More Gay Donors Drop Out of DNC Fundraiser, Protesting Justice Department Brief

That DOJ DOMA brief isn’t going to fall silent any time soon, Obama and his administration need to address it and correct it. I for one have gone from waiting-and-seeing to profound disappointment. There are far more urgent matters, indeed, but that is all the more reason so much effort and detail should not have gone into such attacks as what is in that DOJ DOMA brief.

JohnK:he past is the past. Clinton isn’t in office anymore;
======
I grant you that. However, Bush isn’t in office anymore either, yet there he is being held up as the bad guy by gay activists (again). Perhaps Obama feels free to only feed you crumbs because the activists will dependably resort to criticizing Republicans first.

I wouldn’t count on Obama passing anything thats unpopular in his first term. While the majority of Americans believe in the traditional definiation of marriage, so will Obama. Unless that changes, or he is into his second term, don’t hold your breath.
I do understand the urgency however. Chances are going up that one or both houses will become closer to even or even switch as it has always done in history. This makes each day that goes by more and more critical for this issue.
But politics are what they are. Obama will be, as with most politicians, more concerned about re-election than sticking their neck out on this issue (and politicians from both parties do this, not just one).
Since the majority of Americans believe marriage should remain as it is, giving in on this now would mean a face plant in the next election cycle and could even likely limit Obama to one term.
The best chance for any movement on this would be second term for him, though Congress will still be skiddish no matter what party since they are always up for re-election.

How did gays ever get enough clout to have a headline on ABC and the pull of the US President? What a sad world we live in

John:”How did gays ever get enough clout to have a headline on ABC and the pull of the US President?”
They’re a large minority population – several times the number of people who have ever attended a Tea Party protest. Of course they get some coverage and the attention of the President (regardless of party).

“, then the majority prevails and the minority simply has to suck it up and move on.”
This is why they characterize it as a civil right since that would trump the majority. I personally do not see it as a civil right but as a social norm institution, societal acceptance of bonding recognized by the government, very similar to civil unions. The main difference is the name, which apparently using the label “marriage” is a civil right, something I don’t necessarily agree with. However, I do think that civil unions should be treated in the same manner as marriage as far as legal rights etc. That’s just my view and I have a gay aunt and nephew whom I love so it’s not a viewpoint of bigotry.

He is following the same path as Clinton. the don’t ask, don’t tell revocation woudl be a much easier process than Gitmo.
its looking more and more like, he sold the community a bill of goods for their money and their votes. They have been fleeced.

MayBee:”Bush isn’t in office anymore either, yet there he is being held up as the bad guy by gay activists (again). ”
Uh, they aren’t blaming Bush, they are blaming Obama. It is perfectly reasonable to use Bush’s policies as a comparison. Or Clinton’s for that matter (ie, Obama’s position on gays in the military is just as bad as Clinton’s).

The fact that President Obama has betrayed these very people that worked so hard to elect him is a true reflection or his character.

I don’t understand. . . Where does one draw the line as a nation, a culture, a people. This issue of sex-sex marriages is not a civil rights issue but more a societal-norm issue. Suppose I want to marry my dog, or my horse, or my cat. Am I being negated my civil rights because a court house does not honor the marriage, though I have been living with my critter for “x” number of years and have been supporting the critter.
Moreover, this issue of damning the President or suddenly getting mad and “taking all your toys from the sandbox” is so infantile and immature.
I don’t get it!

I take exception with the maligning of the Bush administration because he was never anything but respectful to gays. But good for the gays for finally waking up to see their self-interest.

At least Bush didn’t tell them what they wanted to hear in an effort to cheat them for donations and votes, only to turn around and insult them by comparing their relationships to incestuous ones.

“I’m reading the exact same arguments that were used against women and blacks in our country years ago. This is about CIVIL RIGHTS”
I disagree. And I would argue comparing this to women and black civil right struggles is detrimental to the cause. This isn’t about getting the government to accept this with force by labeling it a civil right, it is about getting the people to accept it by appealing to them. The more virulent people are that this is a civil right and not a social norm institution, the more I think they will turn people off to their cause. Just my take. And I have gays in my family, I love them, but that doesn’t mean I think its a civil right. Civil Unions should have all of the legal rights of marriage, there I stop until our society changes its collective mind.

