President Obama's relationship with the LGBT community

Last edited:
That's happenstance. Conservatives don't usually take too kindly to gay rights; California which is pretty liberal passed Prop 8 due to high rates of conservative involvement.
 
FreakyLocz14 said:
I just found this out!

At CPAC (Conservative Political Action Conference) this year, the gay Republican group GOProud attended. A homophobe named named Ryan Sorba got up and talked smack about them being there. How did the crowd of conservatives respond? They booed his gay bashing ass off the stage!

https://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x436302
Click to expand...
Perhaps they're just doing what you imply Obama does: putting on a good show during the election season. Not to be cynical about it. And the comments under the video suggested the possibility that the booing was coming mostly from GOPround itself rather than the whole conference. Again, not to be cynical since I wasn't there, but it's not exactly proof that conservatives are embracing of gays.
 
aruchan said:
That's happenstance. Conservatives don't usually take too kindly to gay rights; California which is pretty liberal passed Prop 8 due to high rates of conservative involvement.
Click to expand...

California is only liberal inside major cities (save San Diego). Most of the rest of the state is moderate to conservative. Some of the groups who voted highly in favor of Obama voted to approve Prop 8. This includes 70% of black voters, and over 50% of Hispanic and Asian voters. Notable Republicans came out against Prop 8, including Governor Arnold Schwarzegger. If you look at which Republican Senators voted to repeal DADT, all of the Republicans from the West (Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and John Ensign of Nevada) and Northeast voted to repeal (Scott Brown of Massachusetts, both Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine) in addition to Richard Burr of North Carolina, Mark Kirk of Illinois, and George Voinovich of Ohio.

Scarf said:
Perhaps they're just doing what you imply Obama does: putting on a good show during the election season. Not to be cynical about it. And the comments under the video suggested the possibility that the booing was coming mostly from GOPround itself rather than the whole conference. Again, not to be cynical since I wasn't there, but it's not exactly proof that conservatives are embracing of gays.
Click to expand...

The forums I linked to is a left-wing Democratic forum, so of course the comments will try to make Republicans look bad. Keep in mind that CPAC is the right-wing of the Republican Party, and many of the groups there were Tea Party groups. GOProud was only one of many conservative action groups at that conference other than GOProud, so such a loud booing needed the support of others. I'm not saying that we don't have more to do in winning over the hearts and minds of conservatives, but we are clearly gaining ground.
 
Last edited:
It's unfair to claim that when the Republicans do something right, it's just a coincidence and not important, or lying. It should be acknowledged as a step in the right direction and not merely dismissed because you generally don't agree with that party. :x
 
Toujours said:
It's unfair to claim that when the Republicans do something right, it's just a coincidence and not important, or lying. It should be acknowledged as a step in the right direction and not merely dismissed because you generally don't agree with that party. :x
Click to expand...

This.

Both parties are going to put on a show for the election, but it's unfair to always try to explain away anything positive that the Republican Party does because you don't agree with the party. Not all GOP voters are the OMG ULTIMATE HATE GAYZORS that the libs try to make them out to be.
 
I have to believe that while they publicly say they support gay rights, they are most likely apathetic to it, like most politicians are. Obama is interested at this point in his next term election, and doesn't really wish to alienate some of his conservative supporters (are there any?).
 
Toujours said:
It's unfair to claim that when the Republicans do something right, it's just a coincidence and not important, or lying. It should be acknowledged as a step in the right direction and not merely dismissed because you generally don't agree with that party. :x
Click to expand...
Didn't mean to come off so partisan. I'm just cautious of groups who are traditionally against something (e.g. the Republican party and gay rights) having a sudden change of heart. I get suspicious and wonder if they're not trying to re-frame the debate unfairly, such as saying that they're pro-gay rights but against same-sex marriage.
 
Scarf said:
Didn't mean to come off so partisan. I'm just cautious of groups who are traditionally against something (e.g. the Republican party and gay rights) having a sudden change of heart. I get suspicious and wonder if they're not trying to re-frame the debate unfairly, such as saying that they're pro-gay rights but against same-sex marriage.
Click to expand...

This is by no means sudden; and the change of heart is still not complete yet. People are starting to realize that homosexuality is natural. This includes people on the right side of the political spectrum.
 
FreakyLocz14 said:
This is by no means sudden; and the change of heart is still not complete yet. People are starting to realize that homosexuality is natural. This includes people on the right side of the political spectrum.
Click to expand...
I realize that's true for a lot of normal people like us, but there are still people out there who aren't cool with it and still politicians who play to this. It's the change in tone from politicians that worries me.

