Slog: News & Arts

RSS icon Comments on Obama on Gay Marriage


Am I the only person who doesn't like when people say "the gays"?

Posted by Ryan on Summit | March 24, 2008 2:05 PM

He's right. That's what 2004 was all about.

Posted by RJ | March 24, 2008 2:05 PM

and that's why i'm voting for hillary. it's just another type of racism that i don't like to hear coming from him.

Posted by Emily | March 24, 2008 2:05 PM

Yes, climate change and endless war are arguably more important policy issues than gay marriage is.

Posted by boyd main | March 24, 2008 2:05 PM

Once again, ECB ignores that the Clintons are why we have the DOMA and why gays can't openly serve in the US military.

It's all about Triangulation with them, and I don't mean the good kind.

A real President would just order the military to implement a policy and that would be that. But they'll sell you down the river whenever it gets hot - and you know it will - just to stay in power.

Nuff said.

Meanwhile about 100 people just died from salmonella and the country of Canada doesn't seem to be having any problem having gays be married ...

Posted by Will in Seattle | March 24, 2008 2:05 PM

So, if you're not arguing that the Clintons would be better for the gays, what IS your point, Erica? Do you disagree with the (utterly sensible) statement you highlighted in bold? I'm a gay man, I'd love to get married to my partner, but I'm rational enough to realize that, say, the Iraq war or global warming are much higher priorities for society to resolve in the grand scheme of things than my civil rights issue.

Posted by Trey | March 24, 2008 2:07 PM

I am a full supporter of gay marriage but I agree, conservatives use this as a wedge issue as a distraction to the damage they are doing. Like RJ said it helped them in 2004.

Posted by Todd | March 24, 2008 2:07 PM

This isn't anything. Tell us when you've got something.

Posted by Ziggity | March 24, 2008 2:08 PM

another type of racism emily? racism?

Posted by Bellevue Ave | March 24, 2008 2:10 PM

I don't see how this reflects poorly on Obama. I'd say that climate change and our ongoing War of Terror are clearly more important than the gay marriage issue.

And I really want to get Gay Married.

Gay-married. Gaymarried?

Posted by It's Mark Mitchell | March 24, 2008 2:11 PM

Isn't this the guy who just gave a 40 minute speech on race? Race issues are important enough to talk about but women's and gay issues aren't?

Sorry women and gays -- maybe someone will pay attention to you in 8 years.

Posted by poppy | March 24, 2008 2:12 PM

So he is against people exploiting fear of teh gays for political expediency.

This is a bad thing, how?

Posted by NapoleonXIV | March 24, 2008 2:13 PM

Okay ... so, he's effectively arguing that failing to address, say, global warming will ultimately have more of an impact on society than gay marriage, and thus we should spend more time talking about the former than the latter.

Is he wrong? I support gay marriage. I know it's deeply personal for a lot of gay people. But, well, I also like to breathe. I think a lot of gay people do, too.

Posted by tsm | March 24, 2008 2:14 PM

I don't see this as divisive at all. This is the same sentiment that I've always felt with respect to bicycle activism. Yes, bike lanes are good and our car-centric culture is absurd and dangerous, but if you are going to spend your time working for change areound a cause, there are about a bazillion more crucial issues than whether ten blocks of Stone Way is put on a diet.

Posted by quilsone | March 24, 2008 2:17 PM

can't we all just get along?

Posted by Mike in MO | March 24, 2008 2:18 PM

I don't really see this quote as anti- gay marriage. I took it as the following: just let two people who love each other get married, and lets move on to the other issues. This is what gay rights advocates have been arguing for years--that letting two people get married is really no big deal in the grand scheme of things. In the meantime, things that ARE a big deal for the planet--hello, global warming and Iraq war--are being ignored.

Posted by Mary | March 24, 2008 2:19 PM

I saw that as meaning "Can we just let gays marry because we've got bigger things to worry about?" Is that right? Wrong? I'm confused.

