Obama wants our votes, not our civil rights. NO DEAL!!!

MAWM and I were at the NYC Gay Pride Parade a little over a week ago, and did our best to remind our LGBT brothers and sisters that Barack Obama is no friend to our community.  Here’s MAWM trying to get out the message:

Surprisingly we were the only ones there that we saw that were trying to hold Obama accountable for his two-faced approach to dealing with the LGBT community.  You see, he wants us to vote for him (where else are we gonna go?), but he also wants to pander to religious extremists who not only oppose civil rights like marriage, but think that they can cure us.  Obama has been talking out of both sides of his mouth on this issue for years now.  Another thing I noticed was the absence of anyone at the Pride Rally representing the Obama campaign.  Guess his frat boy campaign staffers didn’t want people to even think they might be gay.

Obama recently said that he is opposed to the proposed amendment to California’s constitution making marriage between one man and one woman.  But what has he said about marriage in the past?

“I believe that American society can choose to carve out a special place for the union of a man and a woman as the unit of child rearing most common to every culture.”

-Obama, in The Audacity of Hope

“I don’t think marriage is a civil right.”

-Barack Obama during the Illinois Senate debate, 2004.

So all of a sudden he has seen the light on this issue?  Forgive me if I don’t believe a word that comes out of either side of his mouth.  His serial pandering and lies have become quite open lately, with flip-flops on FISA, and Iraq, not to mention his abrupt swing to the right on issues like abortion and the death penalty.  My prediction?  If California ends up becoming a close race, I can see Obama either reversing his position, or, more in line with Obama’s style, saying that he believes it is up to the people of California and will honor their decision.  Anything that allows him to take no real position on the issue.

During the primary Obama went as far as he could without totally committing himself to civil rights for gays.  He said that he supported civil unions, but not marriage.  However his statement on the California Supreme Court’s decision allowing gay marriage seemed to contradict that From MSNBC:

Obama’s campaign issued a statement saying, “Barack Obama has always believed that same-sex couples should enjoy equal rights under the law, and he will continue to fight for civil unions as President. He respects the decision of the California Supreme Court, and continues to believe that states should make their own decisions when it comes to the issue of marriage.”

So if he opposes gay marriage in favor of civil unions, why does he support the Supreme Court decision making gay marriage legal in CA?  In fact, Obama has been quite vocal on this decision in the past:

“I’m a Christian, and so although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition, and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman,” he said in 2004 on Chicago TV station WBBM.

He told gay rights supporters in Iowa last year, “You want the word ‘marriage,’ and I believe that the issue of marriage has become so entangled, the word ‘marriage’ has become so entangled with religion, that it makes more sense for me as president, with that authority, to talk about the civil rights,” rights that would come from civil unions.

So which is it Barack?  How can you have such a firm stance on “marriage” based on your religious conviction and NOT support the proposed amendment making marriage between a man and a woman…just as you suggested?  He’s either lying to the gays or the christians, and I don’t think its the christians. 

And I am sick and tired of Obmabots bringing up DOMA which keeps states from recognizing gay marriages performed in states where it is legal.  Many of them, during the primary, pointed to Bill Clinton’s signing of this bill as a reason that Obama was better on gay rights than Hillary.  Regardless of the actual history of the bill, it was insulting enough to suggest that Hillary and Bill were one entity, not to mention that personal and cultural feelings toward gay marriage might have changed in the last 12 years.  I wonder if Obama objected to DOMA at the time it was passed?:

Obama also said in late 2003 that he was against repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act. But he switched his view on that question early in 2004 and said he would work to repeal DOMA.

Obama has said he is opposed to same-sex marriages, but he has not explained why he also opposes measures to ban them.

Well, forget about “at the time”, as recently as 2003 he was in agreement with it.  He changed his stance, but by that time Hillary was firmly opposed to the law as well.  So once again it was Obama following Hillary’s lead on a major issue, this time civil rights. 

But what about McCain?  He must be rabidly anti-gay, right?  Well it turns out he and Obama aren’t that much different on the issue:

Both McCain and Obama have said they believe the states should decide their marriage policies. Both men have said they support civil unions, rather than full-fledged legal marriages between same-sex couples.

Both men voted against the proposed amendment to the United States Constitution in 2006 that would have defined marriage as only between one man and one woman.

