Obama mail piece - what gall

[keepCAblue]

My partner and I were 'married' in San Fran's City Hall in 2004, along with 3,000+ other same-sex couples (Thank you, Gavin). In the years that have followed, we have seen the legality and sanctity of our marriage drug through the courts, one after another, challenged by various right-wing, religious fascists intent on destroying our union and our happiness. The names, addresses, etc. of the 3,000+ couples are still maintained in the records of SF's City Hall and any tom, dick or harry can, for a nominal fee, buy the mailing list comprised of those 3,000 names. I can always tell by the way the mail piece is addressed if the sender procured our info from said mailing list.

Today we received an Obama campaign mailer that was addressed in just such a manner. Among the many reasons I do not support either HRC or BO is their respective cowardly positions on granting full civil rights to GLBTs, including the right to marry. Especially galling is that BO, whose past includes a stint as a CIVIL RIGHTS lawyer, has gone on the record that he is OPPOSED to same-sex marriage and, instead, supports the separate but equal consolation prize of civil unions. Hey, Mr. Civil Rights lawyer, "separate but equal" was smacked down as unconstitutional with respect to the rights of black Americans, haven't you heard? So how can anything LESS than full marriage equality be construed as either constitutional or fair?

That BO, who allows his religious beliefs to dictate his discriminatory policy of "separate but equal", would buy a mailing list comprised of the very Americans his two-faced bigotry hurts most, is appalling, simply appalling.

Although Barack Obama has said that he supports civil unions, he is against gay marriage. In an interview with the Chicago Daily Tribune, Obama said, "I'm a Christian. And so, although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition, and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman." ...

...He said he would support civil unions between gay and lesbian couples, as well as letting individual states determine if marriage between gay and lesbian couples should be legalized.

"Giving them a set of basic rights would allow them to experience their relationship and live their lives in a way that doesn't cause discrimination," Obama said. "I think it is the right balance to strike in this society." Sources: Chicago Daily Tribune, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force

[aquart]

1. But..but...he's going to let you have *basic* rights.

Aren't you grateful?

[Hatchling]

5. That's like only being allowed to buy a basic car.

No cd-player, no air conditioning, no anti-lock brakes, no power steering and the ugliest colors.

They deserve all the options, too.

[uppityperson]

2. Does he support signing a bill if congress passes it?

[babylonsister]

3. So who do you support that has a chance in hell of winning? nt

[keepCAblue]

7. Kucinich and Gravel are the only two who support SSM, BUT...

...as your question specifies, they are not viable candidates, due largely to the media censorship of candidates who are *true* champions of civil rights and unswervingly dedicated to upholding the U.S. constitution.

Videos of the candidates on gay marriage:

http://visiblevote08.logoonline.com/2007/08/10/video-the-candidates-on-gay-marriage/#comments

Edwards fairs no better then HRC or BO in his opposition to SSM, but he is at least honest about it and doesn't try to insult us with double-speak. With respect to the gay vote, Edwards' only saving grace is his wife Elizabeth, who has publicly stated her support for gay marriage. HRC and BO, IMO, have no saving grace to speak of.

I will vote for Kucinich in the primary, providing he is on the ballot; if not, for Edwards (but I consider it a vote more for his wife, Elizabeth - hopefully, she might exert some influence on her husband, if not some basic common sense.)

"Elizabeth Edwards Supports Same-Sex Marriage":

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/06/24/BAGPTQL1NF5.DTL

As for the general election, if either HRC or BO are the democratic choice, I may not cast a vote, period, as it is not only on the issue of SSM that I dislike these candidates, but on a whole host of others.

[nashville_brook]

4. it's political cynicism at its worst. his consultants have carefully crafted this message

not to offend the religious black demo, but the way it comes across to me is that racial equality is good. equality based on sexual orientation, not so much. it makes me wonder what he'd do with reproductive rights.

[Raejeanowl]

16. Real Change, Real Hope, Huh Obama?

Yes, his consultants have carefully crafted this message in an attempt to pander to everyone without having to take a polarizing stance on any issue. More insulting, as the OP posted, he apparently wants gays to know he's a complete hypocrite, or wants gays to know he thinks they're stupid, or maybe it's just that he ain't getting his money's worth from those consultants.

[karlrschneider]

6. It's a shame he can't remember when black folks were a "them" too.

:eyes:

[RB TexLa]

8. The religious argument is so hypocritical

My church opposes gay marriage, it's a point I will just disagree with my church on. One day when it is allowed, my church will not in any way be forced to marry people it doesn't want to marry. Just like today, my church doesn't marry people who are divorced, but I don't see the same people who scream about keeping civil gay marriage illegal out working to take away the right of divorced people to marry.

[MethuenProgressive]

9. Maybe his Universal Health Care Plan will pay to get you cured of being Gay?

"allow them to experience their relationship and live their lives in a way that doesn't cause discrimination"
See? It's the way you live that causes discrimination. According to Obama, that is.

good post, k&r
:kick:

[Thickasabrick]

13. LOL......best comment of the day n/t

[Yuugal]

10. After they get "basic" rights

Can they apply for the same ones heteros have?