Posted by Gloria | March 24, 2008 2:19 PM

Come on--he's lecturing against people who put gay marriage bans on the ballot during election years in order to bring out the fundie vote.

As if gay marriage is a threat that trumps global warming.

He may be a little obtuse in the delivery, but that's the message.

Posted by NapoleonXIV | March 24, 2008 2:21 PM
Posted by whatever | March 24, 2008 2:21 PM

He's not saying let's not deal with gay issues, he's saying let's deal with them and stop wasting time arguing about them. The environment and the war are both issues that require a lot of thought, research, and action. Gay rights is a no-brainer, at least for progressives, and arguing with conservatives about it isn't going to change their mind.

And yeah, Emily, since when is gay a race? What are the other types of racism you hear?

Posted by cmaceachen | March 24, 2008 2:22 PM

When Clinton gives a NATIONAL speech on her plan to provide marriage equality to gay citizens, you let me know... I won't hold my breath.

Triangulation in action.

Posted by UNPAID BLOGGER | March 24, 2008 2:22 PM

this seems less like he's saying "who cares about gay marriage?" and more like "why do we bicker about wedge issues when there's some seriously heavy shit going down?" no one is dying right now because they can't get gay married.

i'm a big fag and i agree with this 100%. i'd rather see the war ended and something done to slow the destruction of the environment rather than be able to get married.

Posted by brandon | March 24, 2008 2:22 PM


I read it that way as well. He's telling the people who are freaked out about gay marriage to shut the fuck up already.

Posted by keshmeshi | March 24, 2008 2:23 PM

As a political analysis, this seems pretty uncontroversial to me. Gay marriage will be won or lost at the state level, so arguing about it during a presidential race really doesn't make any sense - unless you're trying to use it as a wedge issue.

Posted by MplsKid | March 24, 2008 2:23 PM

I love it.

ECB, by posting something Obama said which is not even remotely divisive or controversial, makes a side comment about Hillary not being "better" and therefore succeeds in implying that Obama said something bad in the first place, when, in fact, he didn't.
So ECB is so desperate to help out the "I was under sniper fire" candidate that she's trying to trick people into thinking Obama made an anti-gay remark? Is this what it's come to?

Posted by torrentprime | March 24, 2008 2:25 PM

It sure would have been nice to hear him speak of my citizenship as part of the lovely speech he gave last week.

I do not interpret this remark as support for same sex families. If anything it sounds like a dismissal to me.

Why didn't he say "all we do is argue about civil rights and white resentment" last week?

He also seems to forget that it was his party that blamed their loss in 2004 on marriage. He and his party have done nothing in terms of arguing about marriage. They are the first to point the finger and accept no responsibility for their own failures and shortcomings.

Hillary sucks. Obama sucks.

Rev Wright is right. God damn America.

Shove it.

Posted by patrick | March 24, 2008 2:25 PM

@11 - did you miss the fundamental point of last week's speech on race?

His point (in all of this) is that politicians use these divisive issues (such as race, gender, sexuality) as a wedge to drive us apart and force us to vote to our fears. What Obama is trying to do is focus on the important (read: critical) issues of the day, while not overlooking other issues. When other issues come up that wont lead to - say - 100 years of war or the collapse of global ecosystems, we should have rational, real discussions about how to solve them, rather than using them as wedges to drive people toward voting their irrational and unfounded fear.

This is refreshing. Kind of sad that so many people have the blinders of the politics of fear so firmly attached to their heads that they miss these broader messages.

Posted by gac | March 24, 2008 2:31 PM

What 16-18, 20, and 25 said.

Posted by switzerblog | March 24, 2008 2:32 PM

This statement not a dig against gay people, Erica, it's a dig against the GOP, who made the entire 2004 presidential election about abortion and gay marriage, while simultaneously denying climate change and escalating the Iraq war.

I notice that many other commenters have the same impression...perhaps because they're looking at this statement objectively?

