The next presidential debate for the Democrats will be a curious “gay debate” including Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. The debate takes place on August 9th in Los Angeles before a live audience. Sponsors include the Human Right Campaign and a gay television network called LOGO.
Apparently the powerful Lesbian-Gay-Bisexual-Transgender (LGMT) lobby has pressured the Democrats into a debate. I will remain bewildered why those obsessed with sexual preferences demand that the rest of us constantly hear them. Be gay, be straight, I care not for which team you bat, but why not keep your sexuality in the bedroom where it belongs?
“In the 2008 presidential election, issues of concern to the LGBT community have already been at the forefront of the national conversation,�? said HRC President Joe Solmonese.
Why is that, Joe?
It seems to me that issues of Al Qaeda threatening western civilization, the war in Iraq, and the economy are issues that are at the forefront of the national conversation for responsible adults. Those are the issues for our presidential candidates to debate, since they are what is important.
How irresponsible is it for Hillary and Obama to fiddle with a gay debate while Rome burns?
July 11th, 2007 at 4:12 am
Yup – I couldn’t agree more. I have a gay friend who once said that he didn’t understand why gay folks say they want to be accepted into society as normal, then go runing around flaunting their ‘gayness.’ He said it is hard to be taken seriously when you are marching through the streets in drag chanting “we’re here and we’re queer.” He was actually a prominent gay leader, but more to provide a support group for gay men who were struggling with family and society. He did not approve of bath houses and has been with his partner for over 20 years. They are a great couple and love each other a great deal.
The reason why gay groups get so much attention is because they are loud.
July 11th, 2007 at 9:00 am
I agree with the flaunting part. But with this
government trying to exclude gays from from
every aspect of life, you have to see why they
would want to know if some one is going to stick up for them. What would happen if they,
or any other group, just stayed silent and said
nothing? There would be more hate crimes against gays then ever, and what you would have is SEGREGATION, only this time with gays.
Hangings, seperate drinking fountains, the whole works.
July 11th, 2007 at 10:07 am
Perhaps the 12-30 million Americans who identify as homosexuals are less “obsessed with their sexual preferences” and more interested in having the heterosexual mojority in power hear them in an attempt to secure the same rights and privilidges that millions of straight Americans take for granted.
Yes, the other issues that you mentioned (the War, the economy) are extremely important issues facing Americans and therefore will remain front and center in this election. However, to the millions of LGBT Americans who are not given the same benefits as heterosexual Americans, perhaps a debate addressing their concerns with personal civil liberties is important. Maybe as someone who lives in a country that takes pride in freedom and equality you should find it a little imporatant as well.
July 11th, 2007 at 11:06 am
There are more gay Americans than African Americans? I think your math may be a little off KB.
Having a debate soley based on ‘gender identity’ at the presidential level seems overboard to me. Should it be part of the presidential (and national) debate – certainly, your points are well made – but an entire debate focused solely on LGBT issues? I just don’t see it any more than an entire debate focused on just one group of persons.
However, given the level of interest in LGBT issues among both liberals and conservatives, more folks will be watching than just LGBT folks….
Thanks for contributing and visiting, KB!
July 11th, 2007 at 11:33 am
The math is that about 4% of voters identify themselves as gay in exit polling data. Given the politization of the gay agenda, and their generally higher education, I believe that 12 million (4% of 300 million) is a really high estimate, but that’s the kind of propaganda for which the I-am-obsessively-gay movement is famous. Most studies suggest the real number is about 2% of the population, or about 6 million.
The reason their voices are magnified to the ludicrous point where they actually get their own debate is their participation in the election process thru financing, lobbying, and votes.
Lot’s of groups who narrow-mindedly identify themselves with some personal characteristic have gripes. Are we to watch a Nammmmba legal debate or something about Wiccan IRS beefs or what’s new on the handicapped agenda?
But more to KB’s point, I would have no problem if the Dems want to focus a debate on social issues since there are a ton of social issues more important than gay marriage rights. A social issues debate would be interesting to everyone, while a “gay debate” is a bore for most of us.
And it sends the wrong message. By it’s very nature, a “gay debate” marginalizes and separates gay Americans from straight when the opposite message is what they should be promoting.
