If you are not for FULL AND IMMEDIATE EQUALITY FOR ALL AMERICANS - YOU ARE A BIGOT

[dbackjon]

I know many will get all butt hurt over this, but it is the TRUTH - a truth that many on DU can't seem to handle.


PRESIDENT OBAMA does NOT support immediate and full equality for ALL AMERICANS.


That doesn't mean I won't vote for him - but I will not give him a pass on his lack of leadership on this.


I am told that calling people that do not support full and immediate equality for all Americans bigots is hurtful. Well, you know WHAT IS REALLY HURTFUL?

NOT BEING able to marry the man I love.
Knowing that I can be fired for being gay.
Not having my relationship deemed worthy of recogniztion by the Federal Government.
Being told I am an abomination - then having those people be honored by Obama.

[dbackjon]

1. And it is ironic that my original post was alered for "Hate Speech"

No, hate speech is opposing equality for All AMERICANS.

Hate speech is what Obama allowed Rick Warren to do at his inaguaration.


Hate speech is allowing terrorists like the Grahams access to you, and praising their contributions to America

[LonePirate]

2. Bravo! It's time we started calling out this bigotry and hatred, regardless of its party.

As Democrats, we should not tolerate anyone not treating everyone as equals, no matter who refuses to support equality.

[Lionessa]

3. If you mean all Americans, why not list ALL those without equality?

Women, non-whites, GLBT, anyone entrapped in the penal/police corruption scam, marijuana users, people without comprehensive health insurance, ... I mean the list goes on and on. It's the 99% rights pretty much across the board that need to gang together regardless of the group they identify with to gain rights for ALL as you say.

To scream for equality for all and only mention one issue seems a tad disingenuous.

[DURHAM D]

4. All is all - no list required.

[Lionessa]

6. Except he's clearly only upset about one type of injustice.

Disingenuous, nuff said.

[dbackjon]

9. What is disingenuous is you trying to belittle my rights

Any type of injustice is bothersome.

[Lionessa]

10. The rights you are clearly concerned about are in my list of equality needs, so bullshit!

I have not belittled your need for rights, just pointed out the contradiction from your title to your OP. You trying to escalate that into something else is especially disgusting. Check my history, I am very pro-equal rights, for everyone, including GLBT and have a recommend history to prove it.

[cecilfirefox]

43. An endless complainer, exactly the people who are eating crow now. nt

[Lionessa]

46. No they aren't so much as the states' rights aspect is starting to sink in.

There will be no substantial change in Term #2.

[Fearless]

31. To mention one and not comment on any other

Does not mean a person does not also agree that they are injustices. The post is a response to a post the OP had hidden by jury in another thread. The post was regarding marriage equality. That is why, and only why, the poster has chosen to use marriage equality as an example in this OP. Had the point of the OP been to list all injustices, then they would have been listed.

[Lionessa]

33. Though some of your initial point is accurate,

the latter point isn't at all what I read. I read that he's pissed at Obama about marriage equality, the reason he reposted was to repeat what had been closed in another thread, but that wasn't his message nor the reason for his OP by anything I'm reading.

[GeorgeGist]

8. Divide and conquer ...

that'll help the bigots.

[Pab Sungenis]

35. "ALL" means "all."

This is just the latest outrage, not the only one.

If you are not for equality for all, you are a bigot. And that includes all of the groups you mentioned.

[rhett o rick]

5. Who is going to determine who is or is not supporting immediate and full equality

of all Americans? How should we judge people so?

If you dont agree that Pres Obama is fully dedicated to your cause, why dont you just say that instead of declaring everyone, including the President is a bigot if they dont meet some standard you are putting forth?

I fully support immediate and full equality but wonder what your goal is with this OP.

[dbackjon]

7. Obama has not declared his support for full and immediate equality for All Americans

I am sick and tired of being a second class citizen.

I am sick and tired of Democratic politicians using me as a pawn

I am sick and tired of a supposedly progressive site like DU excusing and defending bigotry.

[rhett o rick]

11. I am also sick and tired of the bigotry, racism and misogynism, but

I dont think calling the President a bigot will further the cause for equality.

[dbackjon]

14. So just give him a pass?

For how long?

[rhett o rick]

15. What is a "pass"? I think we should hold his feet to the fire.

Do what we can to convince him. What do you think we should do?