Posted by Hernandez | March 24, 2008 2:33 PM

@ 10 and 15 specifically, thank you for the laughs. we need to do more of that. and to the rest of you too who injected humor.

i agree, this is a non-story. and right on, obama. i'm so sick of the republicans parading us out as the last-ditch scare effort to get votes (hmmm, scare tatics, who does that sound like?)

to those of you who fret, i wouldn't waste my time getting too upset over the clintonistas. these are the same people who believe it's clinton's "birthright" to be president.

go ahead and slam me for being a mindless obama fan if you wish guys, but the bottom line is, the only way your candidate can win is to go against the will of the people:

Posted by alm | March 24, 2008 2:33 PM

Global warming is a more important issue than Gay Marriage. It's a more important issue in the long term than any of those "values" issues. I agree with him wholeheartedly. The continued survival of the species trumps all other concerns.

I think he's got his priorities straight here, and I don't think he's saying equal rights aren't important, just that elevating them to the #1 issue a presidential candidate must address is a distraction to move the debate away from issues that the GOP would rather not talk about. Like how their do-nothing approach to global warming is threatening the long-term viability of human civilization.

Posted by flamingbanjo | March 24, 2008 2:34 PM

Ah, my senator. So, when are you going to get a divorce, Obama? After all, according to you, marriage isn't important.

Straight America says to gay people: Fuck You.

The cost to straight people for treating gay people as human, by ending marriage discrimination, is zero. To compare that to the cost in lives lost in Iraq and the cost people will pay to reduce carbon emissions is outrageous, callous, and infuriating.

Excuse bigotry all you want but this argument is terrible for gay rights, because when will there not be other problems?

What a jerk.

Posted by chicagogaydude | March 24, 2008 2:37 PM

And the verdict is in: ECB is, again, grabbing at straws.

Posted by The Hon. Trolly T. Sloggenfeltz presiding | March 24, 2008 2:37 PM

Gee, gay marriage or global warming.... You know what, being a happy gay guy myself I think it is really fucked up how people are one issue voters. Sorry, but if it is a choice of ending the war, dealing with global warming or getting married, sorry the war and global warming win out. What is the point of getting married if we destroy the planet?

Posted by Andrew | March 24, 2008 2:41 PM

This is a really interesting comment. The way it's interpreted is based entirely on the reader's predisposition to Obama.

If you're an Obama fan, it reads as #17 interpreted it ("stop hating on homos getting married and focus on this war"). If you're a Clinton fan, it reads as Erica seems to have interpreted it ("homos aren't as worth my time as this war is").

Posted by Steve P. | March 24, 2008 2:43 PM

Iím not saying Clinton would be any better for the gays.

Considering she gained all her "experience" as the wife of the president who literally invented "don't ask, don't tell", I don't see how you could, anyway.

Posted by K | March 24, 2008 2:44 PM

#27: That would make sense if Obama supported federal recognition of gay marriage, but he's on the record saying he doesn't.

Obama: "I do believe that marriage is between a man and a woman."

Posted by poppy | March 24, 2008 2:44 PM

I guess this means we have to wait until global warming is resovled before getting to the marriage issue?

Is that what he meant last week?

For being such a brilliant orator whose words move people to tears he sure didn't utter the letters L G B or T during his lecture on American history or contemporary scapegoats.

Not one letter. And he didn't say anything about Fat Ass Feinstein on her million dollar front lawn the day after the election.

She said: "It's too much too fast and too soon for gay marriage"

Democrats know all about's preceisely how they explain losing the last two presidential elections.

Lawrence King...Sally Kern...the you have anything specific to say about marriage or is too divisive for you to explain or defend?

He doesn't get a pass for being an AFrican American man that advocates for states' rights.

Posted by patrick | March 24, 2008 2:45 PM

I don't expect him to utter LGBT during a speech about race.

That said, back to Erica's comment--Hillary probably wouldn't do better.