Just how much do you think Pres Obama can accomplish in such a short period of time? I am so tired of us crying when we don’t get exactly what we want immediately. 4 months and we want it all. Obama is pragmatic and working on our rights one step at a time.
….Flame Off…..

The arguments that next people will want to marry an animal are just ludicrous. You people are idiots.

“The arguments that next people will want to marry an animal are just ludicrous. You people are idiots.”
Its about social acceptance in an institution. The institution of marriage is a social norm, which our government reflects. Marrying an animal is not a social norm, which the government reflects. Forcing societal norms to adopt the views of a minority is counter productive to the cause they seek. The task they should concentrate on is influencing it into a social norm, not forcing it. It make take years, it will happen slowly, and most likely it will happen. Just not now.

“Same sex civil marriage would serve to reduce the burden on society’s safety net in the same manner as traditional marriage.”
Agreed, just call it Civil Unions. They can call themselves married if they wish, just don’t force society to label it according to the desires of the activists. In the end, its arguing over a label and thats not a civil right. Having equal legal representation is a legitmate issue, of which I personally support. Sharing the same name, not so much.

Just how much do you think Pres Obama can accomplish in such a short period of time?
~~~
I’m pretty sure that is not the issue. The issue was throwing the gays under the Bus in the DOMA brief. We aren’t talking accomplishments we are talking harm.
I’m glad the gays are waking up.

I don’t blame them.

He told you he didn’t believe in gay marriage during the campaign. He attended a homophobic church for 20 years. I just don’t understand why gays and lesbians didn’t hear those things during the primaries. Gee, they actually had a chance to vote for a person who voted against DOMA, but instead talked themselves into believing that somehow what Obama was saying wasn’t what he meant to do. I wonder if you figured it out now.

He told you he didn’t believe in gay marriage during the campaign. He attended a homophobic church for 20 years. I just don’t understand why gays and lesbians didn’t hear those things during the primaries. Gee, they actually had a chance to vote for a person who voted against DOMA, but instead talked themselves into believing that somehow what Obama was saying wasn’t what he meant to do. I wonder if you figured it out now.

“To the marrying dog comment – are you serious? You are equating two consenting adults to someone who would like to marry an animal!? Marrying my partner is not the equivalent to pedophilia, bestiality or any other non-consenting relationship you can think of. We contribute to this country with our hard work, our taxes and our time – we should be given equal protections under the law – period.”
It was on a basis of social acceptance, not an equivelancy argument. So lets just forget that example for a moment and replace it with multiple partner marriage, which is illegal and not socially accepted in our nation, but is in others. While you could have one man, and three women, all consenting to the relationship, it is not a civil right for it to be recognized. He can of course, marry one and live with the other two all in the same house and practice his belief, he cannot however marry each and have all 3 recognized.
Thus, its not a civil right, but a social recognization. You can’t force people to call you a married couple, no more than a multiple partner union can be forced to be called married … groups or something.

Why is a marriage that involves three people against the law?

Oboma is there any perversion that you will not support. I do not want any of my tax money to go to any homosexual or liberal group such as ACORN.
know that you people do not understand or care about the Bible but you my understand that male dogs do not mate with other male dogs same goes for all animals but humans.

If racial integration was dependent on the popular vote, many states and counties in America would still be segregated. No one should be dependent on the popular vote for their civil rights. Gay and lesbians pay the same tax rates as heterosexuals and therefore should have equal rights.

“Why is a marriage that involves three people against the law?”
Largely based on Roman empire societal functionalities. Even though men usually had mistresses, he could only have one wife. Born out of the rule of law. Since the Roman Empire adopted Christianity, the melding of the two established single partner marriage, which was actually contrary to much of the eastern cultures at the time. (Even the old Testiment has referrences to multiple wives)
Later in the middle ages it became more important among the ruling elites, as this dedication to a single partner became a mainstay of forming alliances.
