Gay rights and the 2012 presidential election

[341850]

Obviously the biggest issue candidates are discussing right now is the economy, and rightfully so; we're still in a recession. Next is foreign policy in relation to Iran. An issue that hasn't been talked about much lately with the upcoming election, and an issue that obviously hits close to home for us here, is gay rights.

To give President Obama credit, DADT was repealed under his administration. However, he still opposes gay marriage. He has said several times that as a Christian he believes marriage should be between one man and one woman. But when gay marriage was legalized in New York last year, he seemed to change his mind a bit, saying his opinion on the subject is "evolving", hinting at support for same sex marriage in his potential second term.

Mitt Romney has essentially the same position as President Obama. He claims to be totally accepting of gay people but still believes that marriage is to be between one man and one woman.

Rick Santorum... oh dear. Not only does he want to amend the Constitution to ban same sex marriage, but he wants to reinstate DADT. Yet he says that he respects gay people and if his son came out to him, he would still love him just as much. I doubt it, Rick.

That brings us to the other Rick. Rick Perry. I think we've all seen that ad. He pretty much hates us.

Newt Gingrich hasn't really been questioned much on gay rights recently, but he signed that family values pledge and wants to fight same sex marriage.

 

[Sinnerr]

One general advice for life. "There are two sorts of people. People who are with you and people who are against you. Learn distinguish them cos you can lightly confuse them."
And what it means in gay rights case. Fuck all these cocks who tells "I accept gays but marriage is between man and woman only." Is your love lower category of feelings thanyours straight friends love? I'm sure it' not. Mine absolutely not. So till you haven't same rights is need to require it (of loud if it's possible).
I'm not American but I strongly hope that president Obama will be reelected. He has some good work about gay rights succesful done. Ending of DADT, support campign for gay teens. And don't forget that thing what every politican in first term wants is second term. Now He can't be very active in this things cos in states is a lot of bigots and it will be political self destruction for him. If He will be elected to 2nd term He will have no reason for wait.

 

[topdog]

I see no direct gay rights issues in the presidential election.

Social conservatives may make passionate speeches to their supporters about preserving "traditional family values", but there is nothing they can do to legislate these ideas. A constitutional amendment, Rick Santorum? Give me a break! It is unlikely that a constitutional amendment on anything remotely controversial will be ratified in our lifetimes. The process has become so bogged down as to be insurmountable. Remember the Equal Rights Amendment? And most people at the time agreed that men and woman should be legally treated the same. You see, an amendment requires majorities in both houses, a presidential signature, and ratification by the state assemblies of at least 38 states.

I pity the poor evangelicals who make a decision on whom to support based on such emotional, but unenforceable campaign promises. It's about as real-world as Gingrich's promise of $2.50 gas.

In the US, the fight for gay rights has moved from the legislature to the courts. That is the current battleground and there's not a goddamn thing the conservatives can do about it, but complain about "activist judges".

During the past four years courts have consistently ruled against Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), DADT, and California's Proposition 8. All on basically the same grounds: they violate the Constitution's guarantee of equal protection under the law. Just because you don't like a group of people isn't sufficient reason for laws to treat gays different from straights.

In addition the Obama administration has refused to defend DADT and DOMA in court, as did California with Prop 8. Of course, DADT was repealed, so that case is now moot.

Other than DADT, all these other cases are on appeal and working their way up the system. Which brings me to the only place that presidential politics currently matters: who will get to appoint new judges to the Supreme Court? Obviously, on this count Obama is our best choice.

While all this is going on, polls show public opinion making a steady turn to acceptance of gays; even gay marriage in most polls is at 50/50 - something unimaginable just back when Clinton was president.

The political war on gays is lost. Even the Republican party leaders are waking up to this and realizing that they are better off putting their energy elsewhere. Sure, during primary season when candidates want to throw out some "red meat" to the party base they will rev up to old gay boogeyman. But it's a toothless threat, and only makes the conservative crowds look pitiful when they fall for it.

