the 1980-1992 period?

    again, and for the last time, i’m all for trying to get the most liberal and intelligent dems to run for office we can during the primary process, but once that’s over with, and a candidate is chosen, i’m sure as hell not going to vote for a Republican that will try to turn back the clock on every progressive legislation we have. i’m 52 and don’t have the time for another few cycles in order to cut off my nose to spite my face.

    have a good day.

  35. nic says

    obama and the dems have been ineffectual. when repugs controlled the agenda, they were relentless. the dems, though in power, have let the repugs control the conversation. this makes no sense. if obama new about leadership, he would have kicked the repugs in the stomach when they were groveling. instead, he has allowed them to recover. and, the control of both houses is in the balance. that’s why i say that hillary who knows about hard-scrabble fights would have better maneuvered through the miasma left by bush/cheney and the repugs. again, obama is all bark and no bite. he needs to man up, already. i am tired of dems being effete and fey.

    the dems should have kicked joe lieberman to the curb and let the repugs have their way with him. they should have let nelson and other conservative/centrist dems to twist in the wind. that’s how the repugs do it. win or lose, the dems have to acknowledge their power. otherwise, the voters will roundly reject the democratic party and harvard professor barack obama in 2010 and 2012.

  36. says

    First off, I LOVE Jane Lynch and I’m thrilled she speaks her mind, critics de damned. That’s probably what I love the most about her.

    Now, MARCEL: You said …

    “That is exactly the same bullshit the Obama campaign pulled on the Hillary supporters after she suspended her campaign in June 2008, and unfortunately

  37. Marcel says

    @ Casey: Unfortunately, there is no alternative. We’re in a lose-lose situation from my point of view. I certainly understand that Obama’s only been in office a year and I understand that he’s got a lot on his plate. But he was supposed to be the candidate of CHANGE — and he sold himself to us that way — and with that comes the responsibility of affecting REAL change.

    He said many times that he wasn’t afraid of being a one-term president if he could enforce real change to improve our country from the debacle of the previous 8 years. I don’t see that happening right now. If he hasn’t stopped campaigning from 2008, he’s already begun his campaign for 2012 by trying to walk both sides of the aisle on all issues, incld, health reform and equality for all. He’s still trying to make Republicans happy, but at the cost of alienating and pissing on the people who helped him win.

    If he is a true Democrat and meant what he said about not being afraid, he should have flipped off the GOP and blue dog democrats and got the ball rolling on REAL health care reform /w a robust government public option to ensure maximum universal coverage of the population. The public option is now just two meaningless words in the health reform debate.

    If he is a true Democrat and meant what he said about not being afraid, he should have flipped off the GOP and blue dog democrats and got the ball rolling on REAL equality for all Americans. He should have stated his positions on Prop 8, and the campaigns in NY, NJ and RI. He should have already released a statement calling for the reinstatement of marriage equality in CA ahead of the trial.

    In my 2nd post, I stated clearly that I am still giving the admin. and Congressional Dems up until the 2012 election to get it right … particularly on these 2 issues. What good is a Democratic White House and government if all it does it pay lip service to the people who voted them in?

  38. ZnSD says

    Marcel and Casey raise interesting points but I have to say: given the option of voting for a republican who is most likely going to try to take away my rights (or at least support those who do) versus a democrat who may do nothing either way or the “alternative” which is throw my vote away on a 3rd party dream candidate, I’ll vote democrat every time, and then continue to be involved in politics at the local level. Marcel, I agree with some of your points but Casey has the reality check. Point to Casey in this little debate boys.

  39. says

    Sorry, the first post got cut off.

    Now, MARCEL: You said …

    “That is exactly the same bullshit the Obama campaign pulled on the Hillary supporters after she suspended her campaign in June 2008, and unfortunately it worked.”

    The word “unfortunate” says you think we’d be better of with a McCain/Palin adminstration. Really?