July 11th, 2007 at 11:36 am
KB,
mbt has a point i think. my state has gay marriage (MA), and i grew up in gay central, provincetown, MA., and i have to say that, as mbt puts it, they “don’t go running around flaunting their gayness”. they are just gay.
oh, sure in summer you will see young VERY good looking men walking around holding hands, bare chested, in tight short shorts and with nipple rings … but they don’t bother anyone. they just walk around … i’d say buy ice cream but i don’t think they eat carbs … (some VERY good looking men in provincetown).
but i digress … as i was saying, they just live their lives like anyone else, so people aren’t threatened. when they have these gay pride parades in chicago for example … i think people get scared because of the open sexuality.
i pretty much lived in provincetown at least every summer all through my teenage and college years and not once did a lesbian hit on me. now in college and in the peace corps … different story … but in provincetown at least the lesbians hang with lesbians, gay men hang with gay men, the portuguese hang with the portuguese, others hang with others … and no one bothers anyone else … live and let live … it works well … much better than the … i’d have to say the almost hostile approach taken by both sides in other places i have lived.
July 11th, 2007 at 11:38 am
like this for example
Rosie Hurls Profanities at Elizabeth Hasselbeck, Defaces Her Photo On Gay Family Cruise…
http://www.breitbart.tv/html/2895.html
July 11th, 2007 at 11:50 am
lisab – I totally agree. I don’t feel threatened one iota by gay folks – married or otherwise. I don’t see how the happiness of married gay couples would affect my marriage to my husband. If gay folks want to walk down the street holding hands, adopt kids, move next door or whatever, I see no problem.
I think their more outlandish advocacy has drawn attention away from other more pressing issues and ironically hurt their chances to be considered mainstream. Of course, as KB pointed out, there are some fairness issues which LGBT advocates should still be working on, but I think it has gone too far in many cases.
Rosie is in a group of her own. I can’t imagine that gay groups consider her as an advocate, spokeswoman, etc… Perhaps when she unloads that perpetual chip off her shoulder.
She needs to understand that people don’t like her because she’s mean, not because she’s a lesbian.
July 11th, 2007 at 12:02 pm
Gay adoption MBT? Given the long lines at the adoption agencies, methinks the interests of the children are more important than the fancies of the parents. Do you really think two mommies is as good a situation as one of each for a child? That’s a hard proposition to sell given the reality of genes, not to mention the cruel reality of how children tease.
And speaking of a poor environment for a child, Rosie is a hero in the lesbian movement. Big donor too.
July 11th, 2007 at 12:15 pm
Excellent points. This may be important but is it really a life and death issue in need of immediate attention as so many issues are?
July 11th, 2007 at 12:22 pm
When women were trying to get the right to vote, officials and reporters said the same thing. “Why are women worried about this, when there’s a war going on?” Equal rights can’t wait for the “right time” because that’ll never happen.
July 11th, 2007 at 12:26 pm
“Do you really think two mommies is as good a situation as one of each for a child?”
never seen a problem with parenting …
“not to mention the cruel reality of how children tease.”
can be a problem
“Rosie is a hero in the lesbian movement”
yes, she is. but actually, as i said at least in MA, that kind of agressive behavior doesn’t fly. that isn’t to say the LGBT community isn’t politically active, they are … but i’ve seen more strife between gay men and lesbians than between gay people in general and straight people.
of course that was some years ago now, but lesbians supported gay men a lot during the initial aids crisis, and gay men haven’t been as supportive on lesbian issues
July 11th, 2007 at 12:28 pm
“not to mention the cruel reality of how children tease.�
once this happened to my and two other teachers’ horror
“where is your daddy?”
“i don’t have a daddy, i have two mommies”
“everyone has a daddy — you need to go find your daddy”
between two three year olds
July 11th, 2007 at 1:33 pm
McCain, I know several gay couples who are wonderful parents and are raising well-rounded great kids who date people of the opposite sex and everything! In one case, both children were severely handicapped and these two ladies adopted them, cared for them, gave them the proper medical treatment and they are quickly becoming the greatest young people that you could imagine. Their care for these kids could hardly be described by anyone as “selfish,” but more properly, “selfless.”
There are many children that are not easily adoptable – mixed race and black children, children with various medical problems and children born to drug-abusing moms. That is not to say that gay adoptions should be limited to these groups though. I do feel that 2-parent households with a father and mother is preferable – to give the children an environment where they can interact and learn form both genders, but 2 same sex households and single parent households can also successfully raise children.
And heterosexuals’ desires for raising a fmaily have no component of selfishness?
lisab – the same 2-3 year old conversation can go on in single-parent household too.
July 11th, 2007 at 2:23 pm
Well, at a deeply philosophical level, possibly every action undertaken by humans is done on the basis of self-interest.
But that isn’t the issue. The issue is what is in the best interests of children, and since we agree that a father and mother are preferable, that should carry huge weight with the adoption agencies. They can only evaluate so many variables, so trying to guess which gay households would make acceptable parents is too high a burden for overworked staff.