[dbackjon]

16. That, and call him what he is

Let him know how hurtful his stance is.

[rhett o rick]

19. I totally agree you should let him know how hurtful his stance is, and I agree it is.

However, calling him a bigot in every other post isnt helpful at all.

[Pab Sungenis]

36. If the hatred fits...

...make them wear it.

[patrice]

17. Given the nature of those who oppose him, wouldn't that be the kiss of death for full and

immediate equality for all Americans?

Perhaps you have noticed the strength of obstructionism in Congress. Does it not stand to reason that especially in an election year that obstructionism CAN increase?

He has taken the most effective legal position by speaking in support of Civil Rights for All Americans, within the context of LGBTQ issues. He has said that those rights exist, so that makes his support "immediate" in the only sense in which that could possibly matter, legally. He doesn't do show-boat stuff that won't actually accomplish anything.

To go beyond the appropriate and relevant legal conditions in the issue into some other form of purely rhetorical pressure grandstanding for political payoff alone, regardless of actual legal substance/foundation that is the only thing he has available to him to actually change the situation, would put the LGBTQ community in alliance with someone who is already being called a dictator and ALSO create a great deal of, not only authentic legal criticism, but also very handy justification for those who are only tooooooooo eager to have some reason, ANY reason, to work against the LEGAL protection of LGBTQ Civil Rights IN AN ELECTION YEAR and thus fill as many elected offices everywhere they can with others who CAN and most certainly will support the oppression of our LGBTQ brothers and sisters.

[dbackjon]

18. No, it wouldn't be

Leadership and the power of the Presidency can change many minds.

He should have been out in front of the anti-Amendment One forces.

He should have used his EO to ban discrimination.

He should have been leading the charge on ENDA

[demosincebirth]

12. Boy, you paint with a big brush. Thats your opinion and a minority one, for sure.

[dbackjon]

13. So inequality for All Americans is ok?

Acheiving equality is not a big deal?

[patrice]

20. You are posing a false choice. For most people it's not as simple as you are saying. They

support your rights, so the REAL questions are about HOW to do that effectively. There are a variety of ways to work to support this issue. If you don't know, or don't recognize what they are doing that does not mean that they think inequality is okay.

Do you think the way that you are talking looks at all stereotypical, i.e. prejudice, the very injustice that LGBTQ are fighting against?

[dbackjon]

21. No - one should never be tolerant of intolerance

I get this type of response from right wingers all the time - why are you so intolerant of the Baptist/Catholic/Mormon Church?

[patrice]

25. I'm trying to point out that without actual detailed factual information about what people/anyone

is in fact doing or not doing, one's ability to say whether they are being tolerant or not is rather limited. All you have without info is generalization. Personally, I don't mind those types of observations as long as the person making them admits that what they are saying is ONLY hypothetical, one form or another of some degree of possibility, not an absolute.

Generalizations are a form of prejudice, no matter who is making them. There are many many many ways for tolerance/intolerance to manifest themselves in actual concrete behavior. Saying, TTE, "If it isn't _________________________, it's NOTHING. It has NO value whatsoever" is oppressive, because it limits people to what YOU say they should be and then punishes them for not fitting YOUR definitions. Sound familiar?

One of the biggest problems with that is that in treating people badly (some of whom, say maybe at least 50%, were not actually in the negative camp against you, some of whom were kind of 50:50 on your issue, if not maybe even a little positively predisposed toward you) treating ALL of those people badly by judging them negatively, especially when you do not actually know them let alone everything that you might NEEEEEED to know in order to arrive at a valid judgement, just turns them into negativities against your issue ... when s/he/they might have become otherwise, they might have become at least somewhat, if not a lot, more positive, if they had been assessed more honestly and fairly to begin with. Getting them back after you have mistakenly made them negative is MUCH MUCH harder than pushing them in a friendly way towards positivity on you issue first. That way they can go positive too.

[JoePhilly]

22. Maybe Obama hates gay people.

Or ... and I'm just spit balling here ...

Maybe Obama is considering that today in NC, the GOP is trying to pass an amendment to their constitution which would prevent gay marriage.

And ... he's also thinking that he won NC in 2008, and that doing so helped him win the election in 2008.