    I too expected miracles mere seconds after Obama hit the White House, that he’d spew executive orders and the dark Bush clouds would part and rainbow jellybeans would fall from the sky.

    I was naive, bordering on stupid.

    As Matthew eloquently said, and you Marcel accidentally made clear, pouting at Dem inaction, will certainly put PALINesque candidates in office.

    There is no other alternative. It seems to me you think we can punish the Dems (by not voting for them) without tacitly supporting Republicans. How exactly does this magic trick work? Because I can see Republicans reading this and grinning all over themselves.

    It won’t work. It’s a cutting off your nose to piss off your face situation. Voting for good Dems isn’t settling for the best of the worst, it’s saying HELL NO to the worst, which – if you’ve been paying attention to the rise of the nutjobs – is getting scarier by the second. Rhetoric like yours is making them all gleeful. Believe that.

    Now, the Dems do need a kick in the ass. They need to find their balls. I even advocate civil disobedience – unjust laws and all that. But just because you’re pissed at Obama – who’s only in his first year and dealing with repubs unified against his every move, a few smarmy Dems who nullify the majority, and countless other matters on the plate of the leader of the free world – calling for us to withhold our vote from all Dems in the coming mid-terms is naive, bordering on stupid.

    That is, of course, if full equality is our goal. If not, then sit home and don’t vote, or write in Fred Flintstone – he’d have as good a chance as any other candidate who isn’t a Dem or a Repub.


    Isn’t it odd that for all the millions we’ve spent on campaigning and consultants, Jane is the only one (besides some bloggers) who has publicly noted that we’ve been turned into the wrong tunnel. I can’t think of another minority in America that has won their civil rights because the majority has approved of what they do in bed. I wonder what part of the Constitution we’re in now, Toto. You’d almost think we didn’t know what we were doing.

  41. John says

    Gee, Jellybean is so eloquent! NOT!

    The fact remains that the Obama Administration is turning out to be a disappointment on many levels including support of the GLBT community.

    It is also true that if civil rights for African Americans had been subject to a vote it would never have passed. Once the Supreme Court was thought of as the protector of minority rights. However, even that branch of government has become so politicized that it is simply a mirror of bigotry.

  42. says

    Matthew: LBJ chose not to run for reelection in 1968 SOLELY because of the unpopularity of his support for the Vietnam War [which Martin Luther King, Jr., had also attacked]. By then, he had triumphed over the opposition to his support for black civil rights and that and his creation of the “Great Society” programs [War on Poverty, Medicare, Medicaid, NEA] many of which particularly helped blacks economically, made him a hero to both blacks and pro civil rights whites. But, sadly, he’s more superficially remembered for his being driven out of office by his support for the war.

    As for Jane Lynch vs. Wanda Sykes, not only do I see no reason to bring racial differences to the discussion which is unnecessary generally and misleading specifically as it suggests no blacks, gay or straight, are disappointed in Obama which could not be further from the truth.

    And unless Sykes has said something radically different from the October quote below, her position is not, in fact, that far from that of Lynch who, I’d venture, would agree with Sykes’ qualifiers:

    : “As far as with gay rights, yeah, [Obama is] failing on that. But I grade him overall … I’m just as concerned with our country as a whole. … The LGBT community doesn’t really want to be at the back of the line, but as long as we’re in the line. … For me to slap him about for not moving ahead on gay rights, that’s like somebody giving you CPR, and you going, ‘Ooh, your breath stinks.’ I’m just grateful that the country is still surviving. … To me, he’s doing a great job. I really believe that eventually he’ll get to the other issues with gay rights.” – Sykes.

  43. TANK says

    The color of obama’s skin is of secondary importance to the office he holds. This is of much more importance in highlighting the racism of the republicans and pundits, not in serious political discussion (which most republicans have removed themselves from). He does represent all americans, after all. Including the politically “inconvenient” ones, like lgbt americans who pay taxes and voted for him. His healthcare “reform” package is another epic letdown, and let’s not talk about the rubinite assholes he appointed to oversee the bailouts like tim geithner. He fucked up in afghanistan by sending more troops to a hopeless situation, and iraq has no real timeline. Just a let down all around. Apparently his candidacy and now presidency can be viewed thus far (he’s got time left to change things dramatically, but that’s not the track record for presidents who basically do so little in the beginning) as lipstick on a pig.