The fact remains, the candidate who runs on a pro-gay "marriage" plank isn't gonna last too long. It's not pretty, but it's true.

We're still headed on the right path, and with the increased bundle of rights being attached to civil unions, the semantic tissue between those and marriage will grow less and less substantive, until we're there, and no one else notices enough to be offended anymore.

Posted by NapoleonXIV | March 24, 2008 2:54 PM

Sure Democrats, lets make this campaign about domestic social issues, which Democrats are on the losing side of in regards to popularity. Self righteous losing is a great Democratic trait I suppose.

Posted by Bellevue Ave | March 24, 2008 2:58 PM

As a homo, I would rather Obama focused on other things first, like the economy or the war. I think this comment can be read many ways, but, of course, a negative view is helpfully suggested for us by ECB.

I know the Stranger wants dissenting voices, but couldn't we at least have honest ones?

Posted by Dawgson | March 24, 2008 3:01 PM

deep down, i think everyone knows obama is the nominee. beating him badly in PA ( which HRC is going to ) will only make matters worse.

ecb is just having fun with obama zombies. i think she enjoys seeing you guys foam. no biggie. relax. she knows hrc is done.

Posted by SeMe | March 24, 2008 3:01 PM


All Obama is saying here is that the gay marriage controversy is a red herring. Which it is.

You democrats have to start pulling together down there. This is getting ridiculous.

Posted by Irena | March 24, 2008 3:02 PM

Yet somehow America's Favorite managed to talk about immigration..illegal and otherwise...and he managed to throw in something about a glass ceiling for women...

Hey - I don't expect him to say or do anything to help me. He is a politician..not the second coming...he is just as capable (and prone) to continuing America's hegemonic push into the middle east...let the bodies pile up...

but oh, we will have clean air and can get around to not talking out of both sides of our mouth at the same time sometime after 2016.

No matter how good he sounds or how presumptive she thinks she looks, both of them are flawed and worthy of criticism and I'm never going to stop.

Posted by patrick | March 24, 2008 3:06 PM

Well, knock yourself out.

Posted by NapoleonXIV | March 24, 2008 3:09 PM

the only ones arguing about "gay marriage" are those that want to deny civil marriage equality to all Americans. Obama is one of those arguing about "gay marriage".

Posted by Sargon Bighorn | March 24, 2008 3:12 PM

I think it's being taken the wrong way. I think he's saying to those opposed, "why are you worrying about THIS when there are so many more important things to worry about."

Not, "why are you silly gays wasting our time."

Given everything he's said so far on the subject do you really, REALLY, think he'd say something that offensive? No. Thank you.

Posted by monkey | March 24, 2008 3:14 PM

This is what happens when I comment without reading first.

What everyone else who said what I just said, said.

Posted by monkey | March 24, 2008 3:19 PM

@29 wins, and patrick continues to be lame, but is aced out at the last moment of the lamest post spot by @46.

Posted by Will in Seattle | March 24, 2008 3:21 PM

Please ECB don't even consider the possibility that you are taking his statement out of context. Please don't point out that what he might mean is that in a time like this, with all the horrible things going on in the world, that it is plain evil that the REPUBLICANS are the ones focusing on things like opposing gay marriage. Perish the thought of considering that he isn't saying gay marriage shouldn't be an issue that Dems support, but how pathetic it is that it is an issue at all and not a given that should be accepted. That the Republicans use it as an issue to divert attention away from really important things.

I beg you, don't make rational, non polarizing, and even headed statements like that because that wouldn't make your preferred candidate, who is losing badly, look shiny and nice by comparison despite her horrible track record with gay people. PLEASE DON'T DO THAT!

Also please don't say things like that because then I would have to like the things you write, which is currently prevented by your political posts.