And maybe he's thinking that winning a state like NC will be easier if he does not pick this fight right now. I mean let's face it ... its not like he's going to be able to get Gay Marriage approved in the next 6 months.

He ended DADT ... he's instructed the administration to NOT defend DOMA as it heads to the Supreme Court.

Perhaps ... just perhaps ... he's trying to guide this issue through the political field of land mines that exists.

Or not. Maybe he just hates gay people.

btw ... earlier today ... my wife, our 18 year old son, and I , voted against Amendment one in NC. It was my son's first opportunity to vote. He voted for Obama in the Dem primary, and AGAINST Amendment one.

[dbackjon]

23. Thank you for your vote

I don't think Obama gives two shits about gays - other than to get their votes and their money.

So Obama is a coward, is what you are saying? Got it.

[JoePhilly]

24. You are welcome ... and ...

I think Obama knows that the time to make things right is after he is re-elected.

If Romney wins, DOMA will stand for at least 4 more years, probably longer.

Lots of folks said Obama should have issued an exec order on DADT, to stop enforcing it. But that would have been a short term solution. The next GOP President could simply undo it. SO Obama took a strategic approach so that when DADT ended, it ended, period.

But you claim he doesn't care about gay people. If he didn't give "two shits" ... DADT would still be there.

Now you want, no you demand, that he make a statement, a statement which would change nothing.

Great plan.

[patrice]

26. It's politics. Please read up on Self-fulfilling Prophecy.

[Fearless]

34. To be fair...

He only ended DADT after the court ordered his Administration to get their butts moving after the initial ruling requiring its removal was challenged by the Administration itself.

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/07/ninth_circuit_blocks_enforcement_of_dont_ask_dont.php

[abelenkpe]

27. True

Could use ERA too. Wouldn't it be awesome if all dems would openly support those ideas?

[dbackjon]

29. It would be great.

[YoungDemCA]

28. The President's lack of moral clarity and courage on this paricular issue...

...is going to be a problem for him among many of his supporters.

[Fearless]

32. Particularly when it comes to forking over donations no doubt!

He needs to get his act together.

[Bake]

30. An injustice to anyone is an injustice to all.

Bake

[rhett o rick]

37. I see that Pres Obama has come out in support of gay marrage. Do you retract your "bigot" comment?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=117237

[dbackjon]

38. I am happy that he finally now supports it.

He still thinks it is a state's rights issue - He still thinks it is ok for states to discriminate against gays and lesbians.



Has he evolved? Or is this a politically timed statement to try to dampen our anger over NC?


So I am happy that my thread calling him out made him evolve on this (back to his 1996 position), but excuse me if I don't do cartwheels just yet.

Been burned too many times.

[rhett o rick]

67. "He still thinks it is ok for states to discriminate against gays and lesbians." Time to throw the

bullshit flag. You had your chance and you blew it. There is no evidence he thinks it is ok for anyone to discriminate against gays and lesbians. That's pure bullshit.

[dbackjon]

68. Then why did he say it is up to the states?

He has a chance and he blew it.

He is doing nothing about the Federal Ban.

[rhett o rick]

69. Sorry but you lost creditability. He has never even hinted he believes it "is ok for states to

discriminate against gays and lesbians." As you claim.

If you are honestly advocating for the LGBT community, you are doing more damage than good IMO.

[TriMera]

70. When he says that it is up to the states to decide,

he is leaving the door open for people in those states to discriminate against us. Also, I, as a member of the LGBT community, believe that dbackjon is advocating for me just fine. But, thank you for your concern.

[rhett o rick]

77. So you agree with dbackjon that Pres Obama is a bigot? nm

[TriMera]

79. I believe that anyone who does not support full

equality is a bigot. The President took a significant step today and I applaud him for that step. So, don't try and put words in my mouth and do not tell me who is doing harm to my community and who isn't. I understand where dbackjon is coming from.

[rhett o rick]

80. The OP says that the President is a bigot which makes me wonder of the motives

of the author. If he is trying to be divisive, he is succeeding. If you understand where he is coming from, please explain.

I think most here would agree that the LGBT community is discriminated against and some here would agree that the President isnt doing as much as he should. But to call the President a bigot is inflammatory and counter-productive.