Throughout it all though, its importance was grounded in human emotion. Multiple partners meant pain and jealousy among them. Societies believed that this institutionalized jealousy and pain to be detrimental to society, and thus became laws. I’d have to research it again but I believe its origins are in ancient Greece, later adopted by the Romans.
Its been years so some of what I said above is based purely on a shotty memory.

Ok ABC, we have a N. Korea ship the US is tracking because they think it is carrying missle parts or nuclear materials and you want to report this? Everyone with half a brain know Obama is full of BS. What about ABC being a ponzie to Obama’s health care programs and telecasting from the WH and not giving any rebuttel or allowing any adverse advertisement? Tell the real news ABC

Regarding homosexuality in the animal kingdom:
__________________________________________
By referring to homosexuality in the animal kingdom to justify homosexuality in the human race, you have lowered yourselves to the level of animals! Honestly, human beings are many times more functionally excellent than animals and are also held accountable! That is the poorest excuse for immorality I’ve heard to date.

jbb.. what does it matter if homosexuality serves no biological purpose or not?

To the comments on “lowering” by comparing to animals, I was simply clarifying that the comments by Leaper were misinformed and untrue. I was never attempting to justify anything. Homosexuality hurts no one, and does help people find happiness.
Not everyone is born the same. It baffles me how people can accept autism, ADD, depression, all of these biological factors, so varied and so many, yet the simple idea of homosexuality somehow escapes your grasp. The difference between male and female is not nearly as great as you think, things getting mixed up in the wiring is no surprise at all. What is surprising is the raw hatred seen towards a natural phenomenon.

All,
My final words on this discussion belong to the Apostle Paul and are found in Romans 1:20-29. Please remember; it is not Christians that homosexuals will answer to. It is God. We’re just relaying His message to you. If you do read the above passage, please also read 1 John 1:9 for information on how to be forgiven. Cheers.

This is pandering to a special interest group. Why don’t hetero couples working for the Federal government get the same benfits as gay couples?

How much is this gonna cost us?

The Bible is silent on the subject of homosexuality as a sexual orientation; the Bible is also silent on the subject of gay marriage: it neither endorses nor condemns them. Any person with the common sense to read the Bible from an historical-critical perspective can realize this. It is the silliness of literal interpretion of an historical document of paradoxy (i.e. The Bible) which leads to unfounded and unGodly homophobia. GLBT’s will continue to fight the Holy-Spirit-inspired good fight and eventually win equality; Jesus will see to it. Thank God!

The Bible is silent on the subject of homosexuality as a sexual orientation; the Bible is also silent on the subject of gay marriage: it neither endorses nor condemns it. Common sense (a gift from God) dictates that the Bible be interpreted from an historical-critical perspective. To insist on a literal interpretation of an ancient text filled with paradoxy and parables (i.e., The Bible)is folly. GLBTI’s will continue to fight the Holy-Spirit-inspired fight and will ultimately prevail by obtaining equality. Clearly, it’s what Jesus wants. Thank God!

Steve – You don’t want equal rights for gays, yet you love your neighbor as yourself? I don’t get that. What does your gay family and friends say about yoru stance that you should have more rights than them??
No one is pushing their beliefs on you. You can have them if you choose. Legal rights in a pluralistic society is a different ballgame – it needs to be equal to all whether, whether your religious beliefs match up or not.

I’m troubled by two questions. Question #1, should a gay man have the same rights to use a woman’s public bathroom as any other woman does? …And question #2, should an African American woman have the same rights to use a woman’s public bathroom as any other woman does? – My answer to these two questions are different. Therefore gender discrimination and racial discrimination are not the same thing. Human beings are segregated by biological gender, and have always been. I am 110% behind gay rights up to the point where it denies biology. Forcing ME to live a life, denying reality. A man should not share a bathroom with my daughter. One of the two of them, has to be denied entry. As a requirement to maintain female privacy. A line belongs somewhere. I’m having a great deal of trouble figuring out where.

Obama sold his soul to become president, he promised everything to everyone. He will never give full support to same sex marriage, because the African American community if most ageist it.

What if I marry an animal? Would I and it have the same rights?

