President Obama just slapped the gay and lesbian citizens of this country in the face with his support of 'don't ask, don't tell' and DOMA. He promised to do away with both in his pre-election speeches.
The baby boomers who took to the streets in protest in the 70's now seem to believe reason and talks will get the same results their protests did almost four decades earlier. And they have taught their kids the same thing.
I prefer peaceful talks, reason and common sense over riots and mayhem but history shows the latter gets as much or more accomplished than the former and much more quickly. Is it time to once again take to the streets in protest?
No politician I know wants the streets of their neighborhood, town or city filled with angry citizens. The media, on the other hand, loves this kind of thing and will gladly feature it on the evening news. And the average Joe will see there are real people out there who are very upset with how they are treated.
It's an effective way to gain recognition.
Women protested to gain their civil rights. Blacks protested to gain their civil rights. Maybe the LGBT community needs to do the same thing now.
But we have one reality that women and blacks don't, we can hide being gay, lesbian or trans (unless you're TS). That means those who live a dual life might feel they are risking exposure if they gather in the streets in protest.
Is that enough to keep us from being recognized as a formidable voting block and therefore gain our deserved civil rights?
Julie
Quote'don't ask, don't tell' and DOMA
Either marriage or the military are institutions that need to be done away with, both discriminate and cause hardships. Gender and sex are the least of their problems.
I think that right now we are doing reasonably well both in the political arena and in the culture at large, despite Obama's (better be temporary) reversals.
I'd place priority in the short term (this year) on an inclusive ENDA over repeal of DOMA or DADT. We're getting traction on gay marriage in states, so that could be a focus too -- reversing Prop 8, making sure something similar doesn't go through in Massachusetts or the other states with gay marriage, New York ... well, we'll see about that. I think next election cycle (2010) will be the time to judge Obama's record on gay rights, not just a few months in, especially ocnsidering how much has gone on in these few months.
There is not going to be a federal reversal of DOMA until at least 15 states have gay marriage. It's not up to Obama, its up to the Congress, and until they voters that sent those clowns to the DC Circus, that law will not change.
I have to agree with you there, Kat.
And keeping the states that have added gay marriage may be difficult to hold on to:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090618/ap_on_re_us/us_gay_marriage_maine (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090618/ap_on_re_us/us_gay_marriage_maine)
The firm that did the public relations work for the Prop 8 effort in CA has been hired to bring their efforts to Maine.
I expect our fiends friends at the LDS church will start sending out pulpit sermons next.
-Sandy
They're getting a boost from the diocese, which is allowing signature-gathering at churches.
I'm thinking it's way past time to start taxing the "churches." If they are going to allow and encourage membership to vote particular ways, allow petition drives for political causes into their sanctuaries, and hire PR firms, attorneys and assorted other political action groups to be paid from their coffers then they are de facto political organizations.
Time to start levying property taxes and other taxes just as we tax other political organizations.
Report those churches to the IRS. If enough people raise a fuss with the IRS, they just might take away tax exempt status for specific churches/houses of worship.
Post Merge: June 18, 2009, 03:39:43 PM
Heres a 538 dot com link. Shows the approve/disapprove polling on 7 different GLBT rights issues.
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/search/label/gay%20rights (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/search/label/gay%20rights)
Were, IMO, going about this wrong by rushing to achieve marriage equality. Look at the approve numbers when it comes to say, housing discrimination in deep red states such as AL.
With the exception of gay marriage, civil unions, and child adoption almost every state polls at 55% plus on the other issues that are of importance to us.
Theres even, what many of you might consider, surprises in regards to civil unions. States such as Alaska show about a 55% approve rate. Several, if not most, red states are at 45% plus when asked about unions.
It might take more time, but going for incremental state by state increases in regards to our civil rights is most likely the best course of action.
PS If I linked y'all into 538 correcly you should be about to run through all 18 postings that are in regards to "gay rights." I suggest also looking into the thread that restates the gay marriage question when polls are conducted.
Happy reading... Mich' link repeat http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/search/label/gay%20rights (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/search/label/gay%20rights)
The ruling in California has been since these ballot measures are not political - i.e. not one party or the other, but often social, then the churches are not violating the policy. I don't agree with that, but as long as the parties are left out, its not considered political.
Quote from: tekla on June 18, 2009, 09:32:28 PM
The ruling in California has been since these ballot measures are not political - i.e. not one party or the other, but often social, then the churches are not violating the policy. I don't agree with that, but as long as the parties are left out, its not considered political.
I dunno, I'm starting to see a lot of sense in the Sir Bedivere argument about witches, ducks, wood and floating. I say if we weigh the churches and they weigh less or same as the political parties that we just go ahead and admit that they are political parties. :)
What else floats?
Wood.
Michelle, thank you for that link.
I don't think it necessarily suggets that gay marriage is the wrong battle front, though it's certainly subject to debate. Just because it's not as popular, doesn't mean it's not important. Perhaps legalizing gay marriage is a tool for making homosexuality moer acceptable to the mainstream of society. Also, look at how these views have changed over time (support is still rising as fast as ever) and how reframing the issue as a negative right ("should the government be allowed to restrict the right of gay couples to marry" rather than "should the government allow gay couples to marry") increases the support for legalizing gay marriage by an enormous amount.