"I'm a Christian. And so, although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition, and my religious beliefs say ......(insert dogma here)........."

Obama, I don't give a fuck what your religious views are. I do care about people who want to be president who warn us in advance that their religious views cloud their ability to tell the difference between "equal" and "separate but equal".

"Giving them a set of basic rights"

When talking of civil rights, there are no coach seats, business class, and first class. We are all equal or we are not. This crap pissed me off when Edwards tried to pass it off as logic but at least he didn't have a Donnie M sing-along first. WTF?

[FreeState]

11. Obama has been using others lists to get donations

I got a call - and they talked up hies endorsement from Kerry - the only political people that have that number (its my cell phone) is the DNC from when I donated to them a few years back. I have asked them many times to remove my number but at lass I still get calls on it - and now Im getting them from people I will not ever support in the primaries.

[MasonJar]

12. How do Christians justify these bigoted stands. I am a Christian and I

feel very strongly that I see through a glass darkly and that I do not have the right or the need to see into the mind of God, but I do know one thing: Jesus cared for all the same. He sought out the unfortunate and the disliked and poor and the weak. They were his first allegiance. My church feels the same way; the bishop of my Diosese sent out a letter that confirmed that homosexuality is biological and natural and not a choice. I am proud to be an Episcopalian.

[cloudythescribbler]

14. Is it possible that some 3d organization bought the list and the Obama camp got it from them? nt

[flamin lib]

15. Separate is not equal. I lived through that with school de-segregation

in rural Texas. I was fortunate, my DNA gave me the right skin pigmentation to get the good side of equal.

[Iceburg]

17. Obama & Edwards have a "personal" objection to GM based on their religious beliefs...

which I find rather disturbing. So here we are in 2008 and we have two of the leading dem candidates using the same old religous arguments that were once used to deny women the vote, black civil rights, and mixed race marriages.

Hillary on the other hand has never voiced a personal or religous-based objection to gay marriage. She's has never stated (to my knowledge) that she believes marriage is a diff-sex only right. Don't get me wrong -- She does indeed appear to have an objection .... but its a sage one....

see discussion on Differentiating the Obama, Edwards and Clinton positions on gay marriage in GBLT. I have posted video clips of each responding to the question of gay marriage...very interesting to hear them in their own words.

[keepCAblue]

18. Oh, yes, Hillary has too voiced a *personal* objection to SSM

In this August 07 video, she states exactly that, that her objection to SSM is "a personal position."

video link (scroll down to "Hillary Clinton" video):
http://visiblevote08.logoonline.com/2007/08/10/video-the-candidates-on-gay-marriage/#comments

HRC also offers the exact same cowardly lip service that Obama does in expressing that SSM should be regulated by the states and not mandated by the federal government - the equivalent to "passing the buck" in my opinion. We all know what many states are doing or have already done: passed constitutional amendments to ban SSM. Would the black community accept the same B.S. regarding THEIR rights, i.e., leaving it to the individual states to decide whether or not to grant blacks racial equality (be it in terms of voting, mixed race marriage, segregation, or otherwise). If that were the case, I think we could predict that most Southern states would still be forcing blacks to drink from separate water fountains and ride in the back the bus. Analogies aside, how ridiculous would it be for my marriage to be legal and honored in one state, but not another? Under the "states' rights" scenario, if I move to another state due to a job transfer, and that state does not recognize my marriage, then what? That is absolutely ridiculous and any candidate that passes the responsibility of protecting my family and marriage onto a state's whimsy is full of piss and shit.

Here is yet another example that debunks the claim that HRC "has never voiced a personal or religous-based objection to gay marriage."

Following up, Allen Roskoff, the president of the Jim Owles Liberal Democratic Club, worked to hold Clinton's feet to the fire. Recalling a conversation he had with her during her first Senate campaign, Roskoff said, "It was right after you said that you were against same-sex marriage on moral, religious, and traditional grounds and I found that incredibly hurtful." He also criticized the senator for volunteering her support for the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, even if not asked, and for not speaking during the Senate marriage amendment debate in June regardless of the work she did behind the scenes.

Clinton offered Roskoff some consolation regarding her earlier characterizations of marriage's history as an exclusively heterosexual institution, an argument that she made in an interview with this reporter as well during the 2000 campaign.

(link: http://gaycitynews.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=17379741)

Regarding Edwards, he, unlike Obama or Clinton, has at least made the distinction that, regardless of his religious or personal beliefs, he as president would still respect and defend the separation of church and state:

Edwards was further questioned on same-sex “marriage” to which he said he does not personally think homosexuals have the right to marry. However, he added that his own personal belief system is different than what he would support as president pointing out separation of church and state.

“First of all, my faith, my belief in Christ plays an enormous role in the way I view the world,” claimed Edwards. “But I think I also understand the distinction between my job as president of the United States, my responsibility to be respectful of and to embrace all faith beliefs in this country because we have many faith beliefs in America.”

The former senator also said the United States shouldn't be called a Christian nation.

link: http://www.christianpost.com/article/20070605/27801_CNN_Questions_Democrats_on_Evolution,_Same-Sex_'Marriage'_and_Abortion.htm