Posted by thaumaturgistguy | March 24, 2008 3:22 PM

I'm gay and I wasn't upset or offended by what he said. It kind of hurt my feelings a little but whatever. I would love for Obama to fight for gay rights on the stump but I'm a realist and I know that he knows that if he goes to far to the left on social policy he will lose. It's about choosing your battles and while I would like him to fight for my civil rights, I know that his winning the election is far more important. Is that a cop out? Absolutely. But what is the alternative? If I want to get married, I can (and just might) move to Vancouver- it's a nicer city than Seattle anyways.

Posted by Ace | March 24, 2008 3:33 PM

I think he means that *banning* gay marriage was used as a wedge issue. I agree that when I read that statement it gave me pause, but I think in that context he was arguing more for gays right.

I.e., we're arguing about stopping gays from marrying while our planet is being destroyed, we're in the middle of a war, etc.

Posted by bellevue & belmont | March 24, 2008 3:51 PM

Its funny how ambiguous the language gets when discussing a divise topic other than race.

His speech was crystal clear last week.

Maybe he will get around to delivering a speech that advocates for states' rights as an interim solution while the world cools off and the poles re-freeze.

That sounds fair.

Posted by patrick | March 24, 2008 3:56 PM
The cost to straight people for treating gay people as human, by ending marriage discrimination, is zero.

No, the cost is huge, because most of the country still opposes it, and those bastards will vote for never ending war before they vote for marriage equality.

Posted by keshmeshi | March 24, 2008 4:00 PM

I'm gay, and I wasn't offended at all by Obama's comment.

Obama is just speaking plainly. We all know that our political process has been derailed by wedge issues, like immigration and gay rights, that pit one group against another for political advantage.

Obama once again shows that he's the most sensible and straightforward candidate in the pack. We should be working on our big issues and spending the lion's share of our policy discussion on them: campaign finance reform, health care, the deficit, infrastructure, education, the environment, the restoration of civil liberties. It's not that we can never debate the issue of marriage equality, and he's certainly not saying that. Rather, he's arguing that the age of wedge issue politics has to end if we are to unblock the gridlock that has taken over our political process.

As a citizen of this country, I support this goal 100%.

Posted by CCSea | March 24, 2008 4:04 PM

Jesus...C'mon, ECB. Your powers of comprehension can't be that dull. He's obviously saying that the gay marriage issue has been used as a wedge to keep us from talking about more important issues, like the fucking war, and the environment. Are you saying we should vote Clinton because she'll put gay marriage above those things (which she wouldn't, thank God)?

Stupid. Try again.

Posted by Matthew | March 24, 2008 4:10 PM

I don't see how you could take this as anti-gay (is that even your point Erica?)... I've had arguments with several friends on the gay marriage. Our debates are always heated but only last until one person mutters "but there's bigger things to worry about."

It's an easy way to divide people. Worse it gets replayed over and over in the media because men getting married fits more easily into a 30 second sound byte than the science of global warming or the complicated social divides of Iraqi culture.

Posted by X37V | March 24, 2008 4:10 PM

ECB: Barack didn't pander to the OR gays - next.....

full disclosure - happily gay here and not scared away by the truth that there are issues that are more important than me, me, me.

Posted by jackseattle | March 24, 2008 4:17 PM


I'm not expecting the Democratic nominee to support allowing gays to marry in 2008, but I wish Obama didn't feel the need to drive his campaign bus over gay people to prove how he's going to move beyond unimportant divisive issues. He's the one who brought it up. Why not pick an issue that really is silly?

Watch the video if you haven't. His tone is totally: gay marriage, WTF?

Is this the argument he's going to use for the next several months, possibly several years, when it comes up, say, if the California Supreme Court rules for letting gays marry?

It would be better if he said he's just not for it, rather than it's not important enough.

Posted by chicagogaydude | March 24, 2008 4:22 PM

I think Obama was aiming that comment at people riled up by the false specter of "OMG the gays are gettin' married!" It doesn't take much of a stretch to read the comment as dismissive, though.