Anyway, interesting food for thought.
Many people I know are fed up with the unfulfilled promises of our elected officials. And there's a lot of talk about revolt from the grass roots sections.
We all know the best time to push through unpopular issues is at the beginning of a political term. Voters have short memories and politicians know that.
So why has Obama basically turned his back on the LGBT community and risked angering them? Could it be he and his backers have no intent to honor the campaign promises he made? Could it be he is no friend of the LGBT community?
Our community is hopping mad right now. Many LGBT big money contributors have pulled their support. But it seems the Obama administration doesn't care. Does this mean we will soon find out the mainstream simply doesn't want the people of our community to gain the rights we deserve? Are we deluding ourselves into believing things are okay when they really are not?
This isn't just about gay marriage. While that may be the hot topic now there's a plethora of other civil rights we are fighting for and that includes enacting and enforcing transgender rights. If something that has as much as support as gay marriage and eliminating don't ask, don't tell is ignored, do you think they will even care about trans rights?
The State of Illinois has a law protecting transgender people from discrimination. Yet, I and others I know have been directly discriminated against and the state simply ignores our complaints. To our face they make all the promises in the world but when it comes time to act they do nothing. The politically connected trans people I know tell me the laws here protecting trans people are never enforced and basically mean nothing. And those who violate those laws know this.
We are a non-factor in the eyes of the people we elected to represent us. And I don't mean just here in Illinois. It's national.
And Obama just proved that.
Julie
Could it be he and his backers have no intent to honor the campaign promises he made? Could it be he is no friend of the LGBT community?
Or could it be, with two wars, one totally pycho nation (N. Korea) with nuclear weapons, one nation with Nukes going down the tubes fast, a crisis in Iran, an economy in shambles, 1/3 of the nation not covered by any health care, a devastated industrial base and a Congress that redefines worthless, that he might be a bit busy this week.
Second, and my big pet point. Look, national stuff really don't matter. If your local situation sucks, well national change is not going to spin things around. And where it is good, like SF, Seattle, Portland - well even having Bush and Cheney in office didn't effect us much.
So fight for change, work to change laws, get rid of useless ones, add new ones, provide funding and oversight for local programs. All programs that work are local programs. The places that are the best places for TG persons to live are that way because of LOCAL efforts, not national intervention.
The federal gubm't ain't riding to the rescue. Not now, perhaps not ever (or at least until it's too late) - and that's called Federalism for the most part.
And the very best time to push through unpopular political issues is at the start of the second term.
Quote from: tekla on June 19, 2009, 09:00:11 AM
Could it be he and his backers have no intent to honor the campaign promises he made? Could it be he is no friend of the LGBT community?
Or could it be, with two wars, one totally pycho nation (N. Korea) with nuclear weapons, one nation with Nukes going down the tubes fast, a crisis in Iran, an economy in shambles, 1/3 of the nation not covered by any health care, a devastated industrial base and a Congress that redefines worthless, that he might be a bit busy this week.
Second, and my big pet point. Look, national stuff really don't matter. If your local situation sucks, well national change is not going to spin things around. And where it is good, like SF, Seattle, Portland - well even having Bush and Cheney in office didn't effect us much.
So fight for change, work to change laws, get rid of useless ones, add new ones, provide funding and oversight for local programs. All programs that work are local programs. The places that are the best places for TG persons to live are that way because of LOCAL efforts, not national intervention.
The federal gubm't ain't riding to the rescue. Not now, perhaps not ever (or at least until it's too late) - and that's called Federalism for the most part.
And the very best time to push through unpopular political issues is at the start of the second term.
Kat, I hate it when you are your most irritatingly correct.
The grassroots movements have always done had the best effects. That is what pushed Mr Obama into the Presidency in the first place.
But dadgumbit *he promised*!
Yeah, spank me for being a whining little girl, but it's like when daddy *promised* to spend the day with me, but then the phone rings and work takes him away.
I feel hurt and betrayed that Mr. Obama has not been more active and more vocal in discussing LGBT issues. Though I did have a conversation conference call with Rea Carey of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force and she met the President recently and as he greeted her the first words out of his mouth were, "So what can we do about moving the Hate Crimes bill forward?" So he is not ignorant, nor ignoring, but feels that there is only so much that can be done through the executive branch directly, DOMA and DODT really hobble efforts to move things along.
I still feel hurt though.
-Sandy
Quote from: tekla on June 19, 2009, 09:00:11 AM
Could it be he and his backers have no intent to honor the campaign promises he made? Could it be he is no friend of the LGBT community?
Or could it be, with two wars, one totally pycho nation (N. Korea) with nuclear weapons, one nation with Nukes going down the tubes fast, a crisis in Iran, an economy in shambles, 1/3 of the nation not covered by any health care, a devastated industrial base and a Congress that redefines worthless, that he might be a bit busy this week.
Second, and my big pet point. Look, national stuff really don't matter. If your local situation sucks, well national change is not going to spin things around. And where it is good, like SF, Seattle, Portland - well even having Bush and Cheney in office didn't effect us much.
