Comments on: White House Gay Reception Streamed Live Today

By: Popular People » Blog Archive » White House Gay Reception Streamed Live Today

Fri, 11 Sep 2009 08:20:48 +0000

[...] The White House blog notes the event will be streamed live at 4:25 EDT at WhiteHouse.gov/live. In the accompanying post, Deputy Director of the White House Office of Public Engagement Brian Bond writes: …Next Page [...]

By: Dr_J

Dr_J — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 01:28:27 +0000

Good points, Shannon.

By: GreenDreams

GreenDreams — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 19:06:12 +0000

Hispanics are a more important factor, and the GOP will surely continue to drive them out with their racist immigration posturing and Sotomayor opposition. I don't think the administration fears a backlash for reaching out to the LGBT community, or they would not have this reception.

By: shannonlee

shannonlee — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 15:19:51 +0000

I think I should have clarified my “Christian vote” remark a little better. I believe a lot of Christian Rep voters crossed over from Bush to Obama in the last election. There was also a strong turnout of conservative black and hispanic voters for Obama….whose social beliefs actually fit the Rep party's “moral majority” marketing campaign much better.

It isn't the Palin Christian that voted for the Dems last cycle. It was the moderate Christian that isn't big on gay rights and might be more pro-life than pro-choice.

These are the people the Dems believe will keep them in power.

By: Father_Time

Father_Time — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 14:35:44 +0000

Wait a minute, there are no gay kids growing up in rule Missouri.

List them all here immediately!

By: GeorgeSorwell

GeorgeSorwell — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 13:18:22 +0000

How about serial monogamists? No hooplah for them?

By: Silhouette

Silhouette — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 05:14:39 +0000

I wonder, were the polygamists also represented in today's hooplah? If not, why not?

No, really….why not?

By: Dr_J

Dr_J — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 03:28:53 +0000

Shannon, you're right that Democrats are giving gay-specific issues lower priority than health care, the economy and so on. You're wrong that they're trying to "keep" the Christian vote. No Democrat in their right minds would want to wrestle that millstone off the Republicans' necks.

The Democrats are not betraying us moderate gay voters who lead multi-issue lives--at least not in this specific way. I have a keen interest in the economy and health care, and only a symbolic one in seeing DADT repealed.

Gay activists on the hard left may consider it a betrayal, but their paychecks depend on them being never satisfied. If they said, "yeah, this gay issue can wait a year while we deal with X or Y or Z" their funding would dry up faster than a bottle of Stoli on a gay cruise ship.

I feel for them, victims of their own success. They have to be constantly complaining, and the more the last round of complaining got done, the more Sharptonesque they have to look. I sympathize with their tough job, but the truth is they're not speaking for me or my priorities.

By: shannonlee

shannonlee — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 01:53:38 +0000

I disagree. I think a lot of "moderates" voted for Obama because of his general morality, including what he said about gay rights. I have this feeling that you are never going to get what you want from Obama because there will always something more important for him to do.

I think the Dem party has decided to screw over gays in the hopes of keeping the Christian vote in the future.

I think gays and pro-choicers are going to get left behind so the Dem party can stay in office.

This is just the beginning. If you sit back and take it, they'll think it is okay.

I could be completely wrong here, but I truly believe the Dem party at the national level has made this policy. You'll get local support, support from the House, but nationally, you'll get nothing done.

By: Dr_J

Dr_J — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 23:48:47 +0000

I agree, GreenDreams. Gay groups have won a lot in the past few decades, and to throw tantrums now suggests a lack of perspective. I mean, sure, it would be great if gay boys were free to get their bits blown off in Iraq or wherever just like their straight countrymen, but personally I'd put higher priority on health care, the economy, and global stability.

By: James_P

James_P — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 22:33:23 +0000

Shannon, Yet they are not willing to risk to the political costs, and it is our job to both work toward creating a climate where they will make the tough decisions, and to apply pressure to make sure it gets done. But the rest of what you are saying is very naive. There are two sets of people here – those with power and those without power. The administration and the politicians in office have power. They do not hold that power at the sole behest of gay people, but because they get enough support from enough people. Our task is to apply pressure when and how we are able to, without burning bridges. That does not mean compromising basic principles, it means being realistic. Severing all ties with Democrats and refusing to talk with them until they do everything we want on our timetable is to try to exercise an option we simply do not possess. Again , we need to apply pressure where and how we can, not be dreamers and pretend that throwing a tantrum is going to accomplish anything. It won't, and if he really wanted to, Obama could write us off, and his presidency would likely survive anyway.

By: GreenDreams

GreenDreams — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 21:36:11 +0000

I'll withhold judgment on this one. The vile tripe that the DOJ put in that letter was deplorable, and I'm for equal rights for every American. However, let's remember that gays are about 10% of citizens, while the economic, health and energy issues are about 100% of the population. Obviously, Bush didn't openly invite gays to the White House. Indeed, no one has done this in our entire history. It's a step, and important symbolically. We'll see how the policy follow through is when some of our more universal pressing issues are behind us. Easy for me to say, of course. I'm heterosexual.

By: shannonlee

shannonlee — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 21:12:21 +0000

James, maybe the fact that you are appreciative of the reception is part of the problem. Gays should boycott all Dem events until the Dem party starts caring enough to doing something instead of pretending to care.

Sorry, but there is nothing stopping the Dems and Obama from helping you right now…NOTHING. They just aren't willing to risk the political costs.

By: DLS

DLS — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 21:10:47 +0000

In today's news here in Detroit, the editor of one of the two main newspapers published his own note criticizing Obama about gays in the military:

http://apps.detnews.com/apps/blogs/nolanfinleyb...

By: James_P

James_P — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 20:59:42 +0000

The ball is in Obama's court. While I, for one, am very appreciative of this reception, it is in now way a substitute for action by the President to make progress on marriage equality, employment non-discrimination and ending the military's ban on “openly” gay soldiers.
As we find ourselves at the 40th anniversary of Stonewall, the gay population has unprecedented clout. It's time to starting acting that way. No other segment of society that possesses substantial economic power would tolerate legal inequality and second class status and we must not, either. Crumbs thrown from the table and token gestures do not suffice.

By: James_P

James_P — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 20:59:35 +0000

By: shannonlee

shannonlee — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 20:13:26 +0000

LOL, instead of rights, we'll give you a reception!

The gay rights movement is collateral damage to the Democratic party political agenda.

It is like the Dems are saying, "We can change the world, but gay rights is one issue too many".