    The only way things get done is if you’re a selfish voter. That’s what I’ll be. I’ll be a one issue selfish voter because that’s the way to effect change. If inclusive ENDA doesn’t pass and DADT isn’t repealed by the time he’s up for reelection, I’m voting third party, and I hope every sensible lgbt american out there will follow suit.

  44. TANK says

    And to the schmucks out there repeating that he’s better than mccain, and better than bush…he’s better than hitler, too. Does that make him good? And we do have a choice.

  45. Jersey says

    Casey, keep voting the way you’ve been and in 20 years, at 72 you still won’t have shit because the dems are gonna fuck you everytime because they know they can get away with it. Dems don’t do shit for gay people, Clinton gave us DOMA and DADT and we’ve had majorities in both houses of congress and ENDA is moving nowhere under this administration. You are being suckered beyond belief.

  46. Marcel says


    You wrote, “The word “unfortunate” says you think we’d be better of with a McCain/Palin adminstration. Really?”

    Um, no, I did not mean or say that. Please read my comments carefully before you misrepresent/misunderstand what I am saying. If I thought that we’d be better off with McCain/Palin, why would I have contributed hundreds of dollars to the Obama campaign to defeat them (as I stated clearly in one of my comments)? I might as well have set my hard-earned monthly checks ablaze.

    You wrote, “It seems to me you think we can punish the Dems (by not voting for them) without tacitly supporting Republicans. How exactly does this magic trick work?”

    See, now that is a new alternative way of the “Where else will you go?” line that Obama Democrats will throw around in the next two years — “Punish Obama/the Democrats by withholding your vote and it’s a vote in the Republican column.” Oh please, save it!

    I’m so over these scare tactics that Democrats have found to work, which are strangely similar to the scare tactics that W. Bush used re: national security for his reelection in 2004. If Republicans win in 2012, then so be it. Maybe it’ll be the wake up call that Democrats need because they had it so easy after 2008.

    Democrats squandered away their House/Senate majorities and White House rule, bending over to the demands of the Republicans and Democrats-In-Name-Only on health care etc. and failing to address, once and for all, the human rights of the LGBT in their party…

    My comments here are not to seek points with or against anyone here. Every one of you is entitled to an opinion, as am I. And finally…

    TAYLOR SILUWE, you wrote, “But just because you’re pissed at Obama … calling for us to withhold our vote from all Dems in the coming mid-terms is naive, bordering on stupid.”

    I did not call for anyone to do anything. Your vote is your vote, and you are free to do as you wish with it. My vote is mine. I will not vote blindly in lockstep with the Democrats just because my overall philosophy aligns with them. I will not waste anymore of my money on them or the gay-rights groups (e.g. HRC or GLAAD) that are supposed to fight for our rights and cause, but have sat quietly on the side or endorsed every non-action and inaction of the DNC and Obama administration. That is all.

  47. says

    @ JERSEY: WHAT IS THE FUCKING REAL LIFE ALTERNATIVE VOTE FOR ELECTED OFFICE IN THE USA RIGHT NOW??????? if you really think life sucks so much under a Democrat, then go vote Republican, or throw away your vote on a 3rd party like Tank is going to do. i’m flummoxed at the absolutel lack of reality in many of the posts here, by you and others. i’m not in love with the Dems, but i sure as hell will never, NEVER vote for a Republican. have you read their party platform? how was your gay life better under Bush? as a gay man in Rhode Island how his life is better under their Republican Governor. Ask any gay man in Maine right now, or any gay man in any of the 30 states that have voted our rights away. i seriously wonder what your possible motivation could be in thinking that a party that sends back campaign contributions from the Log Cabin Gays, will do ANYTHING POSITIVE for YOU. personally i’d love to have about 25 parties, all with different platforms, we could pick and choose from and vote for a coalition government, but we don’t. we have a REAL FUCKING CHOICE of Dem or Rep. if you, like Tank, will vote for a third party on principal, then you WILL elect a Republican. the third party ALWAYS takes away votes from the incumbency. i know. look how well the 3rd party candidate worked out in my state of Connecticut. LIEBERFUCKINGMAN.