As soon as he's got the nomination in hand, though, I'd like to see him stop talking about "gay marriage" and attempt to reframe the discourse so that it is based on the universal right of individuals to make important private family decisions without being overruled by the government. Point out that everyone would be better off if they stopped worrying about the messy details of other families and focused instead on the hard work of managing their own. Equality is a relatively good frame but respecting family values is an even better one.

Posted by Cascadian | March 24, 2008 4:24 PM

So, preemptively: Calm down.

that is so patronizing.

Posted by some dude | March 24, 2008 4:29 PM

(perfectly calmly)

"Iím not saying Clinton would be any better for the gays."

No, Dan, she wouldn't:

For the umpteenth time:


Hillary is only for PARTIAL repeal.

But I'll keep repeating it until one of the Hillarians explains to me how that's being "better" on LGBT Rights.

ECB, care to give it a try? I'm all eyes...

Posted by Andy Niable | March 24, 2008 4:31 PM

Is this supposed to be an anti-Obama post? Because he points out that perhaps straight people should worry less about what gay people are doing and more about, I don't know, the Iraq War? Obviously he's making an appeal for the end of wedge-issue politics. I don't get it, you're taking this as a comment that reflects badly on Obama? You'd rather have republican scare tactics or Clintonian double-speak hedging? I just don't get your point. Or is this your first pro-Obama post? Huh?

Posted by Mr Me | March 24, 2008 4:39 PM

It's perfectly clear based on a number of speeches that Obama has no plans to extend any rights to the glbt community, at least past where they stood in the 90's. If we're lucky we MIGHT get the repeal of DADT. The other candidates are no better.

At this point it's best to vote against people, rather than for them. Democracy works better that way anyhow...

Posted by fluteprof | March 24, 2008 5:35 PM

Wow, fluteprof, that's idiotic. You and your kind should not be involved in politics. Do us a favor & move to Canada or France!

Posted by McCain/Crist '08! | March 24, 2008 5:49 PM

I'm fine with gay marriage but I agree with the prioritization. Sorry, it's just not as urgent as the segregation issue was in the 50's and 60's.

There are plenty of places in the US where every institution - across government, business, community - are gay-friendly, where benefits and rights are pretty much equal, and people are genuinely open-minded, or don't care, or both. Given that, there are far more urgent social and international problems to confront.

Posted by Steve C | March 24, 2008 6:46 PM

ECB is really saying, with all of these anti-obama vomit posts, is the following:


Yes, that is right.

Your Obama hatred is based on such stupid and inane bullshit that I am completely surprised that the chumps at the stranger still pay your stupid ass.

Posted by ecce homo | March 24, 2008 7:10 PM

I'm ok with keeping things orderly too.

First, let's fix the environment. Nothing else can happen until that is fixed.

Second, we'll fix Iraq. Pull out troops. Clean up our mess. I'm sure that will go smoothly and quickly.

Third, health care for nearly everyone in a way that won't offend the corporations in charge of electing our leaders and running the healthcare/pharmaceutical industry. That's liable to be a fully satisfying exercise in justice and sanity.

Eventually we will get around to tackling the foolish issue of defending the constitutional rights of gays. They can wait.

Oh wait...I should say something about ginning up votes to make this sound speechy.

Hey, I know lots of gay people and they don't care about anything so it's ok to wait.

Posted by patrick | March 24, 2008 7:15 PM

@66 Still putting our queer shoulders to the wheel:

Posted by chicagogaydude | March 24, 2008 7:45 PM

Go ahead my gay friends, vote for Hillary (or McCain or Nader). I have a feeling, if you do that, you'll get exactly the rights that you deserve...

Posted by Ed | March 24, 2008 7:55 PM

Another soldier said he thought that it was all right for Mrs. Clinton to visit [Bosnia], but "everyone really wants to see Sheryl Crow and Sinbad."

this comment has finally made me accept the fact that sinbad may have lost all of his cool with the kids.

Posted by cochise. | March 24, 2008 8:06 PM

and oh this can wait...especially if it doesn't effect me....its just someone else's problem.

