RECENT  POSTS:  » 2006: When Clinton vocally supported her state moving forward w/ marriage equality but Sanders did not » Where art thou, Jeremy? » Video: Ad for blemish remover/ tourist spot for our new, bettered America » Whether justified or Kim Davis-ed, individualistic rage rarely outplays broader truths » Kim Davis: The almost too perfect coda to the marriage discrimination fight » Anti-gay clerks are going to have to do their jobs. Because of course they are. » Jeb really wants to remind voters of his anti-'same status' plan for gay couples » Maine: NOM finally forced to hand over its tiny, out-of-state, incestuous donor roll » This delusional primary: Huckabee claims 'same-sex marriage is not the law of the land' » The 'Yeah. Duh. Of course' phase of this fight  

« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »


Dear 'fierce advocate':

by Jeremy Hooper

Maine's elephant in the room? Let's instead let Equality California address a major donkey that was not in the room:

The Obama administration was absent in yet another critical fight for the soul of our nation. His failure to speak out forcibly against Question 1 in Maine is unacceptable. Sign our petition. Then, ask everyone you know to do the same.
SIGN: Petition to President Obama [EQCA]

The DNC and the administration's silence was deafening. Whether or not it would've made the difference is no even the point. Should-be Democratic principles are the point. Principles that this administration took virtually no strides to defend.

Happy one year "yes we did"-iversary, everyone [:le sigh:]

space gay-comment gay-G-A-Y-post gay-email gay-writer-jeremy-hooper

Your thoughts

Getting inclusive hate-crimes passed was monumental, imho. But, I wonder is the ranting from the lying liars about it may have adversely affected Maine's outcome. I mean, it's not an either/or, but maybe the campaign should have factored some of the radical homophobic rhetoric surrounding the hate-crimes legislation into their rebuttal message. We don't operate in a vacuum, and Virginia Foxx's vile hate speech in the halls of Congress might have aided the lying liars in Maine.

Posted by: Dick Mills | Nov 4, 2009 4:07:27 PM

Honestly, Dick: I'm not sure it would have mattered. Where and with whom we lost and lost big, I'm not sure much of what we said or did could have made that much of a difference.

I am one who truly believes that if every last citizen had to vote before they could take their first breath in the morning, then we would win in many if not most states. But far too many of our would-be allies just don't turn out. We have such a fight with apathy, since we don't have these easy ways to rally (i.e. God tells you to vote this way) and easy places to do it (i.e. houses of worship).

Posted by: G-A-Y | Nov 4, 2009 4:19:49 PM

The religiocrats have the 'get your ass to the polls and vote THIS way, or you will BURN in HELL' edict, but most people aren't that simplistic. We need to be on the ballot in years when there are hundreds of other initiatives where every voter has some vested interest in the outcome. Perhaps an initiative to eliminate all college grants?? that would light a fire under the butts of the demographic that is most likely to vote with us!

Either that or wait for a presidential election year, and hope that more of the 65+ crowd (by then) are on our side.

Posted by: Dick Mills | Nov 4, 2009 9:10:59 PM

We are asking for fairness and equality from a group of people (voters) who basically don't really care one way or another about our plight. There is the group that absolutely hate us, and their hatred demands that they vote against us. Fortunately for us, that group appears to be dwindling, but as long as they exist, we need to have enough voters on our side to offset their caustic presence.

Maybe the real question is what do those voters (the ones who don't really care) need from us. And, need enough to get them interested in wholeheartedly supporting our cause, or at least enough to get their butts out to vote. Harvey Milk was great at building coalitions where there was (effectively) a quid pro quo. In his day it was employee unions that needed our support. By working together, Milk was able to turn the tide in favor of both interests. There may not be readily definable coalitions that could be built today, but as long as we are "beggars" in this process, and not "partners", then we may always be at the mercy of the lethargy of the masses.

And, the lying liars who hate us, they also hate the other factions that they align with at least as much as they hate us. Even knowing that, they bind together against the common "enemy" (us), and that is their quid pro quo - the thrill of victory from throwing the homos in the arena with the lions.

Posted by: Dick Mills | Nov 4, 2009 9:48:38 PM

Obama's position on marriage is a huge problem for us. I hear many people who are progressive on other issues justify being anti marriage equality because it's the same position Obama has and therefore an acceptable position to have in the Democratic party. I beleive Obama cost us a lot of votes in Maine and last year in California

Posted by: Ken | Nov 4, 2009 10:11:45 PM

Obama is no fan of gay rights. He is just like any other politician that said one thing to get elected and now does another. Makes me sick that I voted for him! Just for the sake of principal I'm voting Libertarian next time. I'm sick of voting for typical politicians and at least Libertarians are TRULY for equality for all. Obama is trying to save his ass for 2012 by not being controversial but he is going to lose the presidency if he doesn't start taking stands.

Sadly I'm starting to side with all the right-wing conservatives that Obama is bad for America - only I haven't different reasons than them for thinking that!

Posted by: Jessica | Nov 6, 2009 12:53:50 PM

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy

Related Posts with Thumbnails