  48. says

    lol, OK, my last point got jumbled a bit. LIeberman WAS the incumbent, but switched to the 3rd party after he failed to win the Democratic Primary. my point is still that USUALLY, third party candidates do not win, and end up taking away votes from the party in power. just to clear.

  49. Jersey says

    Casey, do what you want, I’ve had it with them making promises and then ignoring us, or in Obama’s case actually hurting us. He is actually fighting a court order requiring him to provide benefits to the partner of a lesbian employee. He is no friend to us.

  50. TANK says

    Casey, calm yourself. You are the fearful voter that any politician would love, regardless of party affiliation. How else but through votes do you hope to hold democrats accountable? There is no way to hold the party at large accountable according to your sloppy arguments. It’s the minority’s plight, innit darlin’? LOL!

    And I disagree that a vote for a third party is a vote for the republican candidate. It’s a vote for a third party candidate, and moreso means that the two parties in charge are not viable options for an ever increasing portion of the population. This puts pressure on them to woo voters through more than doubetalk. That’s called an incentive, and is the only thing a human being responds to. It’s all cost benefit analysis, and some people are worse at it than others. When such an incentive is created, magically…change is in the air! LOL! The problem with a lot of people who wish to extend that notion to everything is that they have low IQ’s… In an age of ever shrinking margins of victory, it smells a lot like defeat. Duverger’s law not withstanding, if third options are to ever be a reality (to subsume the failed party and become the counterpart of the two party system that is a stochastic inevitability of winner take all), they need to start somewhere. IF you’re dissatisfied with the ONE party containing participants espousing different rhetoric, then voice your discontent by voting third party. Not only can it happen, it has happened.

    Now shaddup, casey! Before I smight you with more hard edged argumentation.

  51. says


    You said, and more than once I might add “I’m so over these scare tactics that Democrats have found to work.”

    The Kings of fear, fear, terror, terror is not the DEMS. They are not the ones running around claiming that Obama has made us less safe, sending out NYC ex mayor Fooliani to make outrageous claims that Bush never had any terror after 9/11. Huge lie. Huge.

    The DEMS aren’t running around (as we speak) making hay and campaign donations blatantly off the fouled panty bomber.

    Democratic fear tactics? Come again.

    And I didn’t misinterpret what you said, maybe you, as Fooliani claims, made a mistake. Exact quote:

    “That is exactly the same bullshit the Obama campaign pulled on the Hillary supporters after she suspended her campaign in June 2008, and unfortunately it worked.”

    “AFTER she suspended her campaign”. So, the only thing I can conclude that “unfortunately it worked” could mean is that he won, or got her supporters in his corner. Same deal.

    Give money to McCain much?

  52. Chitown Kev says

    Uh, excuse me but whoever made the Wanda Sykes comment, Sykes has criticized Obama on gay rights issue. And one of the most outspoken straight people on Obama’s neglect of gay issues has been Whoopi Goldberg.

  53. Marcel says

    TAYLOR SILUWE, you wrote: “AFTER she suspended her campaign’. So, the only thing I can conclude that “unfortunately it worked” could mean is that he won, or got her supporters in his corner. Same deal. Give money to McCain much?”

    NO! It is NOT the same deal. You are once again twisting my words to suit your own argument. When I said “unfortunately it worked,” the “it” I was referring to was the Obama campaign’s spiel: “Where else will they [the Hillary supporters] go? The Republicans?”