Posted by patrick | March 24, 2008 8:08 PM

I have a better idea.

Don't support the candidate any more than they support you.

You literally have nothing to lose.

Either way - O or C - you get a space at the end of the line. Stop trying to make it look like the options are anything better than that.

Chasing around O or C like they are the celebrity saviors of humankind is pointless and bound for disappointment. The stupid back and forth that goes on at blogs like this is completely retarded.

There is no difference. Both of them suck. Get over it. Talk about something important. That is one of the few remarkable things Obama has said that contains any substance.

Take his advice.

Posted by patrick | March 24, 2008 8:13 PM

Damn. The glass is never even half-empty for you, is it?

Posted by NapoleonXIV | March 24, 2008 8:19 PM

I suppose that it would be less arguably offensive if he had actually done more to oppose the war. He didn't do much while he was in the Senate to stop it. If it was so important to him to even illustrate the respective silliness of arguing gay marriage at a time like this, then he should have a stronger record of fighting the war that is bankrupting us.


And now people are saying that he's right on about this.

This is a very bold political move, but it is one that has a purpose to distort his past, to give the perception that he is the "anti-war" candidate. It is not one that is steeped in the reality of his supposed iron-fisted fight against the war.

And no, I'm not offended. I just think it's cheap and a little ironic.

Posted by sugamama | March 24, 2008 9:06 PM

Uh, Sugamama, he wasn't in the Senate when we went to war.

Also, I think this prioritizing misses the point. He's not saying, "I don't care about gay marriage," or even, "the Iraq war is more important than gay marriage," (even though I personally think it is-- sorry). His point is that wedge issues like gay marriage (or illegal immigration, or whatever) are just political posturing to make people vote against their actual self interest. Obviously, for a gay person, gay marriage is an important issue. For a straight person, it really shouldn't even enter their minds when they're at the voting booth, as it really doesn't affect them either way. Why should people be basing their votes on issues that have no effect or bearing on their lives? This is a much more powerful argument for gay marriage than anything based on the bible or whatever else.

And, for the record, Obama is on the record as the most clearly pro-gay-rights candidate left. That's just a fact. Hillary dodges the issue, and so does McCain, so that Hillary can seem like she's pro gay rights and McCain can seem like he hates the gays for his base. Only Obama has come out on the record with an honest appeal to homosexuals.

Posted by Mr Me | March 24, 2008 10:12 PM

I don't see the problem here.

Posted by Greg | March 25, 2008 12:00 AM

Ok, I don't see anything wrong with this. I don't know how much you all know about Medford ... but I grew up in Southern Oregon (in Klamath Falls, over the mountain from Medford, but just as conservative). While there are some fabulous liberals in Ashland, the rest of the surrounding area is VERY conservative. It's the assholes who live in Southern Oregon who voted 70% in favor of the fucking marriage amendment and who voted for the OCA measures in the past. I've spent enough time talking about politics with people in Southern Oregon that I know that they spend way more energy and time trying to take away gay rights than they do thinking about real issues. I know a LOT of people in that area who base their votes entirely on gay marriage and abortion instead of the war. It's like Margaret Cho said -- millions of people voted for Bush in the last election just to be sure gay people couldn't get married. The war was going on and on with no end in sight, the economy was in the shitter, but god forbid we vote for that John Kerry because he might let gay people have civil unions. And a lot of those people live in Southern Oregon.

Obama wasn't saying "silly gay people, you care about this too much." He was saying Republicans who vote for candidates who will prevent gay marriage rather than for ones who will stop the war and global warming are dumb. He was addressing a town that he knows has a lot of people who vote based solely on those "family values" issues. I saw him in Eugene the night before and he said nothing about gay marriage, because Eugene residents, and the campus crowd in particular, tend to believe that gays are human beings with the same rights as the rest of us. It's NECESSARY to bring it up in Medford.

