Why We Need Obama: LGBT Issues

Showing posts with label LGBT Issues. Show all posts

Wednesday, November 5, 2008

Fear and Loathing in California

I am still elated about the election of Barack Obama to the Presidency and will be heading off to bed soon.

However, before we all recline to our laurels and congratulate ourselves too much, bear in mind that the Mormon Church-funded constitutional amendment in California to strip loving gay couples of their right to marry currently looks close to passing.

We still have a long way to go in this country to eliminating irrational bigotry from our lives.

Monday, October 20, 2008

Palin Wants Nationwide Gay Marriage Ban

Sarah Palin has again plopped herself far to the right of even John McCain. In a recent interview, she revealed that she supports a federal amendment to the Constitution to ban gay marriage:

I am, in my own, state, I have voted along with the vast majority of Alaskans who had the opportunity to vote to amend our Constitution defining marriage as between one man and one woman. I wish on a federal level that that's where we would go because I don't support gay marriage.

Sunday, September 7, 2008

Sullivan: The Recklessness of John McCain

Ok, so I have to admit it. I am little bit in love with Andrew Sullivan. Beyond his dashing bald pate and bearish good looks, he has a razor-sharp wit and an incisive insight into the American electoral process that, unfortunately, can only seem to come from a commentator not of original American birth. His latest piece in the Times Online only makes me more enamored:

What we have learned about John McCain from his selection of Sarah Palin is that he is as impulsive and reckless a decision-maker as George W. Bush...

So last week, McCain picked someone he had only met once before. I repeat: he picked someone he had only met once before. His vetting chief sat Palin down for a face-to-face interview the Wednesday before last. It's very hard to overstate how nutty and irresponsible this is. Would any corporate chieftain pick a number two on those grounds and not be dismissed by his board for recklessness?...

Who does John McCain think he's kidding? And what on earth was he thinking? This was a rash, impulsive, reckless pick. We have no idea where it's headed - and i wouldn't hazard a wild guess what we will have found out about Palin in a week's time. Maybe it will win some votes from evangelicals...

If you thought a president who went to war on flawed intelligence with no plan for the aftermath was reckless, then I have news for you. You haven't seen anything yet. Imagine the kind of decision-making McCain has just demonstrated applied to life-and-death decisions with respect to Iran and Russia.

Yes, you have permission to be afraid.

Read the Whole Article Here

Wednesday, September 3, 2008

McCain to Open Culture War Floodgates

Wow, I just read one of the most disturbing articles in recent memory over on the Huffington Post that outlined, in frightening detail, the culture war flashpoint strategy that McCain will need to employ to win the election. I encourage you to read it, if only to recognize some of the unreal irrationalism that will be thrown at us for the next two months:

John McCain's convention gambit is now a culture war strategy. It depends for its execution on conflict with journalists, and with bloggers (the "angry left," Bush called them last night) along with confusion between and among the press, the blogosphere, and the Democratic party. It revives cultural memory: the resentment narrative after Chicago '68 but with the angry left more distributed. It dispenses with issues and seeks a trial of personalities. It bets big time on backlash.

At the center of the strategy is the flashpoint candidacy of Sarah Palin, a charismatic figure around whom the war can be brought to scale, as it were. In fact the Politico is reporting just that: Palin reignites culture wars.
I have no idea if the ignition system will work; nor do I claim that "this is what they were thinking" when they made the decision to nominate Alaska Governor Sarah Palin. Other interpretations may turn out to be truer than mine. This post is my look at the bets McCain and company seem to be placing. I am not recommending the strategy. I am not predicting it will succeed. I think it was improvised, like my description here...

Read the Whole Article

Friday, August 15, 2008

Support California Marriage Equality

If, like me, you believe that marriage discrimination against gay couples is abhorrent and unconstitutional, please support the effort to defeat the California constitutional amendment to invalidate existing, and prohibit future, marriages between two loving partners.

Donate Now!

