Well-Behaved Queers Never Make History

(Proudly cross-posted at C4O Democrats)

When I recently read about this latest wave of Obama supporters telling LGBT people to "STFU" over homophobic minister Rick Warren delivering the President-Elect's inaugural invocation, I became disturbed. Why must queer pepple simply shut up & act like bigotry is OK if it's done in a "unifying" way?

But then, I realized something. It's not enough for us to keep complaining about something that may or may not change. No, instead we need to get up & speak out. We must be loud, be proud, and raise some holy hell until we win our civil rights.

I mean it. I'm sick & tired of being told to "wait my turn". I'm sick & tired of being commanded to accept second-class citizenship. I'm sick & tired of being derided as "controversial" just for being who I am.

I've had enough, and I won't take it any more. I won't just take whatever bread crumbs Barack Obama or Nancy Pelosi throws our way. I want us to have a seat at the table, and I won't stop fighting until we get our seat at that table.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting that LGBT people abandon the Democratic Party. No, I'm saying that we can't simply expecting Democratic politicians to tolerate us & be happy with that. We must go beyond juat supporting candidates. We must build our own movement.

Past civil rights activists realized this, and we must realize this today to be successful in the future. We need our own Million Person March to Washington. We need our own sit-ins at the gates to Saddleback Church and the LDS (Mormon) Church Headquarters. We need our own advocates to win more landmark cases in court. And yes, we need our own campaigns & our own candidates to win.

So guess what? I want to start by taking my own advice. I'll help organize a protest in front of Rick Warren's church on January 18. I'll run for reelection to my state Democratic Party's Central Committee. I'll give all I can give to groups that are doing as I'm doing in fighting like hell for equal rights. Oh yes, and I'll be loud & proud in telling everyone I know that I'm gay & I just want the same treatment all of them take for granted.

Want to join me? Go ahead. If you're in California, please support Courage Campaign's Repeal Prop H8 Campaign and ACLU's efforts to overturn H8 in court. No matter where you are, help Lambda Legal secure people's civil rights all across the nation. And no matter where you are, come out.

Come out as an ally. Come out as queer if you are. Just come out, be loud, and be proud. After all, well-behaved queers never make history.

Tags: C4O Democrats, civil rights, equal rights, LGBT rights, movement building, progressive values (all tags)

Comments

149 Comments

Tips? Flames? Suggestions?

Send 'em here...

http://www.couragecampaign.org/PowerTheR epeal

And show some love for the beautiful struggle for equality. ;-)

by atdleft 2008-12-29 11:13AM | 0 recs
Re: Tips? Flames? Suggestions?

I'm right there with you. Well said, young man.

by Denny Crane 2008-12-29 12:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Tips? Flames? Suggestions?

Can I also push SoulForce on your diary?

basically they are a group that goes into red terroritories like the freedom riders of the black civil rights era, to talk to christians about gay issues:

http://www.soulforce.org/

Part of the issue with gay activists is that they ceed the territory in too many ways like No on 8 did.

There is an excellent diary on the subject here:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/1 2/28/122245/48

I am not big on Christianity, but gay Christians and straight Christians talking openly and not backing down out of fear must be a part of the mix as any grassroots movement happens. We need to include people of faith so that we can end the idea that its gay v. Christian. When in fact, the battle is gay versus bigot.

by bruh3 2008-12-29 07:01PM | 0 recs
Sure!

No problem, Bruh. I never claim to have a monopoly on good ideas. In fact, now is the perfect time for Soulforce to go out & make the spiritual case for civil rights.

"Warren-gate" has shown us that not even most Democratic leaders take the religious left seriously. We need to change that, and we need to show America that it's OK to be spiritual & pro-civil rights. Dems don't need to sell out to H8-mongers to show their love of god.

by atdleft 2008-12-29 07:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Sure!

There are a lot of progressives who do not even get this. Even that guy, Lowereny (spelling), who is to end the inauguaral is not pro gay rights. He's just not a virulent homophobe like Warren. When peole think the choices are- virulent homophobe or guy who is against us but not as nasty, there's a problem with the conversation.