So fight for change, work to change laws, get rid of useless ones, add new ones, provide funding and oversight for local programs. All programs that work are local programs. The places that are the best places for TG persons to live are that way because of LOCAL efforts, not national intervention.
The federal gubm't ain't riding to the rescue. Not now, perhaps not ever (or at least until it's too late) - and that's called Federalism for the most part.
And the very best time to push through unpopular political issues is at the start of the second term.
You should apply for Obama's press secretary. Nice spin but it doesn't wash.
When your house is in disorder it should be fixed before you go globetrotting pretending to be the hero who can fix the world's problems. Other countries hate us for sticking our nose in their business. No one is going to stop North Korea from developing and, if they so wish, using atomic weapons. And we can't fix Iran either but we can piss them off.
The terrorists who threaten this country do so because we force ourselves on their culture, their nation and their way of life. They want to be free of our intervention. And they are not going to be persuaded into believing our way of life is preferable to theirs. History has proven that.
And I beg to differ, but national stuff does matter, A LOT! We have so many problems here at home Obama can spend the rest of his term working on fixing them. And he should. Uniting the nation would be a great start. Instead of pretending to be absorbed in things over which he has little control, he should get this nation on track to be working as one instead of being up in arms over things as basic civil rights. If we are in turmoil how can we expect to fix anything abroad?
Take the cape off. Remove the "S" from your chest. Fix the matters at home before flying off to save the world.
Yes, we need to keep our eyes focused on what the other guy is doing but we do not need to be spending time in their countries trying to force them to see things our way. It doesn't work, never has, never will. Remember Viet Nam.
And you won't make your second term if you don't keep the promises to the people who voted you into office in your first term. So it's best to do it early in your first term, that is if your office has term limits. Otherwise just make those early days in your term dedicated to keeping your campaign promises. That's how to stay in office.
Now, back to civil rights, the national debt, unemployment and everything else that ails this country. Start by giving people their basic civil rights and free their energies to help with the rest of this mess.
Julie
Quotehe should get this nation on track to be working as one instead of being up in arms over things as basic civil rights
No amount of laws or threat of jail is going to change the way people feel about another's behavior. Forcing people to accept homosexual behaviors is only going to drive the wedge deeper.
Quote from: lisagurl on June 19, 2009, 02:27:24 PM
No amount of laws or threat of jail is going to change the way people feel about another's behavior. Forcing people to accept homosexual behaviors is only going to drive the wedge deeper.
It does not change thoughts, agreed. But neither did the civil rights act of 1964.
But the civil rights act did change
behavior through laws.
And over time, behavior changed thought.
Quote from: Sandy on June 19, 2009, 02:46:37 PM
It does not change thoughts, agreed. But neither did the civil rights act of 1964.
But the civil rights act did change behavior through laws.
And over time, behavior changed thought.
Actually, the act itself changed very little behavior beyond the collective behavior of some Fed. government bureaus in some states.
In 1964 I was in elementary school. Lemme see, O yeah, I was in 9th grade when the first black faces arrived -- three males --- from being bused away across the county and past the school we all lived within three miles of.
In 1974 or so the Feds started demanding "busing for the purpose of racially balancing schools." By the 1990s pretty much every district (not those in the Northeast where township schools are common and are perhaps the largest perpetrators of segregation even today) in the country was as integrated as it could be.
So, over time, yes, the overt behaviors have gone underground into peoples hearts and minds where they still harbor racial animosities, but generally do not apply those to workplace, schools and housing. Although the churches are prolly the most segregated aspect of USA-life we still have.
Now, Obama can sign a few executive orders, hell, he may even decide to draft some legislation and submit it through this or that Rep for passing by the House and Senate. But just like he makes a budget and submits that, but then has no major control over how Congress passes that budget, he has no control over Federal laws.
tekla's absolutely spot-on. Just like LBJ for civils rights, Obama might be able to push this or that and certainly he can use the "bully pulpit," but actually changing laws he's not going to be able to do. Congress does that and the SC rules, if suits are filed, whether or not those laws pass muster with the constitution.
So the Obama press-secretary or spin-doctors can speak to what tekla said, but if they do they'd be actually "spinning" you the truth of American constitutional practice.
And as was also mentioned -- I'm sorry, it does strike me that there are more than a few current events that trouble me a whole lot more than do DOMA and ENDA and whether or not "gay" marriage is recognized by the Feds.
I mean, it would be nice, for instance, to see a Federal Water Authority to help states learn to parcel out water rights, and a Federal Clean Air and Water Act that was enforced, strictly. It would be nice if, perhaps, the Feds would shut the DEA out of insisting that hemp = marijuana for the simple fact is that hemp could help replace and reduce toxic items like petrochemical fertilizers and ethanol costs, building materials for construction in everything from office buildings to houses and garages, fiber for clothing rather than the current polyester (both cheaper, stronger and longer-lasting -- Levi's used to "wear like iron" because they were originally made from hemp, not cotton.