Friday, July 4, 2008

Obama - A Candidate We Can Have Pride In

Bob Ceska sums up part of my feelings over the last few weeks:

What attracted me to Senator Obama's candidacy wasn't that he was going to evolve into some kind of liberal messiah who I would agree with all the time. He never really made any promises of that sort, and it was clear -- especially to Kucinich and Edwards supporters -- that Senator Obama wasn't entirely in line with what are generally considered to be netroots or progressive causes. Rather, he's always been the pragmatic liberal whose every slogan and statement -- often employing the collective pronoun "we" -- seeks common ground between deep blue and blood red. He's the liberal who this week, while simultaneously reaching out to evangelical voters, issued an unequivocal statement of opposition against any constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage. That's textbook Obama.

After I read the letter of support he sent to the Alice B. Toklas LGBT Democratic Club, I remembered why I chose to support the senator's campaign -- and why it evolved into an enthusiasm for a politician that I've never quite experienced in my adult life. So why then...? In the simplest terms possible, choosing to support Senator Obama has never been about issues, but rather, it's always been about, 1) electing a thoughtful, smart president we can reference with pride -- a president who won't flatly embarrass us every damn day, and 2) electing a president who can inspire and negotiate the necessary support he'll need to roll back the darkness of the Bush years.

Friday, June 27, 2008

Marriage Amendment - More Republican Comedy

Republicans are up to their old tricks again. A group of Republicans introduced the anti-gay marriage Federal Marriage Amendment in the Senate this week.

You know what the funniest part is?

Most of the [sponsors] are predictable — Brownback and Inhofe, for example — but there are two others whose names stand out: Sens. David Vitter (R-La.) and Larry Craig (R-Idaho).

Yes, two of the principal sponsors of a constitutional amendment to “protect” marriage include one far-right Republican who hired prostitutes and another far-right Republican who was arrested for soliciting gay sex an airport men’s room.

We really need to turn the page on this kind of buffoonery.

Obama on the Death Penalty

I know some people are upset by Obama's statement today on the death penalty for child rapists but I agree with him and his position is not recent:

Obama's support for the execution of child rapists wasn't invented for the presidential election; it dates back to The Audacity of Hope, where he wrote:
"While the evidence tells me that the death penalty does little to deter crime, I believe there are some crimes--mass murder, the rape and murder of a child--so heinous, so beyond the pale, that the community is justified in expressing the full measure of its outrage by meting out the ultimate punishment."
His longstanding opinion on the death penalty is a particularly nuanced one. He has opposed expanding the death penalty to include gang activity, for example, on the grounds that it would disproportionately punish men of color, but he supports the execution of especially egregious murderers who are clearly guilty.

Friday, May 30, 2008

Bill O'Reilly on Gay Marriage

It's not what you think. Bill O had some everyday gay marriage opposer on his show the other day. And, guess what? Neither of them could think up a good reason to oppose gay marriage. And, to boot, Bill O was the one to take the guy to task for not having ~~a decent~~ any justification! Am I in the Twilight Zone?

Saturday, April 12, 2008

Unrepentant Philly Gay News Keeps on the Attack

Well, not that I expected any better, but the Philadelphia Gay News, which ran a silly Obama hit piece alongside an interview with Clinton last week, continues to try to paint Obama in an unflattering light.

Last week, contrary to the PGN's claim that Obama is "avoiding" the gay press, Obama sat down for a frank discussion with the nationally distributed LGBT magazine The Advocate. Well, I guess that just wasn't enough for publisher Mark Penn and his local bar rag.

His primary thesis appears to be that local gay publications are the only ones that count. He even makes the absurd and unsupportable claim that "Only the local gay press will ask detailed questions." Seriously. This guy has been drinking his own Kool-Aid for a bit too long.

Two things to take heart in:

1) He published my letter to the editor (see below), and
2) His column was infinitely less credible than his last, as he came off very defensive and infused with a sense of petulant, offended entitlement (see farther below for my most recent email to him).

Published Letter to the Editor:

Dear Mr. Segal and Ms. Blazucki,

I read today your article in the Philadelphia Gay News entitled "Clinton Talks; Obama Balks" and the accompanying editorial "Letter to a Candidate". After reading these, I felt compelled to write to tell you how dismayed I was see such slanted and accusatorial coverage.

Under the auspices of writing an article about your interview with Hillary Clinton, you take great pains to cast Barack Obama in a very unflattering light.

This is especially troubling, considering the fact that Mr. Segal is a donor to the Clinton campaign. You failed to disclose this important fact in your article and, as a result, unsuspecting readers might think that this article was an unbiased piece of journalism, rather than a slanted missive penned by someone who donated at least $1,000 to the Clinton campaign.