They make it sound like the only choice is hardcore bigots like Warren is or discrimiantion in general or else no Christian voice at the table. There is nothing pro or anti Christian about being gay. That needs to be made clear.

by bruh3 2008-12-29 08:14PM | 0 recs
Yep, even Lowery...

Is at best lukewarm toward us. That's why Obama's better off balancing him with someone from the religious left, someone like Jim Wallis or Katharine Jefforts Schori or Pastor Dan from Street Prophets. Perhaps even pick someone like Bishop Gene Robinson or the pastor at my local UCC church to show the nation that LGBT people can be people of faith as well?

But no matter what Obama decides to do with his inauguration, we must keep going. We should still work with our allies in the religious left to make that spiritual case for equality.

by atdleft 2008-12-30 06:27AM | 0 recs
By any means neccesary....

The struggle is always the same...as will the outcome be.

Time is on our sides NOT on theirs.

by WashStateBlue 2008-12-29 11:23AM | 0 recs
Re: Well-Behaved Queers Never Make History

Well-behaved people do not create change. Well-behaved people do not rock the boat or question the status quo. Well-behaved people wait "their turn" and do not feel they are free to speak their mind. Well-behaved people are CONSERVATIVE.

Be bad. Be bold. Be proud. Be liberal. Be true to yourself. And make history!!!

by LakersFan 2008-12-29 11:26AM | 0 recs
Thanks, LF!

Be bad. Be bold. Be proud. Be liberal. Be true to yourself. And make history!!!

I couldn't have said it better. ;-)

by atdleft 2008-12-29 11:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Well-Behaved Queers Never Make History

Well Said!  Go doll, go!

by DizzyQueen 2008-12-29 11:56AM | 0 recs
Hey, this is real progress

No other group supported Obama AND prop 8 as strongly as blacks.

They got through almost a quarter of the thread before that crucial point!

Other than that good news, what an atrocious thread. BTD takes one comment from the Frank Rich article - ONE - and turns it into a "wave" of Obama supporters. It's not even clear that the woman does support Obama, she specifically mentioned the inauguration. The subsequent orgy of "I told you so"s and "Damn that Obama"s is entirely predictable.

Seriously, why pick fights?

by Neef 2008-12-29 12:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Hey, this is real progress

sorry, I just don't see where this is 'Damn that Obama'? Rather BTD very rightly points out, and in the comments to his diary over at TalkLeft, that there has been a strong - if minority opinion - voiced for anyone raising the issue of Warren or other GLBT issues to STFU and stop bashing Obama. Come on, here at MyDD there was a strong group of people doing just that when the issue first was raised.

sorry, but regardless of who's president, and perhaps more so when it's a Democrat coming to office, there's no excuse for just 'behaving and not raising criticism' regarding pushing GLBT or any other human rights.

picking fights? no, this isn't about picking fights, this is about FIGHTING for GLBT rights.

by swissffun 2008-12-29 12:40PM | 0 recs
Link me the "STFU" diaries here

and I will link you the "Warren is a prick" diaries. We'll count 'em, and then revisit this "wave of Obama supporters" meme.

Fair enough?

As far as "Damn that Obama", I meant that the ensuing comments were predictable, not the original post.

by Neef 2008-12-29 01:03PM | 0 recs
Excuse me...

But when did I ever say that? I dare you to check my comments. In fact, I've repeatedly told people not to engage in a "black v. gay" flame war simply meant to divide & conquer the Democratic coalition!

Thanks for your "concern", but I'm not buying. I won't sit down & shut up. I won't stop telling it like it is. I won't stop until LGBT Americans have the same rights that all of you do.

by atdleft 2008-12-29 12:48PM | 0 recs
No one wants you to sit down

But why make it an "Obama supporters" fight? For god's sake, you're (plural You) already taking on the Right, Mormons, Christians, the Pope (and by extension the Catholic Church), homophobes of all stripes, the Black community and yet the net must be cast wider? Now everyone who supported Obama is your enemy?