[cliffordu]

74. Wow.

[dbackjon]

47. And he still does not support full and immediate equality for all Americans

[Pisces]

39. I see the typical fools are out with the their negativity and their garbage. The rest of us are

celebrating and you can't rain on our parade!!!!

[dbackjon]

40. Fool? Nice manners

Note - post was from yesterday, and I stand by my remarks.

[Pisces]

41. And I stand by my "Fools" remark meaning all of the people that rec'd your post.

[TriMera]

42. Thanks for reminding me to rec his post.

Calling people fools for recognizing that some of us suffer daily because we don't have the same rights as you is pretty fucking shitty. The fact that the President finally did the right thing today doesn't change that fact.

[dbackjon]

45. You are not worth my time - ignore people like you

[cecilfirefox]

44. Ha. Let me serve you come crow.... Here ya go, open wide!! nt

[TriMera]

48. You're all over the board with this "eat crow" crap, aren't ya? n/t

[dbackjon]

49. How mature of you.

Do YOU support full and immediate equality for All Americans?


Newsflash - President Obama still DOES NOT.

He wants to leave it to the states, Like NC.

[racaulk]

75. *plonk*

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

50. WHY IS THIS THREAD STILL OPEN AND NOT LOCKED?!?!?!

Moderators, where are you?!?! Do your job!

[maddezmom]

51. there are no moderators anymore, but hosts

and they deal with SOP's and this one fits, imo. If you think it's a TOS violation you should probably alert and the jury will decide.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

52. I have alerted this thread twice and have lost both times. This thread is divisive and unproductive.

I can't understand why it is allowed to stand.

[dbackjon]

55. It is the truth

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

56. IT IS NOT THE TRUTH, and you know it!

[dbackjon]

59. So being against full equality makes you what?

If not a bigot, then what?

[dbackjon]

64. If you had half a brain, you'd see this thread was started yesterday

And he supports states rights, so it doesn't help me.

[TriMera]

53. But, you're ok with this thread...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/125136197

Interesting, to say the least.

[dbackjon]

57. Ponies!! Ponies for all!

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

58. I have not seen that thread and no, I don't agree with it. Why is it so hard for us to unite?

I don't get it. This should be a day for celebration.

[TriMera]

62. You posted in that thread and even told the OP

to "Hang in there!" http://www.democraticunderground.com/125136197#post5

[fishwax]

66. If you don't agree with it why did you recommend it?

[dbackjon]

54. Truth hurts

I am sorry my truth makes you upset.

But being a second class citizen is more upsetting than offending a few people.


So being against equality is OK?

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

60. It's bullshit! Your entire thread is nothing but bullshit after the president came out in FAVOR of

marriage equality today! He is taking a major stand on your behalf and could lose this election because of it.

This is a horrible thread and you should be ashamed of yourself.

[dbackjon]

63. I don't think being a liberal stalwart means what you think it means

AND you are [pathetic FOR TRYING TO blame a loss on equality

You should be ashamed of yourself. You are no friend to equality.

You have no idea what being a second class citizen is.

[dionysus]

91. i'll tell you one thing. running around calling people who are on your side bigots over and over

isn't going to help you.

[TriMera]

94. Telling LGBT people that you don't give a fuck

doesn't help us know that on our side, either.

[dionysus]

95. who ever said that?

[dbackjon]

96. If you are for full and immediate equality for All Americans

And that includes at the FEDERAL LEVEL - you are on my side, and the side of equality.


If you are not for those things, then you are NOT on my side.


Simple as that.

[dionysus]

97. i AM for that. how do you accomplish it? you've got 3 options.

1) legislation (not going to happen)
2) executive order (overturned the second a republican gets in)
3) supreme court ruling

i think 3 is the best option, but with this court, who knows.

[dbackjon]

100. By first declaring your full support

Not half-assing it. (not you, but the Democratic Party).

1) Elect REAL Democrats
2) Have the courage and backbone to make it a priority. Wheel and Deal. Use the full weight of the office. Bush/Reagan etc seemed to be able to do that for the unpopular things they wanted.
3) Use Executive Orders where needed - and keep the White House in Democratic Hands.
4) Nominate REAL PROGRESSIVES to the SCOTUS, and don't be afraid of a fight. The right has no problem nominating extremists, and our spineless leaders don't put up a fight. But the nominees from Democratic Presidents are all right of center. They don't even TRY to get a progressive on the bench.

