I'm a gay Democrat, and I approve this message
-John McCain supports Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Quite proudly, in fact.
-John McCain does not support either inclusive hate crimes legislation or ENDA
-John McCain supports state-level marriage bans. Through his Prop 8 support, John McCain would roll back the marriage equality that is currently n in California.
-John McCain doesn't even support civil unions for gay couples. At least not consistently.
-John McCain holds a discriminatory adoption stance.
-John McCain's has cited Supreme Court Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, David Souter, and John Paul Stevens as the sorts that he would NOT appoint.
-John McCain did, commendably, vote against the Federal Marriage Amendment. However, in his floor speech, he quite non-commendably said:
Translation: If a few more states obtain marriage equality -- which they will in the next our to eight years -- and DOMA goes away -- which the vast majority of gay people would like it to -- it is a near certainty that you would see a President McCain who supports some sort of an FMA. You know, because we wouldn't want "armageddon."
Okay, now that we've said all that, you are free to go read the following Washington Blade Op-Ed, wherein Log Cabin Republican president Patrick Sammon tries to convince you that "maverick" McCain will be good for gays because he doesn't bring up those "divisive social issues" like helping gay humans obtain their full slice of the humanity pie:
Standing with a maverick [Wash Blade]
It's one thing to support a candidate for certain party ideals with which you agree. It's quite another to recast him, in one particular area, as something he quite simply is not!
**Oh, and don't forget this 2006 ad:
Or more proof that he would support the FMA if this "divisive social issue" known as marriage equality gets too equal:
What a 'maverick'!!
Voting for almost all if not all Republicans is a bad choice for gay people. John McCain is a very bad choice for gay people. But the gay community cannot allow the Dems to take us for granted. I want Barack to come to my home state of California and say outloud on camera that he urges everyone in the state to Vote No on Prop 8. Not just send a letter stating he's opposed to Prop 8 on a constitutional reason. He needs to speak up and say it wrong for vote yes on Prop 8 for moral reasons.
It's time the Democrats stop saying they support the rights of gays but only up to opposing a ban on changing the constitution against gay marriage. It's time the Democrats step up and say that they are for gay marriage that we are equal members of society.
Being a resident of California I will be casting my vote for president to the one ticket that comes out in public on camera urging the votes to vote No on Prop 8. Whichever party that may be.
I've always thought that voting for a third party was a waste of my vote. That I was throwing the election to another party. But living in California the state will most likely go to Obama so I can afford to stake my vote to issues that matter to me.
I urge all gay people in CA to do the same. It's time to show the Democrats that we are not blind followers. We want a President who just whisper one thing to us behind closed doors then goes back into the spotlight and forgetting us. Gays in California need that spotlight to defeat Prop 8.
If Obama and Biden don't give it to us we will go elsewhere. And if Hillary and others don't come to us this year we will remember in 2012 and 2016.
Posted by: Joel M | Sep 19, 2008 4:12:32 PM
I'm really tired of being considered "a divisive social issue". How self-loathing can you be, to think that discussion of your equality shouldn't be mentioned, because it might be divisive? UGH!
Posted by: Taylor | Sep 19, 2008 4:43:55 PM
Amen, brother. My partner decided some time ago to simply not vote in the Presidential race. I have argued with him, using the lesser evil spiel, etc.
But starting with Donnie McClurkin, through the Saddleback bull, and now with Obama slowly backing away from his opposition to DADT and DOMA, I'm joining my partner.
Screw Obama. He can win (or lose) without us.
Posted by: | Sep 19, 2008 4:44:42 PM
No, I can't go with anyone on a "not vote" journey. There is simply no logical argument to support that decision. SOMEONE is going to be in office -- cast a vote for SOMEONE. Hell, write-in your cousin Lou if you want. But suggesting that folks should not vote (even when you think your state is already decided) is a dangerous idea.
Posted by: G-A-Y | Sep 19, 2008 4:52:08 PM
From the perspective of gay equality, Obama is the most disappointing Democratic nominee in a long time.
Posted by: Timothy | Sep 19, 2008 11:51:58 PM
Alright, Timothy, I'm gonna have to ask you to back that one up. How is he more "disappointing" on LGBT issues than Kerry or Gore (2000 Gore, not current Gore)?
Posted by: G-A-Y | Sep 20, 2008 9:12:09 AM
I think that Obama was sold to me as a pro-gay guy that was going to fight on our behalf. But since that time I've heard qualifier and exception and seen anti-gay voices selected to go speak for him.
That is, to me, disappointing.
I'm not measuring Obama against 2000 or 2004 public sentiment. Kerry and Gore were both way out ahead of the public on our issues.
Well we did our job. We moved public opinion.
But unfortunately, this candidate is not way out ahead of the public. In fact, he's still looking for concensus on DADT after 80% of the public (including a majority of Republicans) are on our side.
And he still doesn't get that you can't send out an anti-gay activist to be your public face and voice. (But that's probably the gay media's fault for making excuses and providing cover and not holding his feet to the fire - he doesn't HAVE to learn).
Yeah, on paper he's better than McCain. But that's about it.
And I mean that literally: on paper. McCain sent an email saying that he supports Prop 8. Obama sent a letter saying he opposes it. And that was the extent of either candidate's efforts. Paper.
And since when has "some better than the Republican" been the measure we use to gauge our level of disappointement?
And as a Californian who is aware that an increased black vote will also increase the Prop 8 vote, it is disappointing that he doesn't care enough to help.
My expectations were higher.
Posted by: Timothy | Sep 21, 2008 12:32:43 AM
That makes more sense, Timothy (whether I agree with the points or not). When I scanned your comment on a Saturday morning, I looked at it in a rather straightforward way. I put the "in a long time part" above the "disappointment," thus the curiosity about how you saw him as more of a let down than the previous two Democratic nominees.
Now, that being said, I see zero comparison between the two candidates on LGBT issues. Every point highlighted in the post is something of concern to me, an LGBT voter who pays attention. And on every one, Obama is headed in the direction I would want him to be, while McCain is going the other way. In my estimation, that makes Obama more than just "some better than the Republican" on LGBT issues. And getting back to the point of the post -- Obama's missteps or "disappointments" do not AT ALL make McCain an "inclusive" leader.
Posted by: G-A-Y | Sep 21, 2008 9:07:00 AM
You are correct that I was not discussing John McCain. I said that Obama is disappointing. And I find him to be.
You, on the other hand may think Obama is just GREAT on our issues.
But I do find it interesting that most conversations about gay equality in this election are not about Obama at all. Instead they seem to be about how very dreadful McCain is.
It's almost as though the only way Obama CAN look good is by comparing him to McCain... or really, comparing him to a caricature of McCain.
Posted by: Timothy | Sep 22, 2008 3:35:00 AM
Well I agree that Obama should be discussed and debated on his merits. But this particular post, Timothy, IS about McCain rather than Obama. Patrick Sammon has presented the Arizona senator in a way that I think is a complete misrepresentation, and I said as much.
Posted by: G-A-Y | Sep 22, 2008 5:26:54 AMcomments powered by Disqus