Connect With Us

FacebookTwitterRSSYoutube

Lack of Progress of LGBT and Other Issues Threatens To Derail Democratic Majority

01/15/10-by Bridgette P. LaVictoire
President Barack Obama is now facing a very real problem in Massachusetts. He rushed there to try and shore up the flagging likelihood that Martha Coakley would, in fact, succeed Senator Ted Kennedy in the seat that he one held. What had once been a sure thing, now looks like it could be a loss. The why is simple. The base is upset and dispirited. They elected President Barack Obama to usher in a new era of liberalism in this nation. Instead, they got a man who was more willing to cut deals than to push what he campaigned upon through the Senate. Sure, he has managed to get almost everything he wanted, but rather than pushing through with health care reform, and pushing it hard, President Obama ceded that fight to the faux grassroots astroturfers who are less about fixing what is wrong, and more about ensuring what is wrong remains broken.

For the LGBT Community, Obama’s lack of spine has been a big problem. Instead of pushing through his promises of getting LGBT issues addressed in Congress, such as revoking Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and the Defense of Marriage Act, President Obama has been signaling that he is more than willing to wait for his second term in office before being willing to address those issues. For the millions of gays, lesbians and transpeople, the President’s lack of movement on key issues beyond the Matthew Shepard Act- an act that had to be attached to another piece of legislation in order to pass- has been frustrating in the extreme.

It is there that Massachusetts becomes a problem. Massachusetts is a state with some of the largest numbers of LGBT Americans in the country, and a large number of LGBT allies. The lack of movement on Obama’s part on these issues is discouraging, and many may be unwilling to vote for Coakley because Obama has been so timid when it comes to these battles. In many ways, it will not be the fact that the Democrats went too far with health care reform and financial reform and even the repeal of anti-LGBT laws that lost them this seat, and threatens to make 2010-2013 a legislative deadlock unlike anything this nation has seen in a long time, but rather the fact that the Democrats did not go far enough in pursuing an agenda of popular Progressivism.

Obama, Reid and Pelosi forgot to fight for the people who put them into power, and now they are at risk of being unable to do anything for years to come.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Comments

comments

Share This Post

56 Responses to Lack of Progress of LGBT and Other Issues Threatens To Derail Democratic Majority

  1. Pingback: MASS VOTE – COAKLEY goes DOWN 53- 47% - Lez Get Real

  2. Pingback: The Bilerico Project

  3. Mark M.

    January 18, 2010 at 1:29 pm

    Hi Paula,

    Actually, I’m in complete agreement with your last post.

  4. Mark M.

    January 17, 2010 at 9:30 pm

    Sei,

    I’m technically challenged. I haven’t figured out how to respond to your post replying to mine. My apologies. I beg to differ with you on your characterization of Muslims. In this country Muslims are protected by political correctness. Thus, as their numbers grow, their influence in America will grow. The influence of their popular culture will grow. How do you think that’s going to work out for the LGBT communities? How are the gay communities of Europe doing in the face of large scale Muslim immigration? You say that much of the figurative revolt in this country is manufactured. Fair enough. But the rate of unemployment and underemployment in America has caused fear beyong imagining. People realize that this rate is not going to come down for years.
    Fear becomes anger. Anger becomes hatred. This time one year ago the conservatives were in isolation, moribund, bleeding out on the floor. If Obama and his allies had played their cards right that situation would still be the case. Obama has breathed new life into conservatives and handed them the issues they need to mobilize public opinion. When you think about it the turn of fortunes is astonishing.

    • Sei

      January 17, 2010 at 9:54 pm

      Mark M.,

      It’s alright. A lot of the forums on this site are a bit clunky.

      The LGBT Community in Europe has suffered more from resistance from the Catholic Church rather than from the Muslim Communities there. It is often easy to confuse the religion of Islam with the cultures that many Muslims come from. As the Imam who translated the copy of the Quran that I own pointed out, the burqa and hajib are not Islamic, but rather what was considered to be modest attire for women in the cultures that Islam first spread to. Not all Muslims, like not all Catholics, are opposed to homosexuality either. Several Muslim nations only ban men from having anal intercourse, but do not ban men from being lovers. The version of Shia Islam practiced in Iran does not have an issue with transsexuality (though culturally the people do), because Ayatollah Khomenei said that people who were transsexual had a birth defect.