Yes, LTBG issues are important to me, but I'd rather see some action on a few of those things I listed prior to me getting too concerned about repeal of DOMA and whether or not LTBG-folk can openly serve in the military. Those things are window-dressing and the real issues of our lives are much more mundane and foundational and get consistently ignored.
Radicals need to get educated instead of getting angry about the non-essentials. If my TN BC never gets changed to F then fine with me as long as the planet I live on isn't being made dead-space in the name of the choice of couches I can make for my living-room, or whether or not my friends Les and Russell can get married while one is serving his final hitch in the Navy.
Get real here, folks. Please.
Nichole
QuoteBut the civil rights act did change behavior through laws.
And over time, behavior changed thought.
How much time? Here in 2009 in Mississippi look at the statistics. Blacks are still at the bottom in everything. Yes there are a few tokens but by far behavior has not changed. The State's Attorney General refused to investigate an " Ethics Report" that stated the problems in local government.
All right, I'll admit that I have a bit of stars in my eyes about things.
And personally, I fear gray goo more than I fear other environmental challenges. I don't believe that we are mature enough to handle true nano-technology. But see no real restrictions preventing it from escaping the lab. Already nano-particles are used in many products and we have no idea of their long lasting effects on people or environment. They can pass the blood/brain barrier with no problem. Wait until the first nano-machines get going.
In 1964 I too was in grammar school. I saw the marches on TV. I didn't see a black person in the flesh until years later (I'm from the north donchalknow). I didn't quite understand what all the fuss was about.
There are many issues that need attention. And virtually all of them could be considered more important than LGBT issues. Water, land management, hell even the Bureau of Indian Affairs could come before DOMA. The unemployment rate on most reservations is over 80 percent. The level of alcoholism is many times higher than the national average. It is an outrage that the people who never had a garden of Eden myth because they never left it are kept virtually enslaved by our so called free society.
We can debate these issues or others all bloody night. But it comes down to this:
If not us, then who?
If not now, then when?
-Sandy
QuoteIf not us, then who?
If not now, then when?
There are far greater problems that will cause a great loss of life and population in the world. Staying alive will be our problem and it will happen soon enough. How about starting, by not buying any product with nano-particles.
Quote from: lisagurl on June 19, 2009, 07:14:19 PM
There are far greater problems that will cause a great loss of life and population in the world. Staying alive will be our problem and it will happen soon enough. How about starting, by not buying any product with nano-particles.
That is about as easy as trying not to buy any products that used CFC's in the 1980's.
Just about any skin care product that has an spf rating of 30 or better uses nano particle zinc oxide.
Most exterior paints used these days use nano particle pigments.
It's already in the food chain and the landfills. Attempts to regulate the use of NP have been bogged down through bureaucratic red tape. The EPA has been behind the curve on this. The previous administration did quite a bit to restrict presentation of any scientific information that did not enhance corporate development.
I could go on, but I'd end up sounding like DL and one of her conspiracy theories.
-Sandy
To answer your question, no, it is not working. Can Obama be pressured? Perhaps. I just still am amazed that so many people thought he was our savior, and that things would be suddenly great because we have changed politicians in the white house. I hope I am wrong but I think we have seen all the progress we will see from this administration, which amounts to ZIP. Promises aside, race aside, intentions aside, he is a politician. Until he sees that we really are serious about making him keep his promises, nothing will change and he will continue to pass the buck to congress. How can that happen? I am all out of ideas. But I do think it will take a new generation of TG folks unafraid to build upon the foundation some of us old timers have laid. I.e., live your life, make no apologies, demand to be recognized as human. Hearts and opinions are changed one relationship at a time.
(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fganjataz.com%2F01smileys%2Fimages%2Fsmileys%2FloopyBlonde-blinking.gif&hash=4545ddf8251cf9c32ae6074d56e48bc34a755857)Kristi
Quotehe will continue to pass the buck to congress
Congress is the most powerful branch of government. The president is just a check and balance to congress. We do not have a King only a Federal Republic.
Quote from: lisagurl on June 20, 2009, 09:23:59 AM
Congress is the most powerful branch of government. The president is just a check and balance to congress. We do not have a King only a Federal Republic.
Where have you been for the last eight years?
Bush on the throne (stolen in a still disputed razor thin election)
Bush's brain, Rove, telling him what to do
Cheney in charge of the black ops,
And six years of a republican dominated, 9/11 fearing, rubber stamping congress.
Bush was king in almost every sense of the word except for having a life long tenure. And many referred to him as king George in satire.
I won't go too much deeper into politics here, since we have a forum for that, but early on he was felt to be the worst president since Nixon. Since he has left power it is increasingly being shown that Nixon had nothing on King George.
To return the thread to it's original intention, I agree with the vocal people here that say that we need to be more visible through demonstration and demand of equal protection if we want our rights. They will not be gifted to us by a magnanimous world that feels that we deserve them.
-Sandy
QuoteWhere have you been for the last eight years?
Telling people to vote for independent congressmen. The truth is, corporations buy the government. The people have the power to put corporations out of business, but rather than research them and there products they take the easy way and give up their power and rights. They done this with accepting the government fear chant and go along with every freedom that is taken away.
Your dollar is your vote for a better government and life, spend or save it wisely.