In fact, during the debate on the issue, McCain was one of the most vocal opponents of the amendment:

Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona broke forcefully with President Bush and the Senate GOP leadership Tuesday evening over the issue of same-sex marriage, taking to the Senate floor to call a constitutional amendment that would effectively ban the practice unnecessary — and un-Republican.

When it comes to gay rights, I concede that McCain has done more than his fair share of pandering to the religious right, especially in his primary battle.  But when you look at the company that these men keep, it certainly gives you a better idea of where their hearts and minds really are.  First of all, McCain:

 I remember McCain telling me during an interview in the mid-1990s about how a gay member of his staff sensitized him to the issue. When he ran for president in 2000, he won the endorsement of the Log Cabin Republicans. The Advocate calls him “notoriously pro-gay.” In 2004, McCain was one of only six Republican senators to vote against the Federal Marriage Amendment, and after a Massachusetts court affirmed gay unions, he took the position that states could decide their own marriage laws without federal help.

What about Obama.  Surely he can do better than the Republican nominee when it comes to gay rights, can’t he?  I mean, we are some of the most loyal Democratic voters in the party.  Let’s take a closer look.  First there was this statement from the McClurkin episode in SC:

Hildebrand then talked about how Obama is “a different kind of politician” who often talks with the African-American community about how “there needs to be less bigotry, there needs to be more of a working relationship, you know, more acceptance of a lot of African-Americans who do not agree with the gay lifestyle. There was a time where [Obama] repeated that we’ve got to do better – that my own black community needs to do better. And he does not hesitate to do that.”

Umm, Mr. Obama, I’m gay, not my lifestyle.  If you even bothered to do any cursory examination of our community you would know that “gay lifestyle” has long been used to indicate that we “chose” to be gay, rather than born that way.  And then there are his “pastor problems”; McClurkin and Meeks.  Meeks has long served as counselor to Obama:

 Described in a 2004 Chicago Sun Times article as someone Barack Obama regularly seeks out for “spiritual counsel”, James Meeks, who will serve as an Obama delegate at the 2008 Democratic convention in Denver, is a long-time political ally to the democratic frontrunner.

When Obama ran for the U.S. Senate in 2003, he frequently campaigned at Salem Baptist Church while Rev. Meeks appeared in television ads supporting the Illinois senator’s campaign. Later, according to the same Chicago Sun Times article, on the night after he won the Democratic primary, Sen. Obama attended bible study at Meeks’ church ‘for prayer’ and ‘to say thank you.’

Since that time, not only has Meeks himself served on Obama’s exploratory committee for the presidency and been listed on the Obama’s campaign website as one of the senator’s ‘influential black supporters’, but his church choir was called on to raise their voices in praise at a rally the night Obama announced his run for the White House back in 2007.

So who is he? From the Southern Poverty Law Center:

The Rev. James Meeks is a key member of Chicago’s “Gatekeepers” network, an interracial group of evangelical ministers who strive to erase the division between church and state. A stalwart anti-gay activist, Meeks has used his House of Hope mega-church to launch petition drives for the Illinois Family Institute (IFI), a major state-level “family values” pressure group that lauded him last year for leading African Americans in “clearly understanding the threat of gay marriage.”…

Meeks and the IFI are partnered with Focus on the Family, the Family Research Council and the Alliance Defense Fund, major anti-gay organizations of the Christian Right. They also are tightly allied with Americans for Truth, an Illinois group that said in a press release last year that “fighting AIDS without talking against homosexuality is like fighting lung cancer without talking against smoking.”

And Donny McClurkin, who headlined a “gospel tour” with Obama back during the SC primary?

Here we have a presidential candidate at a concert that this campaign put on with one of the singers preaching about the suffering that is homosexuality and how we can all pray-away-the-gay, and this candidate isn’t a Republican. He’s a Democrat.

This is proof enough that we aren’t invited into Obama’s big tent. Sure, we can go in there, but we’re going to have to put up with attacks on our identity while everyone cheers on.

And finally, although a bit off topic, I found this bit of information while researching this post that our dear sweeties might take a gander at when they scream about SCOTUS and that we will have the blood of back alley abortions on our hands:

 But certainly in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade, which would then force women in America to [undergo] illegal and dangerous operations.” This wasn’t a fluke comment—McCain said the same thing more than once.

It is hard to believe, but for many of us, it is not about holding our nose to vote for McCain, but voting for him because he is the more progressive candidate.