      The anger and fear has been stoked by a lot of people who believe they can control that fear and anger. People are also turning away from Conservatives as well as Liberals right now as well. Right now, many people want greater restrictions on businesses, but want government to be out of the ordinary people’s lives a lot more, and want a lot of the corruption out of government. People are beginning to turn against the idea that low taxes on business mean more jobs because jobs never showed up, but businesses rake in tons of money. Right now, there are a lot of people who are angry, upset, and ready for change. They hoped Obama would change things, but he hasn’t. In large part it has to do with the ease with which our country falls into labels, but also how weak Reid and Pelosi have been on the big changes that needed to happen.

    • VinceP1974

      January 17, 2010 at 10:41 pm

      Mark: You’re absolutely correct about the threat to gays in Europe due to Muslims. And not just gays.. there is a brutal epidemic of rape against European women who the Muslims who do them view as nothing but whores.

      The Left in America seems more invested in cultivating a unyielding animosity towards their political opponents.. and that results in their tendency to defend Islam so as to not concede that conservatives are justified in their warnings about Islamic revivalism.

      I think that’s the reason why Sei could say with a straight face “The LGBT Community in Europe has suffered more from resistance from the Catholic Church rather than from the Muslim Communities there”

    • Sei

      January 18, 2010 at 2:16 am

      And VinceP1974, I can say it with a straight face because it is the absolute truth. Islam is not the monolithic entity that you might think, and is not as institutionalized as the Catholic Church- not the Catholics, but the Church structure- is. Wahabism is more of a problem than general Islam. Islam is, after all, split into a variety of different sects that sort of mirror the way Christianity is splintered. Sunni and Shia are the central ones. Osama bin Muhammed bin Laden is a Wahabist. Wahabism is a radical form of extreme Islam. The Taliban subscribes to a form of Wahabism. These are the Caliphatists as well.

      Of course, the fact that bin Laden made it clear that he wants to bankrupt the United States in order to collapse it was totally missed by the Hawks out there who think that unending war on Islam as a whole is a good idea. All that does is make it easier for Wahabists like bin Laden to recruit disaffected Muslim youth to blow themselves up.

      If you look at the history of Europe’s LGBT Community, the Catholic Church has exerted a great deal of influence in places such as Ireland, Poland, Spain, Italy and Portugal to slow or even halt the advancement of LGBT Rights. Since Islam does not have the institutional structure that the Catholic Church does, Muslim leaders have had a lot less influence on the legislation effecting the LGBT Community in Europe.

      Maybe if you got your head out of your backside, Vince, you might learn a bit more about Islam before you begin spouting off the same trite and worn out idiocies which have been in Western culture for the last…oh thousand years or so. Most of the “Muslims are going to sneak into our houses and murder us” kind of mentality has been around since the conquest of Spain. Eventually, Islamic nations became moribund and ossified, and collapsed. Right now, many Muslims are trying to cope with the idea that their empires collapsed while those they saw as barbarians thrived and grew in power. Try reading “What Went Wrong” by Bernard Lewis sometime.

      While I do not protect, support, or endorse what the Wahabists and other extremists do, I will not sit here and see all Muslims smeared. I do often report on many Christians who support the LGBT Community, and I am also supportive of those Conservatives who are supportive of LGBT rights. Unfortunately, nuances often get lost even by me when I am writing. Mostly because of people like you who seem to fail to grasp even the most basic of nuances when it comes to other cultures, political philosophies, and political ideologies.

    • Mark M.

      January 18, 2010 at 9:53 am

      Catholic anti-LGBT discrimination in Europe is part of the past because Europe has moved away from Christianity. Muslim anti-LGBT discrimination in Europe is part of the present because Islam is a growth religion in Europe. The Left’s embrace of Muslims reminds me of the fable of the frog and the scorpion. Remember that despite its promise not to sting the frog the scorpion did sting because it was its nature. Do LGBT folks have an instinct for self-preservation?
      I am aware of the differences between Shia, Sunnis, Sufis, etc. I also know that there are common elements of belief which unite them. Do you know who Islam’s Martin Luther is? Bin Laden.

    • Sei

      January 18, 2010 at 10:18 am

      Mark M.,

      You know, we were having a wonderful conversation up until this point. Catholic anti-LGBT discrimination in Europe is part of the present, or did you not read about the push back by the Catholic Church when Ireland moved to legalize civil unions, Spain and Portugal legalized same-sex marriage, and how in Poland the former Prime Minister- a devout Catholic- tried to make homosexuality illegal?