I consider Senator Barack Obama to be an amazing advocate for LGBT issues. Senator Obama has spoken to a variety of audiences, both inside and outside the LGBT community, on LBGT issues, including audiences expected to be hostile to our concerns. For example, Senator Obama spoke out at Ebeneezer Baptist Church and Rick Warren's Saddleback Church about the damage that homophobia causes. I challenge you to find an instance where Hillary Clinton has appeared in front of a hostile audience and spoken out on homophobia or other LGBT issues.

Your article asserts that Obama is not speaking to the LGBT community because he has not granted enough interviews to the gay press. Quite to the contrary, I would argue that Barack Obama is, in fact, speaking to our community, albeit in a different manner.

The gay ghettoization of the post-Stonewall era is steadily eroding, as evidenced by the straight gentrification of previously gay strongholds such as the Castro and West Hollywood. Part and parcel of this de-ghettoization is the diminished need in large parts of our community for "gay only" media.

In Mr. Segal's "Letter to a Candidate", he claims that "the local gay press is to our community what churches are to the black community." I hope, upon further reflection, you realize that this is at least just a bit overstated. When I found word of your article on Clinton and Obama, it was the first time that I -- and most of my friends -- had bothered to read something in a "gay publication" in over ten years, except to find out what the local hotspot was for the coming weekend.

Barack Obama speaks to each and every one of us because we are all, at our root, Americans. And when Barack Obama speaks to Americans, Gay Americans, Lesbian Americans and Transgendered Americans, he doesn't need to do so through the mouthpiece of a "gay publication". He speaks to me through ABC News, The Economist and he speaks to me through his rallies and campaign emails.

Very truly yours,

[Monitor]

My Latest (and I hope final) Email to Mr. Segal:

Dear Mark,

I just read your new column "Obama Goes National, Still No Local". Obviously not appearing to pay much mind to our correspondence of last week, I found your newest column to be defensive, unapologetic and infused with a sense of offended privilege and entitlement.

I was planning on writing you another thoughtful and reflective email to address your points. However, if you truly believe that most gay people have any use for a local gay rag like yours beyond a quick bar read or a skim through the event listings and personals, I don't really have much to say that would have any chance of getting through to you. This is especially evidenced in this highly overreaching (and patently absurd) gem: "Only the local gay press will ask detailed questions." Such baseless and unsupportable tripe does not belong in a publication that you claim to actually have any redeeming merit in the realm of national political commentary.

Disappointed,

[Monitor]

Thursday, April 10, 2008

Obama Speaks Out on LGBT Issues

Updated! As some of you may remember, a local Pennsylvania LGBT newspaper earlier this week wrote on an interview it had with Senator Clinton and, at the same time wrote a lopsided rebuke to Senator Obama for supposedly not being "accessible" to the LGBT press.

I consider Senator Barack Obama to be an amazing advocate for LGBT issues. Senator Obama has spoken to a variety of audiences -- both inside and outside the LGBT community -- on LBGT issues, including audiences expected to be hostile to our concerns. For example, Senator Obama spoke out at Ebeneezer Baptist Church and Rick Warren's Saddleback Church about the damage that homophobia causes.

I challenge anyone to find an instance where Hillary Clinton has appeared in front of a general or hostile audience and spoken out on homophobia or other LGBT issues.

Well, contrary to what the local Philly Gay News said, the Obama campaign reached out to the Advocate last week for an interview. He gave his interview on Monday, which appeared today in the Advocate. It is a great read, both for its honesty and candor.

Some initial highlights:

The Advocate: Let’s start with what’s hot, why the silence on gay issues? You’ve only done one other interview with the LGBT press. I know people wish they were hearing more from you.

Sen. Obama: I don’t think it’s fair to say silence on gay issues. The gay press may feel like I’m not giving them enough love. But basically, all press feels that way at all times. Obviously, when you’ve got limited amount of time, you’ve got so many outlets. We tend not to do a whole bunch of specialized press. We try to do general press for a general readership.