    Since he was the only Democrat left after she suspended her campaign, her supporters had no other Democrat to consider as their candidate. We know that a significant portion of her 17 million+ supporters ended up voting for him (I was one of them) through exit polls. So, the “scare tactic” spiel unfortunately worked on me and the millions of other Hillary supporters who turned out to vote for him.

    That same scare tactic is being used now on the LGBT community for 2012. Do you understand?

    If after that explanation, you still believe that I gave money to the McCain campaign (I did not) or that I’m a Republican sympathizer (I am not), then so be it. I’m done with this debate.

  54. says

    Cool Marcel,

    I never thought you gave money to McCain. That was an unfortunate last minute bit of cattiness that I rethought seconds after I clicked post.

    Still, my original point remains. Your sentence did say, to me at least, that if it (scare tactics) had not worked (which would have been fortunate, you suggested), then Hillary supporters like yourself would not have supported Obama. And the end result of that could have been a McCain/Palin administration.

    So naturally I assumed you’d be happier today with a VP who could see Russia from the White House, and evil gay agendas popping up all over the country.

  55. says

    EXCUSE me Tank, i sit at my keyboard for approximately 16 hours a day, between my work and my art. if i make the occasional typo, like principal vs principle. EXCUSE THE FUCK OUT OF ME. i certainly know the difference, but thank you so much for being petty enough to point it out. you must have some Republican blood in you to sidestep the actual point of what i was saying with some pissant comment like that. why don’t you be really clever and observant and tell me i don’t capitalize the first word in most of my sentences.

    you still don’t seem to realize that a vote for a 3rd party is not a real vote. you know damn well in a Presidential election, a 3rd party is not going to win in our lifetime. never. going. to. happen. so go ahead and throw away your vote. you’ll deserve a President Palin or a Vice President Bachmann.

  56. Jellybean says

    Okay Kids,
    Thanks for correcting me on the movie credits. Like I really care.

    There is nothing wrong with criticizing Pres Obama. But alot of you on here did NOT support Obama. And yet you have a fit because everytime somebody bashes our community. Here we go with Obama has done nothing. As if you the gay person suppose to snap your finger and he (Obama)moves…SORRY GIRLS NOT HAPPENING!

    Since when you do you feel entitled that he put his life and career on the line for us Bill didn’t do it, Neither Bush’s did it. And you seem to be okay with that.
    So why him?????

    You gurls are still screaming Hillary and yet she does NOT support Gay Marriage PERIOD!…REPEAT DOES NOT SUPPORT IT so wherever in your Malice in Wonderland hearts that you really believes that if she was President now we would have advanced further…. NOT!

    So to see a bunch of Gay celebrities in the spotlight keep screaming and complaining about Obama. Maybe the motherfuckers themselves NEED TO DO SOMETHING.Get the fuck off of your cushion and do something where it counts.

    And to the one who mentioned about Civil Rights. That Act is for everyone at that time who wasn’t a CAUCASIAN MALE to have the same protections as them including us Gays so stop saying the Civil Rights Act was only for Blacks. No some of them sacrificed for all who could’nt.

    And you’re also right if it was left up to White America we would’nt have them. That’s why they did go to the courts. And maybe that what needs to be done here.Even though some groups have they now need to do it in a more robust way.

    All this Obama hating get over it. If you want other then in 2012 vote for other. He hasn’t put himself on the line for The African American, Hispanic, or Asian Communities.
    So why would you think he’d do it for the Gay Community?

    Stop pussy whinning and make a difference yourselves. Only we can do that.

    Happy Glee Year Gurls!!!

  57. TANK says

    “you still don’t seem to realize that a vote for a 3rd party is not a real vote. you know damn well in a Presidential election, a 3rd party is not going to win in our lifetime. never. going. to. happen. so go ahead and throw away your vote. you’ll deserve a President Palin or a Vice President Bachmann.”