      And, no, bin Laden is not Islam’s Martin Luther. That distinction goes to Muhammed’s son-in-law Ali, the man who, in essence split Islam into different sects.

      And, you are making the same kind of blanket assumptions that you accuse me of when it comes to Catholicism. After all, I could easily make the same accusations about Christianity- as a whole- based upon the views of a handful of Christian denominations. After all, they supposedly have the same core beliefs.

      I actually read the Quran. I know what it says. I read it in large part because of idiots like you who swear up down and sideways that it is all about jihad. It is not. The bulk of the Quran is about charity. I know many good Muslims who are not opposed to recognizing homosexuality as being legitimate. I know many good Muslims who are also fighting against the Wahabists. They have been doing so for centuries. What you fail to grasp is that there are moderate Muslims. Instead, you are at war with all of Islam, and all it does is make it that much easier for men like bin Laden to justify going to war with all of the West. So, maybe before you sit there and think that all Muslims are towel wearing wogs, you should really learn a lot more about them than the caricature that people like Glen Beck, Rush Limbaugh, George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and the rest of the Project For The New American Century people make Muslims out to be. You claim to be aware of the differences between Shia, Sunni, Sufi, and all of the other sects. You may be aware of the differences, but that does not mean you know the differences. All it means is that you know that there are differences, not what makes each distinct, and that there are gradients within each one.

      There are several Imams and Alims who believe that homosexuality is not wrong so long as they do not practice anal intercourse. To their reasoning, anal intercourse is filthy and unhygienic. However, oral intercourse and mutual masturbation were not considered to be wrong. It was an interesting conversation I had with a young Muslim woman a few years ago. Oh, and if you are thinking that she was wearing a hajib at the time, you are sorely mistaken. She told me that she and her family saw that as only important for when they attended services or went on Hajj

    • Mark M.

      January 18, 2010 at 10:32 am

      I’m an atheist. I don’t begrudge anyone his or her faith. I am well aware of the existence of moderate impulses within Islam. However, the existence of moderate Muslims does not mean that they are ascendant. Imo they are in retreat. Imams and Alimas that support LGBT rights are universally viewed as heretics and apostates. This anal intercourse exclusion of a handful of Muslims is absurd in my non-religious opinion. That’s like saying it’s ok to love somebody as long as the love is only platonic.

    • Sei

      January 18, 2010 at 12:02 pm

      Mark M.,

      You are “aware” of the moderates, and yet you do nothing to encourage them. In fact, your attitude is largely why they are struggling against the reactionaries within their society.

      You and I have discussed the idea that not all Republicans and Conservatives are lock step anti-LGBT, and that there are shades within their political philosophy. Instead of being willing to understand that applies to Muslims, you fall into the notion that they are all out to kill us. Everything you said about Muslims could also be said about the Republican and Conservative movements right now. That those who support the LGBT Community are also in retreat and rare. Take a look at Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney. Both were pro-LGBT until they ran for President and turned anti-LGBT.

      To my mind, the anal intercourse injunction is also rather absurd, but you also have to remember that many religions have frowned upon certain sexual actions anyway. You do not have to accept something to understand what it is rooted in.

    • Mark M.

      January 18, 2010 at 12:46 pm

      You are right. I do not encourage moderate Muslims. There’s a reason for that. Moderate Muslims appear to be on the losing end of a civil war. This civil war is largely being fought outside the borders of the US. Think of Anwar al Awlaki. There’s nothing I can do to help them except to give them some free advice. How valuable is free advice? It’s worth what you pay for it. I’m sorry if I seem sharp tongued. It’s my nature. No offense intended.

    • Sei

      January 18, 2010 at 1:16 pm

      Mark M.,

      Without encouragement, moderate Muslims will get no where. You do not seem sharped tongued so much as dull brained on this subject. I am sorry, but you really are not willing to see Muslims as anything more than the enemy, and make life that much harder for the moderates.

      Prejudice, incidentally, comes when you blanketly believe that everyone in a given class is evil, wrong, or a problem. When you paint them as being nothing more than barbarians who want to kill us, you become nothing but a barbarian who wants to kill them. Prejudice comes down to a very ‘us v. them’ mentality, and that is what you have here. This blog does a lot to encourage those who support us irregardless of race, religion, gender, sexuality, political affiliation, or other category because we know that we cannot be blinded by labels.