It is so important, in fact, that a prohibition against gay adoption has been codified into law in some states. The gay lobby wants to undo what are common sense considerations for most of us on this issue, even if saying the obvious doesn’t feel swell.
Nay, give the children the best home possible: no ex-felons, no drugs, reasonable incomes, safe neighborhood, good schools, and a father and a mother. The kids deserve it.
Now anecdotally, of course we can find examples that buck the odds. Some kids are strong enough to survive a poor school. Some are tough enough to emerge unscarred from teasing. Some ex-felons change into responsible citizens. Some gay parents are great. But you gotta apply common sense variables to evaluating parents in an adoption scenario. The decision-makers don’t have the luxury of spending as much time with prospective parents as you do with your friends.
July 11th, 2007 at 3:44 pm
If I recall, it was the Republicans this time last election cycle who were making a major issue out of *amending our Constitution* over peoples’ personal sexual choices.
I agree that it’s a completely stupid debate that really has no place in government agenda (if they’re adults and it’s consentual, their bedroom is their business), but I imagine the Dems are just taking cues from what worked for the Reps last time around the bend. I don’t *understand* that approach, personally, since it only worked for the Reps because it fired up the religious right, whereas this – if it fires up anyone – will impact a much smaller population segment. But still, it bears noticing that both parties have inappropriately used the gay rights issue as a distraction tactic.
Maybe the Dems decided to get there first so the Reps would have the chance to use it to draw attention away from this horrible administration *again*.
July 11th, 2007 at 3:45 pm
Gah, typo. “Maybe the Dems decided to get there first so the Reps *wouldn’t* have the chance to use it…” etc etc.
July 11th, 2007 at 5:31 pm
McCain
Gay couples are known to be problem parents? what information does that come from?
Screening parents is an equal opportunity function. I am unaware of anything that suggests that gay parents are necessarily bad, so I don’t understand why screening would be more onerous – do they have criminal records? do they have the means to support the child? Do their interviews indicate that they would provide loving homes? Good gay parents aren’t anomolies – they are teh norm.
And Eric – who is using the issue for political purposes here? “horrible administration?” Pahleeze… DOn’t forget teh flack Buxh took for appointing a gay AIDS czar – I think it is called selective memory…
July 11th, 2007 at 6:10 pm
Not selective memory at all. I don’t think Bush himself is prejudiced against homosexuals in the least. I don’t think he gives a damn about it. He and the rest of the Republicans, however, DID pander to the religious right by making a Constitutional crusade against gay marriage one of the cornerstones of the 2004 election campaign, only to drop the issue completely after they won. That’s not selective memory, that’s what happened. It was very sleazy, very effective politicking.
That’s not why the current administration is horrible, though. The current administration is horrible because they consistently value loyalty over competency in *every* facet of their operation, and have no respect for the idea of governmental transparency whatsoever.
That isn’t a partisan observation. It would be (and is) exactly as bad if/when the Democrats do it. I’m so sick of this “well, the Democrats did it when they were in office!” crap. Yes, *and it was wrong then too*. Bush is doing more of it in some areas, less of it in others. It is not excusable just because the other party isn’t any better.
Americans get only the government we demand(/deserve), and frankly we’ve been settling for some really lousy government inside AND outside the Bush administration.
July 11th, 2007 at 6:24 pm
MBT, I didn’t say gay parents are problem parents. I said they aren’t ideal parents, and so did you.
“I do feel that 2-parent households with a father and mother is preferable – to give the children an environment where they can interact and learn form both genders…”
Your own preference is for a mommy and daddy head of house, so whatever your disagreement is has not been made clear. Surely we will agree that with long adoption lines, kids deserve the ideal parents, don’t they? And therefore, since we both agree that gay parents are not the ideal for kids, is there any reason that the sex of the parents shouldn’t be considered? Or are you saying there is some higher societal value that is more important that the well being of the kids?
July 11th, 2007 at 6:37 pm
Eric, the gay marriage issue in the 2004 election was brought upon by Democrats. Mayor Gavin Newsom of San Francisco, chief among them, and the liberals on the Mass Supreme Court and “gay advocates” who blanketed the airwaves — the same groups who are sponsoring the “gay debate” who put sexual preference above any other considerations.
Republicans responded opportunistically to be sure by bringing ballot measures in key states such as Ohio that would all be passed to ban gay marriage. This boom-a-rang cost the Dems Ohio and therefore the election, in my judgment, proving once again the law of unintended consequences.