    But it’s not. It creates an incentive to correct stagnation in both parties to lure voters back. Now your line is that no person who would vote third party in this context would vote republican. So be it. If it results in republican victories, that means that the democrats need to go back to the drawing board and reassess their principles. I don’t have a problem with that if it’s a corrective. It’s the cost of the democratic process. And I you’re greatly underestimated the number of former republicans who are now democrats–and this trend is continuing as the republican party becomes more radically unhinged. This is a third party opportunity as well. But citizens should vote for who they think is best suited for the job in representing them, not who they think will win nor even the lesser of two evils. In the latter scenario, everyone loses in the long run. But if things continue as they are, everyone’s going to lose anyway.

    But thanks, casey, for demonstrating how a meme protects itself, and sustains voting trends.

  58. says

    When I became disenchanted with the politics of my state, I got involved. I now hold regular meetings with the top politicians in my state and they know that the progressives here expect them to attend to our needs and desires (LGBT and straight)if they want to stay in office.

    I suggest those of you who don’t like Obama or anyone else to do what I did.

    Get involved.

  59. Chitown Kev says

    Let me combine a few analyses here.

    The problem here is that most of the time, people only think of third parties in presidential election years. The important thing with third parties is to vote for third party candidates for this year and to vote for the dog catcher if you have to. From. the. ground. up.

  60. Shelby02 says

    Why does the gay community act as if you should be in the front of the line on all the issues Obama has to address? Fact is a lot of you supported Hillary and are just bandwaggoners with Obama, so get in line like the rest of us! Let the man serve his first term before ranting about what he hasn’t done for you. All this whining is not helping the cause and it comes of as being selfish.

    Just watching what this President has to go through with healthcare reform and the negativity by some in this nation as a result of it speaks volumes..he cannot do all of these issues at once. Will you whiners have his back when the backlash happens behind gay issues? Or will you just pat him on the back for fulfilling your agenda and move on to the next thing to complain about? Whats more of a dissappointment is some of you who act like you cant wait past a year for him to fulfill your wishes. Get a grip! Nothing would make me happier then to witness equal rights for all, but there are a lot of people demanding a lot of things of Obama. When the gay rights issue comes up, you folks better have this Presidents back and be ready to fight for what you believe in, because right now all some of you look like is a bunch of complainers like the rest of them.

  61. Shelby02 says

    “He said many times that he wasn’t afraid of being a one-term president if he could enforce real change to improve our country from the debacle of the previous 8 years. I don’t see that happening right now. If he hasn’t stopped campaigning from 2008, he’s already begun his campaign for 2012 by trying to walk both sides of the aisle on all issues, incld, health reform and equality for all”.

    ^ So basically just as long as some of you get your way it doesn’t matter what happens to this President? Your comment just basically proves my point…that just as long as the gay community gets their way, they could care less what happens with this President. A real shame and very telling.

    Just in case some people missed the point of the campaign, ‘change’ is supposed to start with us…it starts from the bottom up. No one man can bring change on his own…the dissappointment lies in the fact that Americans have yet to grasp the concept of his campaigned, and assumed that he was the only one supposed to bring about change with a nation filled with greed and ignorance.

  62. Jane Roe says

    I understand criticizing Obama over his inaction on many important gay rights issue, but offering the Clintons as a counterpoint? To quote Seth Meyers and Any Poehler, “Really?!?!”

    You bitter, bitter PUMAS lose all credibility with that one. Yes, Obama has not moved to repeal DADT and DOMA and his inaction is shameful, but these are two laws that the Big Dawg signed. He could have vetoed them, perhaps Congress would have overridden them, perhaps not. But the message would have been important. Instead, he signed them.

    And just to rub a little more salt, Hillary Clinton, who does not support gay marriage, will never ever be president.

  63. kim says

    @onyxesq: actually, she’s much more than a second-rate actor. she’s excellent, and she makes everything she’s in better by virtue of her talent. so if the rest of what you have to say is as innaccurate and simply an expression of bile, it’s not worth the paper it ain’t printed on.

Leave A Reply