      And, Mark M., it isn’t a civil war, it is a war of religion. You were right about one thing, though you were horribly off on it as well. Right now, what Islam is experiencing is the same as what Protestantism and Catholicism underwent back in the 16th century through the 18th century, and really did not end in Europe until the end of the Troubles in Northern Ireland.

    • Mark M.

      January 18, 2010 at 12:33 pm

      Hi Paula,

      Fear mongering? Maybe that’s a reasonable characterization of my ever evolving views. But there are other reasonable interpretations of my views. Muslim Americans are entitled to full civil rights. They are not entitled to my trust. No one is until I deem that trust to have been earned. I embrace American Muslims like Zalmay Khalilizad because he has demonstrated his solidarity with me.

      I realize I may appear prejudiced. Assuming for the sake of argument that I am prejudiced, so what? Everyone is prejudiced in their own way. We are all trapped in the web of space and time. I came to this site because it was mentioned at a conservative website. I think it was Instapundit.
      Muslims aren’t the issue for our purposes. The issue is the fact that most members of the LGBT communities are allied with other groups within the leftist coalition. Most American Muslims are also members of that coalition. The point I’m making is that many LGBT folks are therefore allied with people who view them as bad people for the same reason the Pope holds that view. I am simply marveling at the irony and paradox.

    • Sei

      January 18, 2010 at 1:17 pm

      And we are suppose to jump in with a group of people who see us as worse than many on the Left? Try for consistency please.

    • Mark M.

      January 18, 2010 at 1:31 pm

      Sei,
      No there’s no reason to jump in with anyone. Imo the best policy is to trust no one who has failed to prove himself or herself. The name Obama comes to mind.

    • Sei

      January 18, 2010 at 1:37 pm

      The problem becomes that, if we do not make alliances, we cannot get anywhere. By going off and being on our own, we would get nowhere. The thing is, however, to cultivate alliances on both sides in order to make progress no matter who is in power.

    • Mark M.

      January 18, 2010 at 1:32 pm

      Yup. Agreed.

    • Mark M.

      January 18, 2010 at 1:33 pm

      That post was directed at Paula. Sorry I’m so technically challenged.

    • Sei

      January 18, 2010 at 1:35 pm

      Mark M.

      I’m the person who wrote this article that you are responding to. Paula and I are both writers here.

    • VinceP1974

      January 19, 2010 at 1:15 am

      Sei: Wow, You put so much stuff in my mouth that it’s going to be hard for your co-writer to say I’m teabagging.

      But that’s what I love about you guys. While you admonish me with Captain Obvious statements (Islam is not a monolith. Duh. Who said it was?) you have no problem engaging in the very behavior. You haven’t told me anything I don’t already know.

      But i know you can’t help it… it’s like so many of you are trained to be the first one to be offended on behalf of some group you patronize.

      so go ahead and warn us about the dangers of living in a European Catholic Monarchy in the 1500s,… it’s so very useful to the discussion about the security problems facing the world today.

    • Sei

      January 19, 2010 at 2:06 am

      VinceP1974,

      If i did not tell you about anything you did not already know, then why did you continue to tell untruths about the world? Is manipulating the world something that you enjoy doing then? If you know all about what I told you, then why is it that you show yourself to be so lacking in knowledge about the world that you need me to explain these things to you?

      Also, you seem to have about as little understanding of the intricacies of European politics as you do about Islam. At least that is what is appears like from your moronic comments.

  5. Lesbian Conservative

    January 17, 2010 at 9:20 pm

    Bridgette,

    People will vote against Coakley for the very fact that this ‘popular progressive agenda’ you talk about is frightening the hell out of many people. And some of those casting their votes for Mr. Brown on Tuesday will be gays and lesbians.

    The political landscape is changing and the LGBT community needs more comprehensive and inclusive strategies to deal with it. But I don’t that kind of dynamic leadership coming from the current crew at Gay Inc.