Quote from: lisagurl on June 20, 2009, 09:23:59 AM
Congress is the most powerful branch of government. The president is just a check and balance to congress. We do not have a King only a Federal Republic.
Well for eight years we have been told that the real problem was a president who would not support what congress wanted to do. I am now officially calling BS on everyone in Washington. They give us lip service and stab us in the back with their deadly votes and inaction.
Kristi
QuoteWell for eight years we have been told that the real problem was a president who would not support what congress wanted to do.
Congress can override a veto. It is not that can not do it, it is that party membership is stronger than the public voice till election time comes.
That is why we need more independent congressmen than party members.
Quote from: Kristi on June 20, 2009, 02:44:57 PM
Well for eight years we have been told that the real problem was a president who would not support what congress wanted to do. I am now officially calling BS on everyone in Washington. They give us lip service and stab us in the back with their deadly votes and inaction.
Kristi
Really!! lf so, for 6 years of the Bush Reign the Republican congress refused to pass the legislation the that was wanted? And for the 6 years prior to that a Republican-controlled Congress passed no legislation that it wanted to get passed?
Have we been living through the same 12 years in the same country?
I think you misunderstood. We were talking about this one specific issue and the courage of those who say they support our rights, not whether or not anything at all got passed in congress. ::) Surely you have seen what has been happening with ENDA, as just one example. But in a way, you have made my point. Congress passes pretty much what it wants, often along nothing more than party lines, not what is the decent thing to do. Only when election time rolls around do they seem to remember the promises they made to get into office, and they open their mouths and get our hopes up all over again. Of course it fades quickly enough. And no, I haven't seen too many vetoes being overturned lately. Blame it on partisan politics if you want, but I just call it more of the same. Show me the politicians who stand up and say enough is enough, who say that we will not tolerate discrimination because it is evil, who would risk doing something that a few hotheads in their home districts would not like, the ones who work tirelessly against hateful and bigoted legislation, the ones who will not just pass the buck and say it is some else's problem, and I would gladly eat my words. I look forward to the day when my stomach is nice and full.
(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fganjataz.com%2F01smileys%2Fimages%2Fsmileys%2FloopyBlonde-blinking.gif&hash=4545ddf8251cf9c32ae6074d56e48bc34a755857)Kristi
Quote from: Nichole on June 19, 2009, 03:42:11 PM
Radicals need to get educated instead of getting angry about the non-essentials. If my TN BC never gets changed to F then fine with me as long as the planet I live on isn't being made dead-space in the name of the choice of couches I can make for my living-room, or whether or not my friends Les and Russell can get married while one is serving his final hitch in the Navy.
Get real here, folks. Please.
Nichole
You may feel civil rights are non-essentials but, thankfully, our founding fathers did not. Our country was built on providing basic human rights for EVERYONE, not just the majority. While we all want clean air and water, freedom is far more important. It's the foundation of this country.
We are not enjoying the rights we deserve because they are being denied by the majority. The Constitution offsets majority rule with protections of minority rights yet that basic premise is being ignored by our politicians because they want to keep their jobs. They should instead be concerned with the original intent of the framers of the Constitution and be supporting that intent.
Yes, Obama is to some degree a puppet, just like every president before him but what he says is what his puppet masters want him to say and right now they are not interested in providing basic human rights for the citizens of the United States. They are only concerned with keeping their jobs and lining their pockets. Our only retaliation is to deny them our vote and expose them for who they are.
But, like Kristi pointed out, "it will take a new generation of TG folks unafraid to build upon the foundation some of us old timers have laid. I.e., live your life, make no apologies, demand to be recognized as human. Hearts and opinions are changed one relationship at a time." But there has to be enough "old timers" out there forging the way if we expect the younger ones to mass in numbers sizable enough to get our elected officials to notice.
That means being willing to put your face in front of a camera and the "old timers" willing to do that are few and far between.
Now I'm going to enjoy a breath of fresh air and a clean glass of cold water. I can do that but I can't enjoy my basic human rights because they are being denied.
Julie
Well, where would the civil rights movement have gone without protests and demonstrations? Nowhere.
QuoteWe were talking about this one specific issue and the courage of those who say they support our rights,
Me thinks that you are politically naive. Politics is you wash my back and I will wash yours. It requires horse trading. Any issue such as rights requires something in return what is on the table in return for these rights?
Any issue such as rights requires something in return what is on the table in return for these rights?
Our freedom of economic choice. If gaining civil rights means that I have turn my freedom of choice within a free market economic system over to the State, then theres no gain in "rights" whatsoever. In fact I would have lost way more than I have gained.
Go back to the first page of this thread. I linked y'all directly the "gay rights" portion of the 538 blog.
OUR ISSUES WILL GAIN MOMENTUM AT THE LOCAL AND STATE LEVEL. We're too small in numbers at the moment to press our case at the Federal level, save a SCOTUS decision.
Also keep in mind that Obama is losing political capital by the week, if not the day. Diane Feinstien mentioned that the Dems don't have the votes to pass health care. The "Cap and Trade Bill" can't even make it out of Committee, AND THE DEMS CONTROL THAT PROCESS.