THAT effort is the story of the 2004 election, and it was more grass-roots than Bush and the GOP pandering collectively. Your example of pandering — the FEDERAL constitutional amendment against gay marriage — pales in comparison to the grass-roots effort against gay marriage.
Another example you could have given of obvious pandering was the preposterous Terri Schiavo case, one of the key mistakes that caused the boom-a-rang to hit back on the GOP in the 2006 election.
July 11th, 2007 at 7:04 pm
Hrm. I’m willing to grant that I may not have had the whole picture. I had just gotten out of college at the time, was working and trying to find a better job, and didn’t hear any “blanketing” of the airwaves by anybody except Bush, Santorum, etc etc trying to explain why a Constitutional amendment against gay marriage was so important. (And they were pretty annoying, lousy reasons, since it ISN’T important… at all.)
But I’m willing to admit there may have been a lot of background noise from the side supporting gay marriage that I didn’t hear. [A certain amount of noise from them, though, I would find appropriate. Marie's point above in this thread is perfectly valid - women activists met exactly the same criticism of "why now, there are more important things". There is no "right time" to convince people who don't want you to have an equal status to give it to you.]
Regardless, I would personally put the Schiavo case and the anti-gay-marriage Constitutional amendment in just about the same boat, in that they were both needless fiascos that shamed the halls of Congress. But I’ll concede that I may not have picked up on what particular politicking led to it getting there, in the federal anti-gay marriage case. I was a little sick to my stomach watching the Republicans take such obvious advantage of an easy diversion, but I’m fed up with both parties, so whichever one really caused it, it won’t surprise me much.
July 11th, 2007 at 7:16 pm
“…the gay marriage issue in the 2004 election was brought upon by Democrats. Mayor Gavin Newsom of San Francisco, chief among them, and the liberals on the Mass Supreme Court…”
just want to point out that Massachusetts is doing just swell
actually it helps a lot because now people can’t just say they are gay to get health insurance from their “spouse”. they actually have to commit to a spouse.
so … now everyone who wants to get married can … no longer is it under the table.
July 12th, 2007 at 4:10 am
McCain – single parent households aren’t ideal either, but they can adopt too, so why should gay couples be any different? What is in the best interest of the child is to have a good home. Many heterosexual homes aren’t ideal either.
Eric, I see more where you are coming from now and it is good to see that you have a reasoned response and aren’t on the fringes, as some of the folks that comment here. I agree that some of the stuff going on in Washington by both sides can’t cover their tracks by saying that “the other side is doing it!” I’m none too enamored with the national Republicans on many issues. The fact is, people overlook the problems if they agree philosophically with whomever is in office. “Yes, Clinton lied, but he’s a good president.” And Bush supporters will also overlook things. The gay marriage ban, as pointed out by McCain, was a backlash to many of the extremist proposals that were coming out about educating elementary kids about the gay lifestyle, etc. Also, you have to admit that allowing gay marriage does hit at the heart of every society on earth. You can’t ask to push this type of agenda without public debate when you are asking for such a huge change. Whenever I would go to candidate debates and a candidate would question the LGBT agenda or support the constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, they would be shouted down and called bigots. THAT is not debate – and it hardens the views of folks who feel uncomfortable to begin with. Keep in mind, there are a lot of Dems that don’t support it either, particularlly in the black community. In Maryalnd the Democrat leadership made sure it never came to the floor, even in the lopsided Democratic monopoly that Maryland has. They knew it would pass.
lisab has a point – I think Mass. is still there!
July 12th, 2007 at 6:29 am
McCain:
As someone who isn’t all that well versed in Americans’ sexual preference, I looked for some published statistics and I found this: “It is always difficult to determine sexual minorities through surveys because of the complexities of self-identification, definitions, survey methodologies and stigmas… a Yahoo survey of its users found 7.1% of adults over age 18 identified as GLBT…
Various studies have estimated that between 4% and 10% of populations are homosexual…” http://www.library.uiuc.edu/wst/lgbtresearchguide/lgbt/stats.htm
Regardless, the intent of participating in this discussion was to make the greater point that marginalized groups who deserve the same civil liberties as the majority have the right to have a place for debate and their concerns to be heard.
The beautiful thing about this country is that by participating in the election process, by lobbying, by voting you are giving yourself a voice. So while you may think that this sort of participation and organization leads to voices that are heard to a “ludicrous” point, I hope other don’t share in your view.
In regards to this specific debate, it is to be aired on LOGO, a lesbian and gay network. So unless you are tivo-ing their programming or surfing around their website, there is little chance for you to be bored with a debate which includes extending civil liberties to everyone regardless of their sexual orientation.