    • Sei

      January 17, 2010 at 9:43 pm

      Lesbian Conservative,

      Again, the idea that things are as simple as they seem is erroneous. When I talk about a “popular progressive agenda”, a lot depends upon the specifics. Many people want better, more government run health care, and a lot of people want greater regulation of businesses. Those are popular. A lot of the fear is being manufactured by people who hope to hell that they can control the direction. In the end, they can’t. There are a lot of things I disagree with when it comes to what a lot of people call Progressivism.

      I do agree that the LGBT Community should encourage a greater coalition of people who are pro-LGBT whether or not they are conservative in areas other than social issues.

  6. Mark M.

    January 17, 2010 at 7:49 pm

    Any consensual relationship between two loving people is fine. The only people not satisfied with that are either Mormons or Muslims.

    By screwing up so badly Obama has actually set back the cause of civil rights in America. Much of the country is in figurative revolt. None of this was necessary.

    • Sei

      January 17, 2010 at 8:21 pm

      Mark M.

      Mormons and Catholics are more of a problem than Muslims when it comes to LGBT rights in this country. As for the “revolt” in this country, unfortunately a lot of it is more faked than it looks. Right now, the Republicans are planing on running against health care reform going too far, and yet the plurality, that is the not quite majority but bigger than the other minorities, feel that this reform doesn’t go far enough. In an odd sort of manner, a lot of people are more liberal in terms of reigning in businesses than they are about government intrusion into people’s personal lives. It is not exactly Libertarian, if you go by the reality of what Libertarianism is suppose to be- which is small government in the extreme. There would be no fetters on business or personal behaviors. We did have that form of government back in the days before the Constitution. The Articles of Confederation were such a disaster two of the states almost declared war on each other, and Vermont declared itself an independent republic (a fact most people don’t know about- they know about Texas and California but not Vermont!).

      A lot of this so called revolt has been engineered from behind the scenes by people hoping to stir up trouble and make political gains. There is an old truism about revolutions- you had better know how to control them or it is your head under that blade. A lot of what I’m seeing scares me from the Right. Too many of them are stirring up the same kind of anger that caused the Oklahoma City bombing. As a blunt point, I knew people killed in that blast, so it tends to make me very upset to hear the same kind of rhetoric as before.

      President Obama, as a side note, is a Pre-Rooseveltian type President. He is trying to be as hands off as possible. This, unfortunately, means that a very weak pair of politicians are controlling Congress. I blame Obama less than I blame Reid and Pelosi, to be honest. But Obama is not a strong President. I never thought he would be, though.

  7. Pingback: dove anthony

  8. Pingback: Bigdaph

  9. Mark M.

    January 17, 2010 at 4:33 pm

    I said I was a conservative, not a Republican. The only thing worse than the Republican Party is the Democratic Party. Sei is right about the difficulty of joining a flawed coalition of either the Left or Right. That’s the kind of difficulty being overcome by people like the Gay Patriot and Andrew Sullivan (in his earlier incarnation).

    Speaking of flaws, look at the Special Interest Political Order in this country. Both Left and Right are creatures of Special Interests. Just different Special Interests. Despite the descent of the existing political order, advances in civil rights can be made. What I don’t understand is why the existing power structure in most LGBT political organizations acts like old family dogs called by men and women who don’t really see your causes as serious objectives, but only as a means to their own objectives.

    • VinceP1974

      January 17, 2010 at 5:11 pm

      Mark: The way I see it is that a lot of these “gay” groups are basically Leftist Groups first. Just like with the feminist groups. NOW is a Leftist group before it is a woman group.

      If one is a gay person and not a Leftist then these tolerant gay left groups unleash unrestrained homophobic attacks on you. Just like if you’re not the right kind of woman (Paula Jones, Linda Tripp, Sarah Palin, Tammy Bruce) , you will find no ally in NOW.

  10. Mark M.

    January 17, 2010 at 3:24 pm

    The LGBT communities are so blind it almost makes me think you guys and gals want to fail. I’m a conservative who supports equal rights for you because the Constitution simply requires it. Even Dick Cheney is more progressive on LGBT issues than this callow fellow you call president. Stop your dreaming. You folks see enemies where there are none, and perceive allies where there are none. Do you want to know what the real problem with the LGBT communities is? You’re Democrats.