This really could haunt the Democratic party. If you consider the fact that exit polls showed that 4% of voters identified themselves as gay and they voted nearly 3 to 1 for the Democrats, the loss of that group very well could swing many close elections away from the Democrats. Then you add the fact that gays donate hugh sums of money to the Democrats (almost on the level as money donated by unions and trial lawyers) and the Democrats are in debt and behind the GOP in fundraising, and you have a potential mess brewing. The GOP knows this and that’s why Arnold Schwarzenegger announced today that he won’t defend Prop 8 in California. The GOP smells blood and knows the Dems are in serious danger of loosing thousands of votes and, most importantly, a big cash cow.
As an openly gay man involded in the GLBT community for nearly two decades, I can tell you that I have never seen this community as angry with the Dems as we all are now.

Lynn.. not sure if your post was meant for me.. but I agree with you 100%.

“Hmm old testament Sodom and Gamorrah.”
This Biblical passage is clearly (not just a suggested) reference to non-consensual male-on-male rape. And, forced sexual activity (irrespective of sexual orientation) is clearly condemned by the Bible, both from a literal and historical-critical perspective. Apparently, I need to qualify my comment with greater care. The Bible is silent on the subject of adult, consensual homosexuality as a sexual orientation; the Bible is also silent on the subject of adult, consensual gay marriage. Now, my statement is fully true!

Sorry Steve, it was for John Merritt.
Hopefully, he reads it.

Plumber if Marriage is not a right then what is it?

WHAT.. please tell me what verse I can find that on in the bible.

Plummer – Do you think Marriage is a privilege? Same applies to that. One group of two adults get that privilege, but another set of two adults don’t.
It really is a right, tho, because the government bestows 1,400 different rights and benefits to heterosexual couples currently.

To What:
Well, if all the world’s religions are opposed to gay marriage, than by all means it must be bad. After all the people who brought us the inquisition, Salem witch trials, mass genocides, bigotry, intolerance and support for atrocities committed during armed conflicts can’t be wrong. Organized religion has a lot to answer for. Wouldn’t want to be them, or their passive supporters, on judgment day.

WHAT! genesis 2:24-25… hmmmmm, Ok but what about these options listed in the bible that came after genesis 2:24-25. I need help in picking one. What would you suggest? Also this is the same genesis that told the story of Cane killing Abel then sleeping with Eve ,, correct?
1. Polygynous Marriage Probably the most common form of marriage in the bible, it is where a man has more than one wife.
2. Levirate Marriage When a woman was widowed without a son, it became the responsibility of the brother-in-law or a close male relative to take her in and impregnate her. If the resulting child was a son, he would be considered the heir of her late husband. See Ruth, and the story of Onan (Gen. 38:6-10).
3. A man, a woman and her property — a female slave The famous “handmaiden” sketch, as preformed by Abraham (Gen. 16:1-6) and Jacob (Gen. 30:4-5).
4. A man, one or more wives, and some concubines The definition of a concubine varies from culture to culture, but they tended to be live-in mistresses. Concubines were tied to their “husband,” but had a lower status than a wife. Their children were not usually heirs, so they were safe outlets for sex without risking the line of succession. To see how badly a concubine could be treated, see the famous story of the Levite and his concubine (Judges 19:1-30).
5. A male soldier and a female prisoner of war Women could be taken as booty from a successful campaign and forced to become wives or concubines. Deuteronomy 21:11-14 describes the process.
6. A male rapist and his victim Deuteronomy 22:28-29 describes how an unmarried woman who had been raped must marry her attacker.
7. A male and female slave A female slave could be married to a male slave without consent, presumably to produce more slaves.
8. and of course …
9. Monogamous, heterosexual marriage What you might think of as the standard form of marriage, provided you think of arranged marriages as the standard. Also remember that inter-faith or cross-ethnic marriage were forbidden for large chunks of biblical history.

What! – The author of Genesis had no concept of sexual orientation. He was explaining the beginning of life according to him. Why did God approve of Abraham, Solomon, and David, among many other ‘godly’ men, to have more than one wife? They obviously didn’t adhere to this verse.
Anyway – this has nothing to do with the topic at hand. The Bible is separate from Government.

Note also that the Democratic National committee has dropped funding to the Stonewall Democrats group, at the same time it is asking gay donors to continue to fund the DNC. It really is amazing that they are ignoring a major constituent group’s concerns and expecting not to have a negative response from the group. If I were part of the gay community, I would have been insulted by yesterday’s blatant attempt to buy them off with miscellaneous “benefits” that do not include the big-ticket benefits like survivors’ benefits and health insurance, of course because those benefits are illegal under current law. Given what he was constrained from offering, it seems that obama would have put a different slant on the event yesterday rather than put on a show and expect gay supporters to be mollified.