As far as the "black v. gay" bit", I applaud what you have repeatedly told people, nor have I accused you of it. But you linked to the thread, I read it, and that's exactly what I found. I mentioned it, fairly accurately in my opinion.

by Neef 2008-12-29 01:21PM | 0 recs
Re: No one wants you to sit down

You said "BTD takes one comment from the Frank Rich article - ONE - and turns it into a "wave" of Obama supporters" but I don't see anywhere that BTD made it about Obama at all.  Yes, a handful of people in the TL comments section chose to bang that drum as they always do.

Maybe atdleft made a boo-boo by including those words in this diary but look, I think we all know that he's not saying "everyone who supported Obama is the enemy."  Heck, all us C4O people supported Obama.

The criticism relates to people who don't have gay rights very high on their list of priorities and are like "look, GLBT people, stop undermining Obama over your pet issue so he can focus on the issues that really matter."  It's not an indictment of everyone who supported Obama.  It's an indictment of people who don't understand coalition politics and forget the fact that if you don't respect other people's right to raise the issues they care passionately about, the whole thing falls apart.

by Steve M 2008-12-29 01:52PM | 0 recs
Good points, Steve

I took my annoyance at some of the commenters out on adleft, which was uncool.

by Neef 2008-12-29 03:50PM | 0 recs
Shorter version

"BTD..."  Say no more.  If Armando says it, you should ignore it by default.

by username 2008-12-29 05:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Shorter version

I view BTD as one of the most insightful bloggers on the net, but to each his own.

by Steve M 2008-12-29 06:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Shorter version

When his ego does not get in the way, he can be pretty good. But, Talk Left does have a tendency to be anti Obama which means even when he's being smart (which he has been a lot recently) some of the commenters are not. You are the exception. Most of the time, you go for balance. Some people however are just haters. it depends. Some are just kind of clueless, but then you find that perspective (being clueless) everywhere. Then, again, you do have the crazy zeal Obama supporters too who see Obama as walking on water. So no place is perfect.

by bruh3 2008-12-29 06:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Shorter version

He's alright if you ignore his replies in the comments and avoid the times where his Clinton worship gets the better of him.  With an editor or some kind of internal filter, he could be good.

by username 2008-12-30 06:03AM | 0 recs
Again, I think you're...

Misunderstanding what I said. Hell, I gave $$$$ to Obama & even made calls for him and traveled to Nevada for him! I'm not saying I'm telling myself to STFU, am I?

I'm not talking about ALL Obama supporters, but rather a group of folks that try to silence dissent on the blogs & on Obama listservs. Somehow, LGBT people are now "bigots" in their eyes for speaking out against homophobic bigots like Warren.

by atdleft 2008-12-29 02:10PM | 0 recs
Perhaps you're

an auto-STFUer??

I hear you. I suppose the thread comments sort of took me by surprise, and BAM there I go 'jacking your diary. I apologize, I was out of line.

by Neef 2008-12-29 03:48PM | 0 recs
That's OK, Neef.

And I apologize for my misunderstanding of your comments. I didn't know of what you were talking about because I hadn't seen all the comments at TalkLeft. I'm so sorry. And yes, while I usually LOVE lurking there and reading Jeralyn's & BTD's diaries, I must admit that there are still a few PUMAs there that do go too far in bashing Obama & other Dems. Well, I guess that's the price we must pay for enjoying the more Clinton-friendly communities at MyDD & TalkLeft.

by atdleft 2008-12-29 04:05PM | 0 recs
You mean

why fight back?

by Sadie Baker 2008-12-30 03:23AM | 0 recs
Re: Well-Behaved Queers Never Make History

I'm very disappointed in Obama's choice of Warren but his record on gay rights is pretty good and definitely a hell of a lot better than Bush.

by liberalj 2008-12-29 12:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Well-Behaved Queers Never Make History

i don't see that he has much of a record on his own to speak of yet. thus, the importance of raising issues whenever they arise so that he does develop a positive GLBT record as President. i definitely don't see that happening without continued pressure from GLBT groups now and throughout his administration.

by swissffun 2008-12-29 12:43PM | 0 recs
Thank you...

by atdleft 2008-12-29 12:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Well-Behaved Queers Never Make History