    • Sei

      January 17, 2010 at 4:03 pm

      Mark M.,

      And Governor Jim Douglas- a Republican- vetoed the marriage equality bill, but the Democratically controlled Legislature along with some Republicans and Progressives voted to override. The big problem in this country is just what you fell into right there yourself. You see everything as either/or. I must be Democrat because they supposedly support me OR I must be Republican because of a handful who support me. In truth, the issue is far from simple. There are three components to the political spectrum. Cheney is a social liberal, but a fiscal and foreign policy conservative. Douglas is a fiscal conservative, a social conservative, but a foreign policy liberal. Do you get the problem now?

      I’m a Progressive Independent. I’m fairly liberal on social issues, relatively conservative on fiscal issues, and very much a moderate when it comes to foreign policy. I try to vote for people who reflect that. Unfortunately, you have parties which force a particular ideological bent on their candidates. I would have voted for Mitt Romney, but that was before he underwent his transformation to become the GOP cookie cutter candidate. Of course, he got out done on that by Sarah Palin.

      Vermont is voting for a new Governor this year. I am not planning on voting for Brian Dubie because I feel that he will be as obstructionist as Jim Douglas has been. I have not decided when it comes to the Democrats.

      Incidentally, I voted for Barack Obama because I felt he would be better than John McCain. My decision was sealed when he chose Sarah Palin to be his Vice President. Can I say that I am disappointed by Obama- yes- can I say I am surprised by him- no.

    • mockmook

      January 17, 2010 at 4:38 pm

      Sei,

      Can you point me to where Palin’s actions/record are any less “liberal” than Obama on LGBT issues?

      As far as I can tell, she has a libertarian view regarding government involvement in these issues.

    • Sei

      January 17, 2010 at 8:10 pm

      Mockmook-

      What ever Palin’s past actions are, she is now a cookie cutter Republican drone. Any semblance of individuality was removed from her when she ran for Vice President. She has been assimilated into the Republican collective.

    • VinceP1974

      January 17, 2010 at 5:25 pm

      Here’s what Palin did in Alaska as governor. This tells me that her approach to government is not about imposing her personal views.. but to act in a manner that yields to law and the Constitution. Unlike today’s Democrat party.

      http://www.bentalaska.com/2008/08/sarah-palin-and-gay-rights-in-alaska.html

      In 2005, Alaska’s highest court ruled, in a case brought in 1999 on behalf of nine couples, that the state could not deny benefits to the domestic partners of state government employees. The court ordered the state to implement that ruling in late 2006.

      The ruling was seen by right wingers as conflicting with a 1998 amendment to the Alaska Constitution, passed by voters in a ballot referendum, that defined marriage as solely between one man and one woman. The Republican-dominated State Legislature passed a bill that barred the state’s administrative agency from implementing the ruling. Palin vetoed it.

      “The Department of Law advised me that this bill… is unconstitutional given the recent court order… mandating same-sex benefits,” Palin said in a statement. “With that in mind, signing this bill would be in direct violation of my oath of office.”

      The statement added, “The governor’s veto does not signal any change or modification to her disagreement with the action and order by the Alaska Supreme Court. It is the governor’s intention to work with the Legislature and to give the people of Alaska an opportunity to express their wishes and intentions whether these benefits should continue.”

      Eight days before signing the veto, Palin signed another bill that called for a “statewide advisory vote” regarding the ruling from Alaska’s high court, saying in a statement, “We may disagree with the rationale behind the ruling, but our responsibility is to proceed forward with the law and follow the Constitution… I disagree with the recent court decision because I feel as though Alaskans spoke on this issue with its overwhelming support for a Constitutional Amendment in 1998 which defined marriage as between a man and woman. But the Supreme Court has spoken and the state will abide.”

    • Sei

      January 17, 2010 at 8:09 pm

      And now she is a cookie cutter Republican drone just the way Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani are.

  11. Jim O'Brien

    January 17, 2010 at 2:05 pm

    The Canadian experience of marriage civil rights for the LGBT community is one to keep in mind. Even though we are far more liberal then the U.S., the legislation would never have passed unless our Prime Minister forced his members to do so. It took a lot of courage on the part of our Prime Minister and it played a role in his later defeat. The message is simple, it takes courageous leadership to bring about these changes and you folks don’t have that in the Democratic party. Two other points: 1) most of the lobbyists working on behalf of LBGT community are Democrats first and consistantly follow the party line. 2) Since Canada passed the gay marriage legislation the LGBT community is no longer the liberal voting block that it once was… they are voting for the conservatives in fairly large numbers because marriage is no longer an issue.