Lynn do you happen to have a website or list of these 1,400 rights and benefits bestowed upon these heterosexual couples? I might be missing out on something good and don’t even know it!?

Doug I sure hope you’re not eating shellfish. I believe that’s a sin according to Leviticus as well. Take your bible and go home and stop shoving your oppressive hypocritical religion down our throats.

So Lynn and Countrysquire and Dixies Land. 1. What you are saying is that God approved homosexulaity because men and women (godly) have done it in the past? In other words they sinned, and God approved it. God allows man to make choices. Does He love them any less. No. Man is not perfect, never has, and never will. But to assume that because a Man of God committed a sin makes him human, and not perfect. Just because this ‘Man of God’ sinned, God is not going to yank this title from him. Why? Because he is a just God, a compassionate God and a loving God. I fail to agree with your analysis. If that is what you call it. 2. Could you please give me the verses that state Saul, Jonathan and David had a love triangle as you put it. I guess that explains Saul wanting to kill David. So he could have his son to have sex with? Is that what you are sayng? I fail to agree with you once again. 3. To know me is to love me, because you will NEVER find a better friend in this world. If you to put your entire life on another person to sacrifice for you, it would be me. If you had no food, clothes, shelter or anything in this world, I would gladly give it to you. I love unconditionally. I do not care what color you are, what religion you practice, or whether you like me or not. God did not put me on this earth to make friends. He placed me here to help others, if I can. Other than that, I guess if I invited you over for Thanksgiving dinner, you wouldn’t come; because I disagree with you? I was hoping to meet you.
Sign me: Forever a friend of God.

i had a good laugh reading this
can disagree yet not kill each other
THANK GOD

I definitely believe in polygamy and feel as thought that it is ok for me to marry two men. So, if gay marriage is passed in every state, it would definitely be discrimination. I feel as though we should embrace Polygamy if we embrace gay marriage.

Plumber,, So it’s a privilege granted by the state that some people can have and others can’t? I believe it is still under debate across the nation.
Loving v Virginia (1967) stated that marriage was a “fundamental freedom”. So your telling me it’s ok for one group of American’s to have this freedom but another group can’t. Please show me where marriage is stated as a privilege in the US constitution?

KR what does a tree have to do with anything. That is so far off base. This is a issue of one group of American’s having a legal right and all the benefits that apply while another group cannot. Society deemed this as marriage. If you believe in what you stated then there should be no state label of marriage for these rights and we should call everything under one title. Civil Union.. People together contract… whatever. I personally don’t care what it’s called just as long as it’s equal.

Socialism = poverty.. I was just quoting the same book of the bible he was. I even gave the verses. If the bible is going to be used in debate then you can’t pick and choose what you want to use. Anyone who did that would be a hypocrite. Please do tell me what I’ve stated that makes me a hypocrite and liar?

‘equal protection of the laws’ So if my partner of 9 years is in the hospital and I can’t see him. Where is my equal protection of the laws? I don’t get them because I’m denied marriage. Otherwise I would have all the protection I need as a spouse.

KR.. you have a good point. Personally I’m fine with any good name for it.

Perhaps the time has come based on the above posts for us to remember that one of the ideals of how our government was based is on separation of church and state. Keep your religious views in your family and your church…keep them out of my governmental rights. Personally, I lost all of my assets, pension and social security rights when my partner of 15 years died. We had wills power of attorney, living wills, you name it…I had no RIGHTS after 15 years I DID NOT MATTER. Being married would have taken care of that as it did for my mother when my father died. I think the time has come for the government to call all “marriages” civil unions with the same benefits to all. Keeps the narrow minded church fanatics out of the situation completely. If you want to get “married” let it be some cutsy church thing…the governmental end of the union would be “civil” for all.