Obama needs people attacking him from the left. He needs cover on his left flank, so continued pressure is exactly what we need.

by liberalj 2008-12-29 03:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Well-Behaved Queers Never Make History

i've heard this starting as the new acceptance for people that were saying stfu a few weeks ago. (no NOT referring to you). it's somewhat unsettling though since I read that as giving Obama an excuse, a way out, to move to the middle and seem moderate. THAT'S not what his campaign advertised.

by swissffun 2008-12-30 02:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Well-Behaved Queers Never Make History

Its not an excuse to move to the center, its an excuse to move to the left. If progressives/ liberals are saying how great Obama is all the time and supporting his every move, it means he has to move to the center to look moderate and less like he's playing to the base.

If we attack Obama from the left, it gives him space to move to the left.

I wish Obama would drop Warren, but failing that I hope we all keep the pressure on so that he can move to the left on gay rights.  

by liberalj 2008-12-30 03:50AM | 0 recs
Re: Well-Behaved Queers Never Make History

ok, another point of view. thanks, i'll look at the cup half full. that's one of my resolutions in 2009 anyway!

by swissffun 2008-12-30 04:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Well-Behaved Queers Never Make History

That's exactly what Kos over at Daily Kos said. See Warren as a reason to hold Obama's feet to the fire rather than pretend a) Warren is not a big deal or a bigot (the preferred choice) when STFU fails or b) say there is nothing we can do about it. Our pressure has already forced Obama to rhectorically up his support of gay rights.

by bruh3 2008-12-29 06:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Well-Behaved Queers Never Make History

wow - i haven't been over there for many many many months. i can only imagine how many flames kos took for that over there. i've taken plenty over here even for this sort of comment , though it's died back a bit.

by swissffun 2008-12-30 02:43AM | 0 recs
Re: Well-Behaved Queers Never Make History

Again- Obama does have a record on gay rights. He has rhectoric. He can'thave a record until he actually is President and passes legislation.

by bruh3 2008-12-29 06:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Well-Behaved Queers Never Make History

Are heterosexuals allowed to be bad on behalf of their gay friends and gay fellow americans?

Oh please, oh please!  Can I? Can I?  Huh?

I love to explain to rednecks with flags on their bumpers about how liberty for all exists only in the presence of equality under the law for all, so in a very real way everyone's liberty hinges on there being no exceptions to "liberty for all".  Thus being a far right rethugs prop 8 supporter pisses right on that flag sticker on the bumper of their pick 'em up truck.

by lockewasright 2008-12-29 12:34PM | 0 recs
Never, ever STFU.

Intolerance toward minority groups diminishes the liberty of everyone.  There is no other way about it.

by lockewasright 2008-12-29 12:37PM | 0 recs
I saw 'Milk' the other day

Now there was a guy who understood movements.  That movie brought me to tears over a fight that was never mine, because, in the end, his fight was mine, as it was the fight for every right that I believe in.

What Harvey Milk didn't do was sit there bitching over someone's right to believe that he and his lifestyle were an abomination.  He knew that substantive issues were the ones worth fighting over.  I don't think (based on his characterization in the movie; I was 3 when he died in real life) that he would've really given a shit about Warren giving an invocation.  He would've told us to keep our powder dry for the real fights, like DADT and DOMA.

by Dracomicron 2008-12-29 01:10PM | 0 recs
Re: I saw 'Milk' the other day

Right On, Draco.

by venician 2008-12-29 01:26PM | 0 recs
Re: I saw 'Milk' the other day

at that time, plenty of people were saying that gays and lesbians shouldn't raise a fuss about anything.

by swissffun 2008-12-29 02:01PM | 0 recs
Yes...

...and those people were trying to take away thousands of peoples' jobs based on shoddy science and destroying the separation of church & state.