  12. Lindsey Abelard

    January 17, 2010 at 1:30 pm

    The disappointing efforts on the part of the democratic party on rights for alternative sexuality is not unexpected. Both the presidency and the congress has recently thrown all of the traditional liberal causes (civil rights for alternative sexuality, women’s reproductive rights, transparency in government, and especially opposition to senseless wars) under the bus in their quest for governmental power over the economy. The democratic party can no longer be considered liberal. It is now Marxist/Leninist. We need a new party.

  13. MarkJ

    January 17, 2010 at 1:30 pm

    Soooo…..how’s that “hope and change” thing workin’ out for y’all?
    Did Barry lie to you? Did your hearts collectively go pitty-pat as he batted his eyelashes, whispered sweet nothings into your ears, and told you in the mellifluous voice of his, “Babe, you’re my Number One.” Did your hearts say “yes, yes, yes!” even as your brains told you “no, no no!”. Did you want to believe Barry…even though you knew he had a history and was a political gigolo? Did you keep finding pictures of other people in his wallet….discovering unfamiliar phone numbers written on scraps of paper in his pocket….seeing him go into other rooms before making “important business calls”….getting regular voicemails saying he’d “have to stay late at the office” while hearing giggling noises in the background? Did you? Awwwww….what a shame. Man-trouble is such a bitch, isn’t it?

    • Sei

      January 17, 2010 at 2:03 pm

      Actually, MarkJ, no. To be blunt, I knew what Obama was going to be like getting into this. Oh, I voted for him, but that is because I had even less confidence in McCain than I did in Obama. I hoped that I would be proven wrong, but that was not the case.

    • Sheila

      January 17, 2010 at 11:21 pm

      MarkJ, that may be the dumbest post I have EVER read. You’re an idiot. Period.

  14. Harbinger

    January 17, 2010 at 1:22 pm

    I for one, will never trust – or give money to – the Democratic Party ever again. So much for change we can believe in.

    • Rebecca

      January 17, 2010 at 2:04 pm

      Let’s see whether we can review the proposed national health care plan and determine whether it includes financing for sex change operations and post therapy, or all aspects associated with sex change operations. There’s an over emphasis on HIV/AIDS policy, but America is behind Pakistan and Iran on this Health Care Policy.

  15. Pingback: LOrion

  16. Pingback: Civil Marriage

  17. John

    January 16, 2010 at 11:47 am

    Feel as you will about the President…

    Let’s examine the two candidates….

    Martha Coakley, as MA Attorney General, filed suit against the US government to get FULL recognition of ALL MA marriages… FULL federal benefits for ALL MA marriages and the repeal of DOMA….

    Scott Brown voted AGAINST GLBT marriage in MA… check his voting record… He has also voted to raise taxes over 350 times… check his voting record…

    There is ONE candidate who has EARNED the trust and vote of the LGBT Community… and that is Martha Coakley…

    • Jon

      January 17, 2010 at 11:10 am

      Its about time that the GLBT community start using our power to influence political parties.  The Dems take us for granted- they can promise us the world but dont have to do a thing because – what are we going to do- not vote?  I say dont vote- or look at alternatives.  Start working for campaigns  that support the Green party- they would LOVE to have the GLBT vote and have promised to work for our rights.  I say lets give them a chance.

      Dont have a Green Candidate- become one.  Lets takeover the party-lol!

      Dems have thrown us under the bus for to long- its about time GLBT’s start acting out in support.

    • Stephen

      January 17, 2010 at 6:18 pm

      Paula–

      Sure, that sounds logical. We want LGBT rights, so let’s stay home and let the guy who will help derail LGBT rights win, as opposed to helping the woman who supports LGBT rights. That will show Obama a thing or two. Senseless.

  18. Pingback: RIRYE77

  19. Pingback: Matt---Free Bitch

  20. Pingback: uberVU - social comments

  21. Pingback: Adam Burling

  22. Pingback: Jenn P

  23. Pingback: Tasha Prather

  24. Pingback: Tweets that mention Lack of Progress of LGBT and Other Issues Threatens To Derail Democratic Majority - Lez Get Real -- Topsy.com

  25. Pingback: Tweets that mention Lack of Progress of LGBT and Other Issues Threatens To Derail Democratic Majority - Lez Get Real -- Topsy.com