But I haven’t been silent on gay issues. What’s happened is, I speak oftentimes to gay issues to a public general audience. When I spoke at Ebenezer Church for King Day, I talked about the need to get over the homophobia in the African-American community, when I deliver my stump speeches routinely I talk about the way that antigay sentiment is used to divide the country and distract us from issues that we need to be working on, and I include gay constituencies as people that should be treated with full honor and respect as part of the American family.

So I actually have been much more vocal on gay issues to general audiences than any other presidential candidate probably in history. What I probably haven’t done as much as the press would like is to put out as many specialized interviews. But that has more to do with our focus on general press than it does on ... I promise you the African-American press says the same thing.

I absolutely agree with Obama on this line of thinking. I believe it is far more important to speak out on LGBT issues in front of general audiences, including especially audiences that may be otherwise hostile to the issues important to the LGBT community. In my opinion, I believe that this is far more important to LGBT interests than giving interviews to specialized press.

Further to this point:

Advocate: I think the underlying fear of the gay community is that if you get into office, will LGBT folks be last on the priority list?

Obama: I guess my point would be that the fact that I’m raising issues accordant to the LGBT community in a general audience rather than just treating you like a special interest that is sort of off in its own little box – that, I think, is more indicative of my commitment. Because ultimately what that shows is that I’m not afraid to advocate on your behalf outside of church, so to speak. It’s easy to preach to the choir; what I think is harder is to speak to a broader audience about why these issues are important to all Americans.

I think everyone can indeed agree that it's easier to preach to the choir.

However, I'll take it a step further. The gay ghettoization of the post-Stonewall era is steadily eroding, as evidenced by the straight gentrification of previously gay strongholds such as the Castro and West Hollywood. Part and parcel of this de-ghettoization is the diminished need in large parts of our community for "gay only" media.

In Mr. Segal's "Letter to a Candidate" in the Philadelphia Gay News, he claimed that "the local gay press is to our community what churches are to the black community." I can assure anyone out there not familiar with the local gay press or a black church, this is more than just a bit ridiculous. When I found word of the PGN articles on Clinton and Obama, it was the first time that I -- and most of my friends -- had bothered to read something in a "gay publication" in over ten years, except to find out what the local hotspot was for the coming weekend.

Barack Obama speaks to LGBT people in this country because we are all, at our root, Americans. And when Barack Obama speaks to Americans, Gay Americans, Lesbian Americans and Transgendered Americans, he doesn't need to do so through the mouthpiece of a "gay publication". He speaks to me through ABC News. He speaks to me through The Economist. And he speaks to me through his rallies and campaign emails.

Anyway, I'll get off my soapbox for a bit. My main point in all of this is that Barack Obama has been the only candidate to get up on the stump, and in front of hostile audiences, and speak the hard truth. The hard truth that homophobia and marginalization of LGBT people hurts not only LGBT people but everyday communities and our society in general.

I challenge (without much hope of succeeding) Hillary Clinton to do more than just give an occasional interview to myopic gay-only publications.

Sunday, April 6, 2008

My Correspondence with PA Gay News Publisher

I have been incensed by an article that recently appeared in a publication called the "Philadelphia Gay News". I won't link to it as I don't want to support its popularity. In essence, the article reported on an interview with Hillary Clinton and then accuses Barack Obama of avoiding the "gay media". Although the article admitted that Obama sat down for an interview with The Advocate last year, it implied that this didn't count because this was only in response to the McClurkin controversy.

My umbrage climbed to new heights when it was revealed that the publisher of the article/paper, Mark Segal, is a donor to the Clinton campaign!

Well, I took my umbrage to the Internet tubes and entered into correspondence with Mr. Segal. Here's the chain so far -- I'll update it if I receive anything else from him or his cohorts.

On Saturday, April 5th, I wrote:

Dear Mr. Segal and Ms. Blazucki,

I read today your article in the Philadelphia Gay News entitled "Clinton Talks; Obama Balks". After reading it, I felt compelled to write to you to tell you how dismayed I was to see such a slanted and accusatorial article.

Under the auspices of writing an article about your interview with Hillary Clinton, you take great pains to smear Barack Obama in a very unflattering light.

This is especially troubling, considering the fact that Mr. Segal is a donor to the Clinton campaign. You failed to disclose this important fact in your article and, as a result, unsuspecting readers might think that this article was a unbiased piece of journalism, rather than a slanted missive penned by someone who who donated at least $1,000 to the Clinton campaign.