One general advice for life. "There are two sorts of people. People who are with you and people who are against you. Learn distinguish them cos you can lightly confuse them."...

And then there's that other wise saying: "There are two sorts of people in the world: Those that divide everyone into two kinds of people, and those that don't."

 

[gb2000ie]

Fantastic post Topdog, I was going to throw in my two cents, but you've said everything I would have, and more and better!

B.

 

[ritsuka]

Congress ended DADT, Obama didn't do it with a presidential order as he could have, so I really don't think that should be credited to him. On the same note, the fact that it was congress means a new president has little-no power to change it now. In any case, yes, his views/policies and this and all other issues are virtually the same as Romney. Of course around an election, just like in 2008, he will say a lot of nice things to attract the support of wealthy gay donors, but it means nothing once he's in office again.


If even Rick Perry is mentioned despite not having a campaign anymore, then we should also discuss alternative party candidates who will be on the ballot and are part of this election. Former progressive mayor Rocky Anderson is running for the OWS-linked Justice Party, which includes in it's platform not only marriage equality and an end to sexual and gender discrimination, but an end to all wars and serious economic justice for the 99%. Dr. Jill Stein, the front-runner for the Green Party nomination, also includes in her platform full social and economic justice for GLBT members and for all. Even the libertarian party gives some lipservice to GLBT equality.

Personally, I'm not a wealthy gay insider donating millions of dollars to the democratic party. I see gay rights as extending to economic rights and issues of war; when Obama surges in Afghanistan and sends openly gay troops to urinate on corpses, kill people to collect their body parts, intentionally massacre children, blow up people's houses with drones, etc. some of those civilians are going to be gay too. When Obama spends billions of dollars to beef up this stupid war while up to 250 children in Afghanistan starve to death every day, gay people are the victims too (some of them would have grown up to be gay, after all); as they are back here in America, where a disproportionately high percentage of homeless young people are GLBT, and they are left to be exploited, starve, and freeze because Obama prefers to spend the budget on killing people, including US citizens, abroad. And Obama and the entire US government in both democratic and republican aisles are currently building up to a new war with Iran and Syria; Obama sent a bribe to the Israeli government so that they would wait until after the election to attack Iran, just like he put off the keystone XL pipeline until after the election. A commander in chief, the president can and does control issues of foreign policy and war, so they should be held responsible and attention should be focused on that instead of just rhetoric.

 

[gb2000ie]

Congress ended DADT, Obama didn't do it with a presidential order as he could have, so I really don't think that should be credited to him.

No, you're right, he didn't got for the fame and glory route, he went for the "doing it right" route. Presidential orders are as easy to undo as they are to do, working with congress is the right way to make real changes. As the defacto democratic leader Obama and his people were instrumental in getting the bill through both houses of congress and the senate.

Slow and steady wins the race, quick and dirty does not.

On the same note, the fact that it was congress means a new president has little-no power to change it now.

Exactly!

In any case, yes, his views/policies and this and all other issues are virtually the same as Romney.

What!? They are indeed the similar on the gay issue, but the virtually the same on ALL issues, that's frankly ridiculous.

I could go on an on, but lets just look at the economy, Obama wants to lower taxes on the lower classes and raise taxes on the rich, he wants to un-do the republicans redistribution of wealth to the rich. Look at any of the tax plans put forward by any of the republican candidates, all the same, they reduce the tax burden on the rich, and increase it on the poor.

You can indeed argue that all American politicians are right wing, but, that does not mean they are all the same, the degree to which they are to the right of Europe varies WILDLY!

If even Rick Perry is mentioned despite not having a campaign anymore, then we should also discuss alternative party candidates who will be on the ballot and are part of this election.

He's being floated for the VP ticket now, so perhaps not as irrelevant as you think.