... which I realize is what you were getting at in the opening post. Point taken.
 
FreakyLocz14 said:
This.

Both parties are going to put on a show for the election, but it's unfair to always try to explain away anything positive that the Republican Party does because you don't agree with the party. Not all GOP voters are the OMG ULTIMATE HATE GAYZORS that the libs try to make them out to be.
Click to expand...
I agree, but I'd like to point out that earlier, you did the same thing.

FreakyLocz14 said:
His views conveniently changed after the new Congress convened and he launched his 2012 reelection campaign. Remember, he was against DOMA and DADT in 2008, but he was for them in 2009. This is simply him rallying his base. He'll throw the LGBT community under the bus again if he wins reelection.

Now back on the topic of DADT. Racial desegregation of the military was achieved by a direct order from the President (Executive Order 9981). Military personnel complied immediately due to the very disciplined chain of command. There was none of this waiting bull that the DADT repeal law is trying to pull. He has the power to end DADT with the stroke of a pen. If he truly is against DADT, then it seems like he's playing safe politics so that the Blue Dogs in the South don't defect to the GOP candidate.

Let's also not forget that DADT was a bill that had clear bipartisan in Congress support and was signed into law by the same Democratic President that also signed DOMA into law.
Click to expand...

That said, there are a lot of people in this thread who are just bashing anyone associated with the Republican Party because they usually disagree with their general direction. It would be nice if such people could understand that people usually only associate with a party because they agree with some (not all) of their policies. It's important to consider peoples' actions and beliefs on an individual basis and not just typecast them because of their party association.
 
twocows said:
I agree, but I'd like to point out that earlier, you did the same thing.
Click to expand...

That was not what I was doing. I was not insinuating that every Democratic Party member automatically hates LGBT people because of their party affiliation.
 
FreakyLocz14 said:
That was not what I was doing. I was not insinuating that every Democratic Party member automatically hates LGBT people because of their party affiliation.
Click to expand...
No, but you implied that Obama has a hidden agenda that caused him to change his views rather than just give him credit for taking a step in the right direction. Conversely, you said we shouldn't try to explain away the positive things that the Republican Party does with something like, say, a hidden agenda.

I agree that we should support positive actions regardless of the intentions; they should be acknowledged as a step in the right direction even if they are just politics. I'm of the opinion that most politicans are self-serving, greedy jerks, which is why the only way to keep them in line is to get upset when they do something that negatively affects us.
 
...I'm somehow surprised and impressed that everyone popped up and pointed out that there were no other sources for this claim, in a good way.

I think they're right though. I think the article sadly provides little basis for a structured debate on Obama's "relation" to the LGBT community.
 
Scarf said:
I realize that's true for a lot of normal people like us, but there are still people out there who aren't cool with it and still politicians who play to this. It's the change in tone from politicians that worries me.

... which I realize is what you were getting at in the opening post. Point taken.
Click to expand...

It's not just Obama's change of tone. It's also the time he chose to change his tone (when he announced his reelection campaign) that worries me. I can't read his mind, so I can only base my opinions of him based on what he does when I consider who to vote for in 2012. A Democratic candidate has a tall mountain to climb to earn my vote, but it's possible.
 
Like a ton of politicians, Obama has flip-flopped on the gay thing. Back when he was running for senator, he was for gay marriage - when he runs for President, it seemed his civil rights opinions were downgraded, as he then did not support gay marriage, but civil unions. He spoke up for transgender people, but hasn't spoken or focused much on an Employment Non-Discrimination Amendment. He's been letting his military get away with not actually implementing Don't Ask, Don't Tell repeal. He's been wishy-washy on most of our issues.

This is old news, though. I think that there's a lot of promise if Obama wins his job back in 2012, which he could if the right does not front a decent candidate - and I haven't seen one that I consider viable yet. If he wins again, he becomes a lame duck, and he has nothing to lose by being a true progressive, like I think he is deep inside. He can go mad with his social improvements, or at least try to. If Democrats can take back the House, then I think Obama might actually have a chance to take up the role that FDR took in the 40's, and doing a big post-recession clean-up spree, reforming and transforming in his wake. I think it's critical that the Democrats stay on message about the way that many big-business-buddy Republicans are destroying our economy further, by giving away tax cuts to billionaires and letting our social safety nets expire and break apart. I think if we expect any significant LGBT social change, it has to come from the Democrats; yet, consider the Will Rogers quote: "I am not a member of any organized party — I am a Democrat."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top