Senator Barack Obama is an amazing advocate for LGBT rights and issues and has spoken out in various hostile venues on the importance of the repeal of DOMA and the elimination of homophobia. Senator Obama has spoken directly to out community's issues and does not cynically view us as some demographic segment to which to pander.

I hope you will consider printing a correction to your article, which you deem so important as to prominently pre-empt all other content on your website with a note that discloses Mr. Segal's financial relationship to the Clinton campaign.

Very truly yours

[Monitor]

I received a reply from Mr. Segal today, Sunday, April 6, that was obviously an unfortunate copy-and-paste job, that didn't address my point regarding the conflict of interest:

I appreciate your enthusiasm, but I humbly must disagree with your facts and your false sense of our editor's position.

We state very clearly that Senator Obama spoke with The Advocate, but only after the controversy caused by his travels with an anti gay minister, and that was a limited interview. In our research, not only do we mention that interview but we ourselves were surprised to discover that the Senator has only one other interview in the gay press, which was a full interview. That was back in 2004 and given to the "Windy City Times" in Chicago.

btw, the interview and editorial were from Philadelphia Gay News, Sue O'Connell has no affiliation with PGN other then a loose configuration PGN shares with other Local LGBT publications.

A Candidate asking for our vote, must be willing to speak to our community, and not only at fund raisers where their are limited people and taking our dollars, but the full community. That can only truly be accomplished by doing what candidates do for every other community. speak to our community press.

We will continue to make our pages available to Senator Obama. It is his decision if he wishes to speak to our community. We have also suggested that their are other local LGBT publications which he might consider. He's an inspiring man, and i hope he graces our press.

btw, the interview were from Philadelphia Gay News, Sue O'Connell has no affiliation with PGN other then a loose configuration PGN has with other Local publications.

Mark Segal
Publisher
Philadelphia Gay News

In response to his email, I sent the following an hour later:

Dear Mr. Segal,

I thank you for your reply email but it appears that you might have cut-and-pasted a reply to me from an email you wrote to someone else.

As I noted in my original email, I find it troubling that the article in question did not contain a disclosure that you, Mr. Segal, are a donor to the Clinton campaign. Disclosures such as this, when there is an actual or perceptible conflict of interest, are commonplace in journalism and routinely appear when a reporter has a particular tie to the subject matter of the article.

In addition, I take strong exception to this statement in your email:

A Candidate asking for our vote, must be willing to speak to our community, and not only at fund raisers where their are limited people and taking our dollars, but the full community. That can only truly be accomplished by doing what candidates do for every other community. speak to our community press.

This is both misleading and inaccurate, for two reasons.

Firstly, Senator Obama has spoken to millions of people, including a variety of audiences hostile to LGBT causes, in televised appearances at the Ebeneezer Baptist Church and Rick Warren's church, about the damage that homophobia causes. I challenge you to research an article on any instance where Hillary Clinton has appeared in front of a hostile audience and spoken out on LGBT issues.

Lastly, you say that Obama "must be willing to speak to our community" and, in response, I can assure you that he is, in fact, speaking to our community. The gay ghettoization of the post-Stonewall era is steadily eroding, as evidenced by the straight gentrification of previously gay strongholds such as the Castro and West Hollywood. Part and parcel of this de-ghettoization is the diminished need and market for "gay only" media. When I found word of your article on Clinton and Obama, this was the first time that I -- and most of my friends -- had bothered to open a "gay publication" in over 10 years. Barack Obama speaks to each and every one of us because we are all, at our root, Americans. And when Barack Obama speaks to Americans, Gay Americans, and Transgendered Americans, he doesn't need to do so through the mouthpiece of some myopic "gay publication". He speaks to me through ABC News. He speaks to me through The Economist. And he speaks to me through his rallies and campaign emails.

I encourage you to, at the very least, print a correction to your article that points out your conflict of interest. Additionally, I encourage you to look beyond your small one-town paper and realize that gay people no longer rely on the "gay media". To your point, you and your ilk are NOT my community press and do not speak for millions of gays and lesbians across our country.