Recent Rasmussen and Gallop polling, recent as in this past week, reveals that the US public sees the Stimulus as a failure. The various bailouts as an overreach.
The public dosent want to see the release of torture photos from the Bush Admin.
A Gallop poll shows that the American public ID's as 40% Conservative, some 39% moderate, and only 21% Liberal.
Its the "Fiscal" issues that are killing us, on the Social issues. State by State polling, that 538 link, shows openess on the part of the American people to begin embracing LBGT civil-rights.
ITS AT THE LOCAL AND STATE LEVEL WHERE OUR MOVEMENT WILL BEGIN TO GAIN TRACTION. Starting with the smaller issues.
State by State, whether Blue or Red, the voting public disapproves OVERWHEMINGLY when you phrase the question as gay marriage. Change the question to civil unions and "Unions" garner across the board approval at about 55%.
Theres also an interesting posting within that 538 link in terming the marriage as a "positive or negative right." Change the gay marriage wording form "do same sex couples have the right to marry," to "does the government have the right to deny same sex couples the right to marry," and the polling almost reverses itself. Close to 50% of the voting public believes that the Gov. dosent have the intrinsnic right to deny the LGBT community the rights that they themselves enjoy.
My point is that the Federal Gov't isnt going to wave some magic wand and save us all. The old knock-knock joke comes to mind. Knock-knock. Whos there? The Federal Gov't. What did I do? Oh, dont worry... were the Feds and where here to help!!!
BS>>> start helping yourselves. City by city. County by county. State by state. Regions of states by regions...think Fed. Appeals Court Districts, THAN go Federal. Federal Legislation after a few years could be a foregone conclusion, if you say some 20 or more states already having existing laws on their books.
Think of the Negro Civil Rights movement. Negro was the PC phrase when the SCOTUS rendered Brown v Topeka.
It took over a decade and multiple Pres. Admin/sessions of Congress before the Black Civil Rights movement saw the passage of the various Civil Rights Act.
Okay enough on this for now...Mich'.
QuoteOur freedom of economic choice.
And what document states that? It is new one on me.
Life, Liberty, and the PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS.
The 'guarentee of a Republican form of government."
The Commerce protections afforded us by the U.C.C.
THe Patent Office.
The Gov't cant deprive one of property w/out just compensation.
Soldiers cant forcibly be quartered by you in your home.
The entire objects that Jefferson laid out in the Dec. of Ind.
The list goes on and on and on....
Not one word about economic freedom of choice. In fact they can take from your economic choice with taxes.
Your response is laughable.
Quote from: michellesofl on June 22, 2009, 02:21:49 PM
Your response is laughable.
Read "A theory of justice" By John Rawls
Quote from: Nero on June 21, 2009, 10:13:53 AM
Well, where would the civil rights movement have gone without protests and demonstrations? Nowhere.
Exactly! But what is troubling to me is when there's a protest, rally or other form of public gathering trying to further a trans related cause, the number of people who show up is so small it barely gets a blip on the radar screen.
If we ever expect to be noticed there has to be a sufficiently large attendance at these gatherings. From talking to those who won't attend, most say 'no way' to attending. They don't want their face out there and risk being identified as TG.
Many who were persecuted in the past had the fear of being identified as a revolutionary and risk the consequences. To most individuals, the risk was not worth the possible gain. They let the real revolutionaries forge the way until it was safe to show your face. I think that is pretty much what we see today. Look at how many here don't post pictures or use real names. I've heard it said many times it's fear of being discovered that compels them to maintain their anonymity.
Based on the numbers of trans people I see at rallys I think it's safe to say the majority of TGs are afraid to show their face. If this is the case, how can we ever expect anyone to listen to us?
While it's great to have a certain few enjoy the audience of a politician on our behalf, those politicians will never give us anything but lip service until they see we can be a sizable voting block.
Until that time comes, maybe we need to focus on the civil rights issue for ALL discriminated-against Americans. We need to let our politicians know we will not tolerate the majority denying basic human rights for the minority and push to have that issue enforced for the benefit of all.
Julie
QuoteI think it's safe to say the majority of TGs are afraid to show their face.
It has nothing to do with showing my face. It has to do with being a part of a bunch of crazies. I do not participate in any groups such as church, clubs or concerts most public gatherings are sicking and I would not want to be a part of them. I prefer my freedom to do as I please and not be in a mass mentality.
The civil rights demonstrations did little. It was people's votes and letters that changed the laws. But the changed laws did little to change people's attitudes. It is one on one friendships that change people's attitudes. Demonstrating only polarizes people.
Quote from: lisagurl on June 22, 2009, 03:58:18 PM
It has nothing to do with showing my face. It has to do with being a part of a bunch of crazies. I do not participate in any groups such as church, clubs or concerts most public gatherings are sicking and I would not want to be a part of them. I prefer my freedom to do as I please and not be in a mass mentality.
Might I ask what you do enjoy IRL or do you spend most of you time staring at this stupid screen?
-Sandy
I live next to a national park, hike a lot, read, I have two in college, take care of the estate, live with a friend, garden, cook, help the neighbors, visit friends, and sometimes consult, I am retired.