I don’t give a damn about your religion and what you think God intended, I want my civil rights and you had damn well better get out of my way, there is no place in my world for a bigot.

I think if all gay persons across America stopped giving money to all campaigns/politicians and all charities, social clubs it would be the best way to get results. All organizations WANT money now: colleges, parks, hospitals, churches–and they rely heavily on contributions made by gays. Just how much so could be enough to prove they are a major cotillion to not be treated like rogue citizens.

Is the ONLY attitude from the gay community anger and hatred and lack of respect for the difference of opinion?
IOW, is their ONLY response one of intolerance?

“I don’t give a damn about your lack of religion or that you don’t care what God intended, I want majority rights and you had damn well better get out of my way, there is no place in my world for a xxxxxx.”
Harley: Do you like that paraphrase of your nasty statement? Is it not illustrative of why arguments are won by objective issues, and not by subjective opinion? We can call names, and make threats, all day long, but that settles absolutely nothing. Understanding, kindness, and respect are called for on BOTH sides, not your bullying steamroller tactics that do nothing but inflame!

I think the anger amoung other Democrats towards the gay community is a scream. Here you all are depending on our votes and money (especially money) to help bring the Democrats into power – so that your agenda will finally go forward – but once in power you tell us to shut-up and the heck with our agenda. You guys actually tell us we don’t matter and don’t you dare get mad about it either and leave us. Well guess what? I say if us gays leaving the Democratic party helps enable the GOP to retake power, then so be it. I don’t care if you think I’m selfish. Perhaps if the Dems loose power, next time the rest of the Democrats will realize they had better actually quit being selfish little chickens and give the GLBT equal rights.
There are so many other wonderful things the gay community can give to besides throwing good money after bad into the low-down and crummy DNC. This is an exciting and historic time as the GLBT community finally ceases to be slaves to one particular political party. If anything, it might be that our group is simply be ahead of the curve than most other groups in seeing what a corporate scam these two parties really are.
Who should we join? I say anyone you want. It won’t take too many lost elections for one of the parties (most likely the Dems) to come crying to us for some $$ and votes. Good riddance Democratic party!
P.S. – Straight people are always welcome to leave these two corporate parties too and form other parties so we finally have more than two of the same to choose from. :)

It is essential for gay people to withdraw their GENERAL support of the Democratic Party.
Someone mentions the Log Cabin Republicans – I actually joined them during my the time I was a registered Republican. Needless to say, with all the Bush’s fiascos and selection of Palin I left that party in a sheer horror. The Log Cabin Republicans are well meaning but here in California we already have the most liberal Republican possible as a Governor. Not much more can be accomplished within the Republican Party.
The right approach is to support those of Democratic candidates who will fight for repeal of DOMA and, eventually, for same sex marriage as a federal law. Our neighbors in Canada and our ‘special friends’ in UK have that without any harm to anyone.
The latest Obama’s crumb is by far insufficient. Obama, of course, has more important things to do at this time than to pay attention to any particular minority. Legislators, federal and state, however, should consider same sex marriages their high priority and by giving blindly money to DNC some of such people may be bypassed by the traditional politicos still in abundance in both parties.
As a 75 year old retiree I have no money to spare on any cause. So, probably, I just should stay out of this debate.

President Obama is a huge disappointment. His Justice Department is offensive. MLK must have turned over when he heard the words used against an oppressed minority. Too bad – I really thought there would be REAL change and the US Constitution would mean something. Makes one think we are really a Theocracy like Iran…only where the Christian Right call all the shots. Obviously, the generals will determine the DADT rule…wonder if they could now separate blacks from whites under the ‘keeping disciple’ idea. President Obama lost my ‘next’ vote. I don’t believe in real change…obviously others make the rules. Even my (CA) senators Feinstein and Boxer don’t either care or have any power to do the ‘right’ thing by ALL their citizens.

I am a glbt activist and stand proud with my brother and sister who are both gay. My family means more to me than some stupid religious ideal. More people should be this way. Go within yourself and want for someone else what you want for your SELF.

I would rather help for them who are sick with Aids than helping to marry them.