Former progressive mayor Rocky Anderson is running for the OWS-linked Justice Party, which includes in it's platform not only marriage equality and an end to sexual and gender discrimination, but an end to all wars and serious economic justice for the 99%. Dr. Jill Stein, the front-runner for the Green Party nomination, also includes in her platform full social and economic justice for GLBT members and for all. Even the libertarian party gives some lipservice to GLBT equality.

I wish the only libertarian with a hope in hell of winning would be a bit more libertarian in his views on matters sexual

B.

 

[logan222]

In my opinion, the President doesn't matter when it boils down to gay rights. Only the party matters. I don't want to feel like I'm preaching that you have to be a Democrat to be gay, but it is the only reliable major party that pays lip service to the LGBT community.

Both parties try to coyly mix themselves into the attractive rhetoric of the other's party to win over the swing votes during election times. Once they've locked in their victory, they adhere to their secure constituents (which include a disproportionate amount of religious conservatives for the Republican Party), especially when they are up for re-election in 4 years.

Obama is under a lot of scrutiny to demonstrate his "Christian-ness" with a name like Barak Obama and a history of non-religious/atheist parents (one having a Muslim background). Of course he feels like he has to pay lip service to the "you better be the same religion as me or I won't vote for you" Christians of America. I honestly believe Obama is much more like his parents (non-religious, secular, etc.) - but he's not an idiot. He knows a non-religious person isn't going to win over the swing votes. If elected for a final term, I trust that Obama will show off his more secular side, being a bit more vocal about gay rights and other religion-infested topics of controversy.

A first-term Republican President will be more anti-gay than he claimed in the election season because he can't give his conservative constituents anything major and controversial to hold against him for the re-election.

At the end of the day, yes, the President doesn't matter because it's not up to him/her what the fate of issues are. It's a combination of all three branches (not just Congress, guys). Remember, Congress passes the bills, but the President has to approve them (sure, Congress can override the president's veto, but when was the last time one party had a 2/3rds super-majority in both houses?).

 

[Sinnerr]

And then there's that other wise saying: "There are two sorts of people in the world: Those that divide everyone into two kinds of people, and those that don't."

:rofl: Well. I just wanted to say: Is very important to see throught politicaly correct kind of speaking.

And what kind of man am I ? Immediately I'm saying that selfrating is not very objective. I would say I'm someone who is idiosyncratic and sometimes unkind too. I like directness. I think that every human has to know best what is for himself or herself best. So I never moralise and talk to others what they have to or should do. Also I don't let anyone talking me what I have to and should do. A lot of people wants (and often they don't admit it) to decide about others people lifes. I really can't stand it. I like poeple who don't judge others and don't give advices if They aren't asked.

 

[Cherylicious]

Honestly, do you think DADT would have passed without Obama? he still has to sign the bills. If it were Rick Santorum, he would have reject it outright or doing a pocket-veto. Obama's administration also refuses to defend the DOMA ACT when it's being challenged. Any of the Republicans wouldn't have done the same. Obama may not be perfect, but at least he thinks of gays as some kinds of diseases like most of the Republican candidates. Why would people so hung up on Obama's gay marriage stand? He doesn't agree with it, but he also doesn't pass laws to outlaw it either. He even refuses to defend DOMA which is pretty progressive for someone who is against gay marriage. Sometimes, I feel like the mainstream gays are protesting too much, nothing is ever good enough. Between Obama and another Republican candidate, I would choose Obama any day.

 

[JamesL]

We don't know who the Republican nominee will be but if its Santorium than I'd say gays should vote for Obama. Romney might be ok for Gays but I'm not sure he knows where he stands on any issue. I suspect he will take any position that will get him elected President. He really doesn't believe in anything other than he wants to be President.
I'm going to vote for Obama for other reasons, mostly social justice issues. We have a boatload of problems, the economy, the deficit, finding the kind of jobs that pay a liveable wage for families, funding of schools, etc. We need to support someone who will address these problems fairly with and support the needs of the bulk of the American people.
JamesL