Ok, for the record, I'm not even that all fired against riots and mayhem, as they do seem to draw attention. And if not 'as American as apple pie' they for sure are at least as American as the Boston Tea Party.
It's kinda sad - pathetic really - that so few Americans have any idea of how this government works, or the history of how it got to exactly this point. Though, I suppose in some defense, there has been a concerted effort to keep most people ignorant, and no doubt, its working. But you know, Obama can not say something have it become a law. He is a president, not a dictator. Anyone who thought he was a 'savior' as opposed to say, 'a politician' was sure missing something. Hell, I never thought he would even be 'good' I just thought he would be 'less bad.' And all he has to do to win re-election is be less bad then the other person, which at this point looks pretty easy. So I'm pretty sure they came in looking for the long haul, the full 8 years, and have some sort of timetable as to when they are going to propose things. And, I have to give them some credit, they seem pretty hard to sway when it comes down to changing that timing.
He is smart though, and I'm sure that unlike Bush he has learned some lessons from history, to wit: going after these issues early (very early) in the life of the Administration killed the Clinton deal from the get go. So I'm sure he is not all hot and heavy to go down that same road.
That, and its not hard to look around and find other problems, more serious problems that deserve attention and work at this juncture.
And, its often not even the Congress with the power, it's the states. When 50% of the States have this passed, Congress will go along, but without State consent, what exactly is the Federal Government going to do to enforce, regulate and moderate this situation? It could turn out that the Feds enforcing 'trans rights' or whatever will be about as effective as the war on pot. Smashing success that, eh what? 35 years of the war on drugs have made drugs a lot harder to find right?
And, people are now talking about - finally - legalizing it. Why? Well because several states have basically opted out of the war on drugs.
Most rights are local. Several places did the trans rights back in the late 80s/early 90s, and have moved on. For my part, federalist that I am, in so far as I'm cool being in SF, then I don't care as much about what is going on in Ohio or Mississippi. We solved the problem here, I'm sure they could do the same there if people were willing to go out and work on it.
But no, we want the Federal Mommy to come in and do for us what we are too lazy to do for ourselves, and that's just not going to work out in the end.
Now, for some points.
That means those who live a dual life might feel they are risking exposure if they gather in the streets in protest.
Wow, if that's all you feel you are going to risk being involved in street action protests then you've never been near one have you? You are going to risk a lot more, jail, violence, and perhaps even death. Remember, the U.S. Army/National Guard has NEVER not followed an order to shoot at Americans. If you are really going to the barricades - as opposed to some yuppie lunch spot - be ready for anything, for everything.
Could it be he and his backers have no intent to honor the campaign promises he made? Could it be he is no friend of the LGBT community?
Could it be that they know well that the LGBT folk are not going to head over to the Sara Palin camp? And that he has not done it 'all' in six months, he has made some moves in the right direction, and I think the incremental approach, drop by drop - he's been pretty good at keeping up a constant barrage so that the right can't get one topic nailed down before he's moved on and gone through five more.
But I think what really kinda amazes me, to the point I can be amazed anymore, is exactly where was this huge, public trans movement that helped Obama get elected? Hell, I think more than one girl in here wants to transition to be Phyllis Schlafly, so its not like we present a united front. I didn't see a huge public mass of transpersons standing up - and raising money - for Obama. Or are you just trying to ride the LG coattails once again without doing any real work toward that end?
No, I think the mass of people who voted for Obama voted for him because he was not Bush, or Bush light. Face it, Bush sucked so bad he made it impossible for white guy to be elected, and if it were not Obama, it would have been Hillary. Matter of fact, if Obama is followed by a woman (highly likely) and then a Hispanic (also likely) we could be a solid generation out of having a white guy president, that's how much Bush sucked.
Still, I think there are far more important topic and issues that need to be addressed. Not that I think it will be done the right way. But still, some progress in that general direction might be nice.
Quote from: tekla on June 23, 2009, 12:01:40 PM
But I think what really kinda amazes me, to the point I can be amazed anymore, is exactly where was this huge, public trans movement that helped Obama get elected? Hell, I think more than one girl in here wants to transition to be Phyllis Schlafly, so its not like we present a united front. I didn't see a huge public mass of transpersons standing up - and raising money - for Obama. Or are you just trying to ride the LG coattails once again without doing any real work toward that end?
Being trans entails crossing the gender lines in presentation. To say trans people are once again trying to ride the coattails of gays & lesbians is to assume there is no crossing of the gender lines in the self described gays and lesbians. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Most gays who are identified as being gay are identified as such because their presentation is more feminine than what is socially acceptable. The same goes for lesbians who present masculinely. They have crossed the gender lines and are therefore transgender individuals.
I cannot help that many of them refuse to accept that but I do understand why. The TG stigma is so negative, even to self proclaimed gays & lesbians, they want nothing to do with it. But that doesn't change the fact that many gays and lesbians are also TG.
So those of us who are "riding on the coattails" of LGs are actually doing them a favor because most of them who face discrimination experience that because they present outside socially acceptable gender norms. That's one reason why non-TG inclusive ENDA made no sense at all. Those who didn't want it were in denial that there were plenty of TGs in their ranks.