A little more severe than a guy reading a prayer.

by Dracomicron 2008-12-29 07:38PM | 0 recs
Instead of making assumptions

about Milk's views and actions, why not try reading about them?  The biography Mayor of Castro Street is very good.  If you read it, you would know your assumption is dead wrong.  Milk fought against bigotry vigorously, not just for policies.  Try a little education; it can be your friend.

by orestes 2008-12-29 02:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Instead of making assumptions

That book should be the Bible of the gay rights movment. I read it like 5 years ago and it changed my life.

by bruh3 2008-12-29 06:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Instead of making assumptions

agreed. people should ALWAYS know their history!

by swissffun 2008-12-30 02:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Instead of making assumptions

Maybe you should be reading up on Harry Hay too. Without him their would be no Milk.

by venician 2008-12-30 12:09PM | 0 recs
A bit of trivia

Harry Hay's lover was Will Geer, better known as Grandpa Walton.  

by orestes 2008-12-30 12:24PM | 0 recs
Re: A bit of trivia

and Hay played a seminal role in taking a stand against McCarthyism. The entire country, not just the GLBT community should honour his courage.

by swissffun 2008-12-30 03:48PM | 0 recs
I just saw the movie on Friday

I've been with friends & family nearly every minute since then.  Give me a break.

by Dracomicron 2008-12-29 07:35PM | 0 recs
Re: I just saw the movie on Friday

the book came out over 20 years ago.

by swissffun 2008-12-30 02:53AM | 0 recs
Fantastic

I had never heard of the man until I saw an ad for the movie.  I date girls and live in Minnesota.  That doesn't mean I won't look him up now, when I get a chance.

by Dracomicron 2008-12-30 04:16AM | 0 recs
If you had never heard of him

why would you rush to make all kinds of assumptions about his history?  So, you're saying that you feel comfortable making statements about Harvey Milk's work on the basis of a movie alone?  You made affirmative statements about Milk's work and philosophy, yet you know nothing about him.  That's some chutzpah!  At least I know not to put much credence in your statements.

by orestes 2008-12-30 05:07AM | 0 recs
Fair enough

That's your perrogative.

I was at least honest that I'm not fully fluent in the history involved; I talked about it with my father (who I saw the movie with), and he said that it was largely accurate to what he remembered about the Prop 6 situation and Milk's character.

I don't know "nothing" about him.  I saw the movie... I haven't heard any complaints about the movie's accuracy.

by Dracomicron 2008-12-30 05:43AM | 0 recs
Re: Fantastic

thanks for the info. it's never too late to catch up on history (it's not going anywhere -).

since you're not gay though, i hope you'll have a little more temperence regarding GLBT issues over Warner and other peculiar choices Obama's made along these lines.

by swissffun 2008-12-30 06:29AM | 0 recs
I also saw "Milk"...

And I think you're missing the point of the movie along with the point of this diary. This isn't some personal vendetta against Rick Warren. This is about fighting for civil rights.

And sorry, but the fact is that we won't ever see DOMA repealed or ENDA passed if we as LGBT people allow ourselves to be continually trampled upon, thrown under the bus, and left away from the dinner table begging for bread crumbs. We have to speak out & fight. We have to hold accountable those that we elected, as they won't be inclined to just do what we wish them to do. We need to lobby offices, march on The Capitol, and knock doors for our candidates, & give money to our cause.

Harvey Milk didn't just sit on the sidelines & hoped that Dianne Feinstein & Art Agnos & all the other establishment Dems throw bread crumbs to the community. He fought like hell to give LGBT people a seat at the table. That's how we win, and that's what I'm saying we must do.

by atdleft 2008-12-29 02:17PM | 0 recs
I got the movie just fine, thanks

Milk wanted everyone to be proud of who they were and for gays to be out so that homophobes will realize that they know gay folks who this legislation would affect.  "2 to 1 for us if they know 1 of us," he said.  That's just as true today as it was then.

It was a warning... a warning not to get insular.  He saw his own movement doing that, and that's why he brought in a lesbian as his campaign manager... someone equally affected by the battle but a reminder that gay men couldn't do it alone.

There's a serious problem with seeing someone giving a prayer as beating someone else down or taking their rights.  Warren needs an attitude adjustment (and I think he might be open to one in time), but asking God to protect Barack Obama doesn't really hurt gays one fucking bit, and it makes the rest of the country look at them as petty if they really take issue with this when they should be doing what you suggest... building a real movement and making noise about DADT and such.

