Comments on Obama's Play for Gays

Greetings from Maui! No, McCain was born to US citizens on US soil (a military base). Nice try, though.

Isnt a US base considered US soil the same as an embassy?

I think he was born a US citizen when he was born in the Panama Canal zone. the Terminator was born an Austrian citizen.

That there is the difference I think. I doubt it will be much of an issue, but it would be cool if they told old man McCain he cant run.

The NYtimes is fishing, but so far they have helped Old man McCain instead of hurting him.

Isnt a US base considered US soil the same as an embassy?

Yeah, but Dan already knew that.

As nice/interesting as it'd be to suddenly have McCain out on a technicality, it's bullshit and such a perfect example of letter-of-the-law versus spirit-of-the-law. No child ever born to a mother stationed overseas by the military can be president? Even if it works to our advantage in this particular instance, fuck that.

You know who else can't be Commander and Chief? A homosexual, because we aren't allowed in the military. If McCain can be Prez than so should I.

I don't think the Times is fishing in this case. It's a story that people have been talking about and an interesting constitutional issue. It's slightly bad timing to have this come out so soon after the lobbyist story, but I think it's valid to print a story about this question.

Obama lost the gay vote in California due to a nasty HRC plant in the SF Chronicle right before the primary- http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/02/05/BAM5US1B5.DTL
This story was later established as bullshit and no direct connection was made between HRC's people and the story, except her long time friend- the very corrupt Willie Brown and his tool Gavin Newsome(sorry, if you lived in SF you would feel this way about GN too) - were behind it.
Obama's biggest fans have been in the So Cal gay community- David Geffin as well as lessor known people.

What do you think, Dan? Should we hold Obama's "McFuckup" against him, or should we get aboard?

Obama and Hillary both gets equal ratings by the HRC on GBL support. The difference--for me--is that Obama will actually talk about gay rights in front of mixed audiences (including rural rallies and African-American Church-sponsored rallies) whereas Hillary seems to only mention the gays at Logo debates and high-buck HRC dinners. At her big mainstream events not a word.

Just imagine if Obama, Clinton, Kerry, Gore, or any other Democratic candidate had been born outside the US to American parents. It would be an issue from now to November. But IOKIYAR.

It's still a non-issue, though.

I recently met a gay man in California who voted for Hillary in the primary because "Obama has freaky fingers."

What's hilarious (or not so hilarious, on second thought) about McCain's situation is that if it were to come before the Supreme Court, Scalia and the rest of the "strict constructionists" that don't want "activism" would certainly abandon those ideals temporarily.

Am I the only one that does not have 100% faith that Obama is a true friend of the gays despite what he may say.

Regardless of whether one considers a military base in a foreign country US soil (which it is), would this matter anyway? Assuming either one, if not both, of his parents was a US citizen, he would autmoatically become a "natural-born citizen" at birth, by dint of his lineage. No? I thought the whole thing with Arnold was the face that he is a naturalized US citizen, not that he was born in a foreign country.

The real question regarding McCain and his birth in the Panama Canal Zone is this: how would a "strict constructionist" interpret the Constitution in this matter?

@11
Yeah! And he's left handed, too!

@8--hmm, Paul, shall we compare a single tactical mistake by staff (McClurkin) with the long-lasting legacy of caving on Don't Ask/Tell/Pursue (millions of dollars wasted, thousands of lives affected)?

Shall we compare it to not vetoing DOMA? Shall I remind you that Obama is for FULLY repealling DOMA, whereas Clinton only wants to repeal PART of it?

Was it Hillary who went before the congregation of Ebenezer Baptist Church on MLK's Birthday and, when one could have played it safe, instead gave a very pointed speech condemning anti-semitism and homophobia in the Black community? No, it was Barack. Name a similar politically risky speech that Hillary has made on the subject of queer rights.

The Clintons threw us under the bus shortly after our checks cleared in 1992. So far Obama has a much better track record.

#13: I have 100% faith he'll definitely be more of a friend to the GBL community than Clinton or McCain, yes.

@13:

have no doubts: obama will betray The Gays. so will HRC. they both will betray every liberal cause to one degree or another.

it's what presidents do.

3 questions: 1. who will betray your special interest group least? 2. who will beat mccain like a red-headed stepchild? 3. if 2 is not 1, can you suck it up like you've sucked up 8 years of president sociopathic narcissist?

@1 and @2 - You are engaging in pre-9-1-1 thinking. The Bush administration has made it clear that military bases are NOT US soil. That is how they attempt to justify their illegal and unconstitutional treatment of the prisoners they are holding at Gitmo. Now it seems like they are trying to have it both ways. It's US soil when it is beneficial to the Republican party, and it is not US soil when it is inconvenient to GWB.

the last time the GOPers dealt with this was when another Arizonan, Barry Goldwater got the nomination. Barry was born in Arizona when Arizona was not yet a state.

i dont think the McCain question is much of an issue and the Dems would be morons to pursue that angle. it would make Mccain a hero with military families and former US embassy staffers.

There is no doubt that the Supremes would find in favor of McCain. There are sufficient writings to establish the Founder's intent, as outlined in the article. The Constitution doesn't say anything about "soil".

@17 - I agree with you whole heartedly. I wouldn't trust any of the Clintons on GLBT issues any further than I could throw them. And yes, Oboma's willingness to bring the issue up, when he doesn't have to, in front of predominately Black audiences tells me that A) he "get's it",and B) we mean more to him than just a fund raising pool that is there to be tapped every 4 years.

The Donny McC thing could have been handled much better, but I am not willing to turn my back on the man over one screw up. Especially not when the alternative candidate has a history of throwing us under the bus when ever it is convenient.