If you support Hillary, support Hillary, but frankly ó and I say this as a person who supports gay marriage 1000% and hates that it's not yet legal everywhere ó the war and global warming are way more important.

Posted by Jo | March 25, 2008 12:26 AM

Speaking of gay marriage. There is a court case in Iowa that will be decided by the state supreme court case this year or next where most observers I have spoken to expect the court to either require civil unions or gay marriage. The result will certainly be a huge backlash against the Democrats who have held firm in blocking a Constitutional amendment this year and where the House Majority leader, Democrat Kevin McCarthy, forced a vote last year by using a rare procedure to force all lawmakers at the Statehouse into the House, where the doors were locked and the vote was taken. McCarthy and other dems took this because they wanted to force moderate Repubs in swing districts to vote, assuming, correctly, that they would pick up enough votes to offset the few dems opposed to the bill. Anyway, this fall the Repubs are going to be going after dem state representatives in swing districts on the combination of this vote and the vote against a marriage amendment to try to retake the house so that if gay marriage or civil unions are approved by the court they can move to amend Iowa's constitution. And frankly, we need your help to stop this. This a.m. I set up a web site to start raising such funds through Act Blue, please contribute if you can. Thanks.
To see details and contribute now please go to the address below or click my name:

Posted by Mike Keller | March 25, 2008 6:46 AM

Okay, in my defense I set up the act blue page in the middle of the post and am so late to get to work I didn't properly proofread. My apologies. Here's what I meant to say.

National anti-gay organizations are targeting a take over of the Iowa House of Representatives because it, like the Iowa Senate, passed civil rights legislation protecting Iowans from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation last year and because this year both chambers held firm against allowing a vote on an Amendment to the Iowa Constitution that would have prevented the state Supreme Court from issuing a pending decision on the issue of whether the state constitution affords gay Iowans equal access to marital rights. By all accounts, a decision by the Iowa Supreme Court in favor of gay marriage or civil unions is a clear possibility and the actions of the Iowa House leadership in standing firm on these issues leave the Democratic majority in the Iowa House of Representatives at serious risk. So, frankly, Iowans need your help in offsetting all the oustide funds streaming into Iowa Republican coffers.
At this point in time, the best place to donate is to the Iowa Democratic Majority Leader, Kevin McCarthy, who will transfer the funds to those Iowa house members most in need and at risk. Kevin is a bright and savy legislator who engineered the use of a rare procedure to lock all members of the Iowa House in its chamber last year to force Republicans in moderate districts to vote up or down on the civil rights legislation, a maneuver that resulted in yes votes from a number of Republican legislators representing moderate swing suburban districts.
Kevin is also solidly progressive on other issues and determined to maintain a lasting Democratic majority in the Iowa House of Representatives. Please help me show him that such a majority can be one that shuns all discrimination against the LGBT community by contributing through this site.

To see details and contribute now please click my name or go to

Posted by Mike Keller | March 25, 2008 6:52 AM

Mr. Me, I agree that issues such as health care and ending the endless war are more important than gay marriage. He simply doesn't have that strong of an anti-war record (he didn't have to be in the Senate to play a larger role in stopping the war and I recognized that he wasn't a Senate member in 2002). In fact, when he was sworn in to the Senate, it took him 18 months to come out against it - and did so around the time he began his exploratory committee for the Presidency bid. That's a long considering the claims he made in his OR speech.

Thus, I know he's not anti-gay or pro-war. I just think he's giving the impression of having done something he didn't: fight hard against the war. Secondly, if McCain had made a similar comparison (even though I know he wouldn't stop trying to "sell" the war), we would probably be bitching.

Posted by sugamama | March 25, 2008 7:13 AM

All I ever see ECB do is put Obama down- its defensive. I think maybe once or twice, but not nearly as many times as I've seen her defense have I seen her actually explain to us why she's such a HRC fan.

Why? Erica? WHY?!? (and dont make it about Obama this time)

Posted by catnextdoor | March 25, 2008 7:34 AM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).