I've seen a few threads that have accused Obama of pandering to voters. In Beaumont, TX Friday Obama addressed a supposed touchy subject among black voters, something he didn't have to do. Definitely not pandering. link Obama's rally in Beaumont today was the highest-energy of this Texas swing, with a crowd that was about three-quarters black cheering at almost every turn. An interesting moment came when he was asked a question about LGBT rights and delivered an answer that seemed to suit the questioner, listing the various attributes — race, gender, etc. — that shouldn't trigger discrimination, to successive cheers. When he came to saying that gays and lesbians deserve equality, though, the crowd fell silent. So he took a different tack: "Now I’m a Christian, and I praise Jesus every Sunday," he said, to a sudden wave of noisy applause and cheers. "I hear people saying things that I don’t think are very Christian with respect to people who are gay and lesbian," he said, and the crowd seemed to come along with him this time.
Good for Obama. I'm glad that he's willing to say what needs to be said, even if it isn't pleasing to the crowd. That takes some guts, especially when he's fighting to win TX and he's in dead heat with Hillary.
well there goes the timmy hardaway vote. but good for Obama, although i'm not sure this quite counts as speak truth to souja moment. still it's something that needs saying, and saying again. one wonders tho, why teh blacks are so uncomfortable with teh gays?
its better than running on banning gay marriage which is what the candidates you support run on. but hey, they're fighting the great cause in iraq, so anything else is justified
Being from Beaumont myself, I could definitely see this happening just as it did. "I love jesus!" *applause and cheers* "And as jesus said, we must love all, including gays and lesbians!" *crickets*
sure, but that's a separate issue than whether gay marriage should be legal (which i believe it should) or not. and to be fair, i'm not looking at the intent of a particuar law or policy, but at its effects, and in this instance, one would have to say that the bush presidency has been particularly favorable to the gay community at large, despite his lack of support for gay marriage in particular.
I strongly disagree. A policy issue might have been been marginally beneficial. DINK tax breaks certainly isn't targeted toward the gay community, though some members may get a tax break. But what Bush did was to openly support and spread support, and campaign for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. He spread a tone of intolerance that was detrimental, and not supportive of the gay community. Sorry but a tax cut that happens to include some homosexuals stacked with his rhetoric against gay marriage, doesn't add up to equal doing more for the homosexuals of the U.S. than any other president.
Are they really DINK's if they cannot marry? Aren't they just roommates in the eyes of the IRS? Maybe Bush has done more for the roommate community then any other president?
This is simply false. OK, so Bush put in some DINK tax cuts. Big deal. Some statement recognizing that having some sort of civil union for gays (whether or not you call it marriage is a matter of semantics) is an equal protection issue would be good. People, gay or straight, who have been a a long term relationship and purchased property together need to have some sort of legally binding dissolution process so their interest in that property is protected. This applies to personalty as well, as opposed just to realty.