No, we are not riding on their coattails, we are all in this together because there's a common thread that runs through us all. The media and the GL groups may call their gatherings gay & lesbian but once you look at who is there, based on presentation, you will see plenty of people crossing the gender lines.
Julie
Well I did see LG groups supporting Obama. I did see LG Obama fundraisers. Where is the T? Where is the T group with a political action wing? Where is the T group that was out organizing? I mean we put all those LGBT deals together (much to the chagrin of many in here by the way) for Centers, and for vague ID reasons, but group to group they tend to be far more specific. I didnt' see any Trans for Obama bumper stickers, hell even the pot smoking Deadheads in SF held a very large -and pot smoke filled - Obama fundraiser, but the trans contingent? Nada.
Quote from: tekla on June 23, 2009, 05:10:32 PM
Well I did see LG groups supporting Obama. I did see LG Obama fundraisers. Where is the T? Where is the T group with a political action wing? Where is the T group that was out organizing? I mean we put all those LGBT deals together (much to the chagrin of many in here by the way) for Centers, and for vague ID reasons, but group to group they tend to be far more specific. I didnt' see any Trans for Obama bumper stickers, hell even the pot smoking Deadheads in SF held a very large -and pot smoke filled - Obama fundraiser, but the trans contingent? Nada.
I guess you didn't read my post. The T is right there under your nose. You're doing exactly what the media and everyone else is doing. If it's not SEPARATE and IDENTIFIED as T then it doesn't exist. L....G.....B.....T. It's all ONE group because the elements that make up a single group can be found in any other group. And the T can be found in all of the other three groups. You can't separate it.
Do you think each and every contributor from the LGBT community was strictly gay or lesbian and nothing else? That nobody that was trans contributed? We campaigned and participated and contributed within the LGBT community because we are part of it.
Julie
Well I am "T" and do not agree and would never be a part of LGB. I do not engage in any sexual activities.
No, I'm doing what the LG community does, no people, no money, no power. And see, there you go with Lisa. Hardly a united front.
Quote from: lisagurl on June 23, 2009, 06:15:28 PM
Well I am "T" and do not agree and would never be a part of LGB. I do not engage in any sexual activities.
LGB is not about sex, it's about sexual orientation. Believe it or not there are gays and lesbians who do not engage in sex, just as there are straights who do not. As my grandmother would say, "Get your mind out of the toilet."
As for your preference not to be considered part of the LGBT community, that's your choice but it doesn't mean that millions of other Ts are not part of the community.
And as for the united front, I know plenty of Ts that are very active and participate regularly in educating the masses. One defector does not make a rule.
You two can go walk off hand and hand into the sunset agreeing about how there is no T community or whatever you want to believe but I have seen it, am active in it and will continue to be. Maybe if people like you did the same we would begin to get better recognition. But then again I wouldn't want anyone dissing LGB people for having sex.
Julie
Isn't the Obama administration doing today what you accuse them of not doing? Coming out with standards for trans discrimination in the Federal Government? Could it be that they wanted to get it right and airtight for what is going to be a highly contested - in court at least - set of standards?
Perhaps you're just not used after 8 years of Clinton and 8 years of Bush of people in high office thinking and planning before they act.
gay
QuoteA person whose sexual orientation is to persons of the same sex.
A man whose sexual orientation is to men: an alliance of gays and lesbians.
Transsexual
QuoteOne who wishes to be considered by society as a member of the opposite sex.
One who has undergone a sex change.
A transsexual definition has nothing to do with sexual orientation.
LGBT is an organization that wants rights of sexual orientation. In other words sexual relations.
I have no interest in people's rights of sexual relations.
I do care about discrimination of gender presentation.
Quote from: lisagurl on June 24, 2009, 09:39:38 AM
I have no interest in people's rights of sexual relations.
And you expect anyone to have any interest in your rights? ::)
Well we all ought to listen to her, after all we all want to be like Mississippi don't we. Hell, they are the fattest state in the Union, and beating out Kansas and Iowa was no mean feat. An infant mortality rate that is equal to Libya or Thailand. Second to the last in overall health - only Louisiana with the chemical industry is less healthy, and the poorest educated of all 50 states. And the 3rd poorest being beaten out by Louisiana and D.C. Hell, we all ought to be following those examples.
And people think that California is crazy. Yeesh.
QuoteAnd you expect anyone to have any interest in your rights?
No I do not expect anyone to be interested in what I am interested in. The democracy does not allow for minorities demands. This country is more of a federal republic. But still a majority of people can and do make it difficult for the others. Then there is the money factor. Corporations have some rights as people but not the responsibilities.
Perhaps we need a new form of government where rights are earned with responsibilities. That way the more you contribute in time and energy to society the more rights you have.
Post Merge: June 24, 2009, 02:47:31 PM
QuoteAnd people think that California is crazy. Yeesh.
When you can get the people of CA to be responsible and get them to accept sexual rights you might just have a majority. Fat chance when they can not evenlive within a budget.
You say you'll change the Constitution? Well, you know, we all want to change your head.