I always assumed the "natural-born citizen" clause meant that anyone with US citizenship is eligible, as long as they were not born by caesarean section.

So McCain is safe. They didn't even have caesareans back when he was born.

It also bars clones.

Good thing too ... but could it bar people who are the result of IVF?

@14, "Assuming either one, if not both, of his parents was a US citizen, he would autmoatically become a "natural-born citizen" at birth, by dint of his lineage. No?"

No. He is a "citizen at birth". I think the problem is there is no precedent to equate this with natural born citizenship.

Fourteenth amendment:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

"Born" is natural born, "naturalized" otherwise (by law rather than by birth).

Then from wikipedia:

Current US statutes define certain individuals born overseas as "citizens at birth," as opposed to citizens by birth.

The question seems to be whether "at birth" was supposed to mean natural born, or a sort of instant naturalization at birth.

That said, going after this is a stupid idea. Courts will rule in favor of McCain, and military who might have gone blue will rally around McCain in some sort of symbolic protection of their own offspring's presidential aspirations. Anyone challenging his presidency will (rightfully) be viewed as a Democrat with an agenda and it will be spun by any right winger with half a brain as an example of how far the power-hungry democrats will go to steal the presidency from a war hero.

I agree with Matt's comments from the Towleroad post:

1. Clinton's giant policy paper (her version of Obama's Blue Print) also does not include one word about LGBT. Shame on you for being so one sided.

2. Clinton's website also does not say one word about LGBT issues or people unless you know the special URL or have a link. Everyone, look at her campaign site and try and find it, it isn't there. Only those deemed worthy (i.e. with the link or URL) can get to the LGBT page. Why? so as not to offend other possible voters? Doesn't look like she is too committed to us if she can't even do it publicly on her website. Obama's positions and views on LGBT issues are easily found from his homepage.

3. Clinton doesn't want to repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell because it is discriminatory or wrong. She wants to repeal it to make sure the armed forces have more people especially those with skills. THis is clear on her LGBT page (the one you can't get to without the URL). That URL is: hillaryclinton.com/feature/lgbt. Obama wants to repeal it because it is wrong and unequal, see his position off of his home page (people and LGBT), it is the issues pdf on the page.

4. Clinton position on LGBT Marriage is: "Supports civil unions
Hillary will work to ensure that all Americans in committed relationships have equal benefits -- from health insurance to life insurance, property rights, and more." Notice it doesn't say anything about rights equivalent to marriage, just vague equal rights. Obama (while not calling it marriage, which I wish he would support) goes much further, saying on his issues, "Barack Obama supports full civil unions that give same-sex couples equal legal rights and privileges as married couples....Obama also believes we need to fully repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and enact legislation that would ensure that the 1,100+ federal
legal rights and benefits currently provided on the basis of marital status are extended to same-sex
couples in civil unions and other legally-recognized unions." He keeps referring to giving us the same rights as married couples. I wish he would just give us marriage (which he is trying to do, all but in name, but I want the name), but he is equating all of the rights and benefits of marriage, he is being specific (the more than 1,100+ rights), not ambiguous like Clinton, who leaves herself a lot of wiggle room. Who is more for our rights?

5. Obama consistently talks about LGBT equality in his speeches (his stump speech, the MLK church speech, the Kennedy endorsement speech, even his democratic convention kick-off speech in 2004). We are part of his coalition and included. When has Clinton ever talked about LGBT in her speeches except when she is talking "to us" specifically or looking for our funding? Who is hiding us versus really talking about us. I don't want to be in Clinton's closet (i am not in my own, why should I accept her keeping me hidden or accept that it is okay for her LGBT support to be "on the down low").

6. I was also very annoyed at the McClurkin mess, but when I start to see all of the gay haters that are on Clinton's payroll (actually getting paid for their views, McClurkin wasn't) and balance that against how Clinton has chosen to support us (or not), I concluded that Obama is a better bet.

7. Finally, Clinton's experience included 8 years as First Lady with Bill. Bill enacted Don't Ask Don't Tell when he had a Democratic Congress. He enacted the Defense of Marriage Act (and then campaigned on his support of it in the South). Hillary learned from him, she knows that LGBT will vote Democratic, so she can count on us and we won't go elsewhere (she learned this from Bill, it is part of her "experience"). Sorry, but I don't want to be fooled again (second time would be shame on me).

@24 - well, they've had them since Julius Cæsar came out that way - hence the name and not the salad.

Five miles on either side of the Panama Canal was called the Canal Zone - hence Zonians. A U.S. territory - same as having been born in Alaska or Hawaii prior to achieving statehood.

Of all overseas-born Americans, Zonians were the most privileged.

@28: If they segregate restaurants by salad preference, could I be seated in
the Caesarian section please?

Presidents not born in the United States or as US citizens:

George Washington, February 22, 1732
John Adams, October 30, 1735
Thomas Jefferson, April 13, 1743
James Madison, March 16, 1751
James Monroe, April 28, 1758
John Quincy Adams, July 11, 1767
Andrew Jackson, March 15, 1767
William Henry Harrison, February 9, 1773

Martin Van Buren, born December 5, 1782, was the first American-born President of the United States. John McCain, born in what was unequivocally a Territory of the United States, has a far better claim as "native born" than did our first seven presidents and our ninth.

@30, your last sentence is true, but it's a pointless distinction. Article II says:

"a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution"

which includes all of the above.

What if the candidate was born to a woman who was escaped a sweatshop owned by buddies of Jack Abramov, in the Northern Marianas? Could that child be president someday? MADE IN USA!