[TriMera]

65. Hide thread is your friend. n/t

[amuse bouche]

71. So do you have

a different outlook today?


ahh the difference a day makes

[treestar]

72. Well then I'm not a bigot

But then informing bigots that they are bigots never works. They will just deny it. There has to be some other approach.

[treestar]

73. Wasn't one of the first things President Obama did

something to do with treating gay spouses of federal government employees equally?

And what do you mean he does not support immediate and full equality? He did on all but marriage before and now has for marriage.

[obamanut2012]

81. That didn't happen, same-sex Federal spouses do not have equal rights

as opposite-sex employees. Not even close.

[joshcryer]

76. You can edit your post.

[Rex]

78. Oh boy howdy.

.

[obamanut2012]

82. Why should the OP edit his post?

My President, whom had my loyal support in 2008, and whom will have my vote in October, disappointed me very much by saying he was all for gays marrying... if the states say it's okay. This a DAY AFTER AMENDMENT ONE PASSED. Do you have any idea how much salt in the wound that was? The day after Tarheel LGBT were made worse than second-class citizens, President Obama said that even though he thinks gays should be allowed to marry, he thinks what happened in NC is how the process for legalizing this should work.

The OP does not deserve the vitriol thrown at him in this thread.

[joshcryer]

83. The President does support full and immediate equality for all Americans.

It's not his fault states are slow on the upkeep. It's not his fault he's not a dictator and can't magically endow equality for all Americans.

His personal view is that all people should be able to be married, therefore he supports it, and is not a bigot in that vein.

If the OP wishes to continue calling him a bigot they could make the straw man argument that the President, by not being a dictator, wants everyone to be able to be married, but has no power to do so, and that makes him a bigot, that's fine.

But as it stands now the OP is inaccurate.

[dbackjon]

86. Obama wants to leave it up to the states - history has proven that states are

Horrible at civil rights. Only the Federal Government can protect and provide equality for all.



If he had not put the state's rights caveat in his speech, a lot of people that TRULY support full equality would be happy.

But he took the copout route.

[dionysus]

99. OK, then explain how he gets a federal law passed. explain it in detail.

[dionysus]

84. he can't simply issue an executive order to ban everything wrong with this country.

you do know that, right?

[musicblind]

85. No apparently they don't.

As a gay man I could not be happier with the Obama administration.

Honestly, what more do you want? He's done just about everything a human being can do to support us!

[dbackjon]

87. What, by wanting to leave it to the states?

Like NC?

[dionysus]

88. i think some people will never forgive him for the warren\mcclurkin incident.

[TriMera]

89. Really? Because we're sick and fucking tired

of people getting to vote on our civil rights? When is the last time the majority got to vote on your civil rights?

[dionysus]

90. yeah, really.

[TriMera]

92. You didn't answer my question. Is the majority voting on your civil rights?n/t

[yardwork]

93. Has he ever asked for forgiveness for those two incidents (not one - two separate incidents)?

[dionysus]

98. probably he should, but he's done a lot to make up for it.

[yardwork]

101. Still, it's not surprising that some people haven't forgiven, since they haven't been asked.

I find the Donnie McClurkin event to be very difficult to forgive, since McClurkin's business is the emotional and physical torture of young people, which is known to lead to despair and suicide among gay youth. It's very hard to overlook Obama's use of such a person in his campaign. At least Obama never repeated that mistake.

The Rick Warren thing was pure politics. I think it was a wasted effort, but I'm not nearly as mad at Obama about it as I am at some DUers who took the opportunity to bash gay people for months because we had the temerity to point out how uncool it was. A little bit of empathy would have gone a long way at the time.

Anyway, most gay people vote Democratic. Studies show that 70-80% of LGBT vote Democratic. We're one of the most loyal Democratic voting blocs. I know that I have never voted for a Republican in my life except once - a local judge who was the better choice according to the local progressive rag. Other than that, I am a pure straight ticket Democrat.

Maybe the Democratic Party is finally figuring out that it is unwise to go out of their way to alienate such a loyal Democratic voting bloc. I hope so, since I want Obama to win in November. Get out the vote - treat a gay person with kindness and respect today.