Your very truly,

[Monitor]

If you want to write an email of your own, or give them a call to politely express your displeasure, here is their information:

Publisher
Mark Segal (215) 625-8501 ext. 204
mark@epgn.com

Editor
Sarah Blazucki (215) 625-8501 ext. 206
sarah@epgn.com

Thursday, March 27, 2008

Obama's Open Letter to LGBT America

This is really amazing. To think that in my lifetime a Presidential candidate would so openly and honestly address LGBT issues like this.

Here is Obama's Open Letter to LGBT America in its entirety:

I’m running for President to build an America that lives up to our founding promise of equality for all – a promise that extends to our gay brothers and sisters. It’s wrong to have millions of Americans living as second-class citizens in this nation. And I ask for your support in this election so that together we can bring about real change for all LGBT Americans.

Equality is a moral imperative. That’s why throughout my career, I have fought to eliminate discrimination against LGBT Americans. In Illinois, I co-sponsored a fully inclusive bill that prohibited discrimination on the basis of both sexual orientation and gender identity, extending protection to the workplace, housing, and places of public accommodation. In the U.S. Senate, I have co-sponsored bills that would equalize tax treatment for same-sex couples and provide benefits to domestic partners of federal employees. And as president, I will place the weight of my administration behind the enactment of the Matthew Shepard Act to outlaw hate crimes and a fully inclusive Employment Non-Discrimination Act to outlaw workplace discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.

As your President, I will use the bully pulpit to urge states to treat same-sex couples with full equality in their family and adoption laws. I personally believe that civil unions represent the best way to secure that equal treatment. But I also believe that the federal government should not stand in the way of states that want to decide on their own how best to pursue equality for gay and lesbian couples — whether that means a domestic partnership, a civil union, or a civil marriage. Unlike Senator Clinton, I support the complete repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) – a position I have held since before arriving in the U.S. Senate. While some say we should repeal only part of the law, I believe we should get rid of that statute altogether. Federal law should not discriminate in any way against gay and lesbian couples, which is precisely what DOMA does. I have also called for us to repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, and I have worked to improve the Uniting American Families Act so we can afford same-sex couples the same rights and obligations as married couples in our immigration system.

The next president must also address the HIV/AIDS epidemic. When it comes to prevention, we do not have to choose between values and science. While abstinence education should be part of any strategy, we also need to use common sense. We should have age-appropriate sex education that includes information about contraception. We should pass the JUSTICE Act to combat infection within our prison population. And we should lift the federal ban on needle exchange, which could dramatically reduce rates of infection among drug users. In addition, local governments can protect public health by distributing contraceptives.

We also need a president who’s willing to confront the stigma – too often tied to homophobia – that continues to surround HIV/AIDS. I confronted this stigma directly in a speech to evangelicals at Rick Warren’s Saddleback Church, and will continue to speak out as president.

That is where I stand on the major issues of the day. But having the right positions on the issues is only half the battle. The other half is to win broad support for those positions. And winning broad support will require stepping outside our comfort zone. If we want to repeal DOMA, repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, and implement fully inclusive laws outlawing hate crimes and discrimination in the workplace, we need to bring the message of LGBT equality to skeptical audiences as well as friendly ones – and that’s what I’ve done throughout my career. I brought this message of inclusiveness to all of America in my keynote address at the 2004 Democratic convention. I talked about the need to fight homophobia when I announced my candidacy for President, and I have been talking about LGBT equality to a number of groups during this campaign – from local LGBT activists to rural farmers to parishioners at Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta, where Dr. Martin Luther King once preached.

Just as important, I have been listening to what all Americans have to say. I will never compromise on my commitment to equal rights for all LGBT Americans. But neither will I close my ears to the voices of those who still need to be convinced. That is the work we must do to move forward together. It is difficult. It is challenging. And it is necessary.

Americans are yearning for leadership that can empower us to reach for what we know is possible. I believe that we can achieve the goal of full equality for the millions of LGBT people in this country. To do that, we need leadership that can appeal to the best parts of the human spirit. Join with me, and I will provide that leadership. Together, we will achieve real equality for all Americans, gay and straight alike.

Why We Need Obama

Moved to Library Grape

Recommended Posts

Blog Fans

About This Blog

Resources

Call to Action

Official Obama Blog

Blogroll

WE'VE MOVED