Sometimes, to make progress, you have to make the first concession and be better people than the other guy.

by Dracomicron 2008-12-29 07:34PM | 0 recs
Nope...

You still don't get it. This should be a wake-up call. No matter how you spin it, Warren is a hatemonger. A hatemonger is blessing Obama's Presidency, and it's an extra slap in the face to all of us who were hurt by Warren's many lies about LGBT people being on the same level as criminal sex offenders.

But anyway, I'm at the point where I won't end my life if Obama continues with us. No, instead I'm ready to organize to make sure he doesn't pander to Warren further by ignoring LGBT civil righhts. I know the temptation is real, so we need to channel the outrage into action to demand a DOMA repeal, a DADT repeal, and a passed ENDA.

Believe it or not, Obama, Pelosi, & Reid won't touch our bills if we just leave them be. It's far too easy for them to take us for granted. That's why we must raise holy hell until equality happens.

That's what Harvey Milk would do if he were here today.

by atdleft 2008-12-29 07:54PM | 0 recs
Re: Nope...

A hatemonger is blessing Obama's Presidency...

The Lord works in mysterious ways.  I still think there may be some reward from all this invocation mess.  Warren has been forced to somewhat moderate his rhetoric, and Obama has had to make stronger statements in support of LGBT equality.  It ain't much yet, but the journey of a thousand miles...blah, blah, blah.

You're right about one thing: sitting around waiting won't get the job done.

by fogiv 2008-12-29 10:27PM | 0 recs
Twenty dollars

says Warren gets caught in his own gay sex scandal sometime between the next year and a half to two years.

Pride always goeth before a fall.

by Sadie Baker 2008-12-30 03:32AM | 0 recs
Probably not

Warren doesn't seem all that prideful.  Dobson would be more likely.

Warren's rhetoric on gays is nearly prefunctory in the evangelical community.  

by Dracomicron 2008-12-30 04:21AM | 0 recs
Re: Nope...

the first sentence says it all.

by swissffun 2008-12-30 02:56AM | 0 recs
Yeah, hatemonger

It's funny how quickly victims can evolve into victimizers.  We see it in Israel/Palistine, and also in the gay community.

If you're going to start demonizing moderate evangelicals (and I'm sure this is the point where you rant about how Warren isn't "moderate" even though he's on record as being apologetic about some of his statements), you're making your own fight harder in the long run.

by Dracomicron 2008-12-30 04:26AM | 0 recs
I'm sorry but what makes Warren a moderate

evangelical? I thought that space was occupied by folks like Richard Cizcik or Jim Wallis...

by louisprandtl 2008-12-30 06:08AM | 0 recs
Yeah, why not Jim Wallis?

Heck, I'll be generous to him & call him "religious left" because he does support marriage equality. Or what about Episcopal Archbishop Katharine Jefforts Schori? She's the leader of one of the largest church denominations in the nation.

But even as you said, Richard Cizik is at least more centrist & an evangelical who doesn't foam at the mouth with H8red like Warren does.

by atdleft 2008-12-30 06:21AM | 0 recs
I think we should be reaching out to folks like

Cizik and others when they are being marginalized and kicked around within the evangelical community..I'm not sure yet how reaching out to Warren helps that cause..

http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/nati onal/2008/12/12/moderate-evangelical-ric hard-ciziks-resignation-may-not-stop-bro adening-of-the-evangelical-agenda.html?P ageNr=1

by louisprandtl 2008-12-30 06:38AM | 0 recs
Compared to Falwell?

Warren is about as moderate as you can get and still maintain substantial power within the Religious Right.  So I misspoke.  I said "evangelical" meaning "Religious Right."  Common mistake, but there is a significant difference.

by Dracomicron 2008-12-30 07:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Compared to Falwell?

Read my post below- you think Warren is a moderate? read the man's history.

by bruh3 2008-12-30 07:59AM | 0 recs
Maybe that's true, but it seems little bit early
to reach out to the Religious Right without taking into account the effect it might have on the constituencies that support you. Especially, when GLBT community had been greatly affected by the role the Religious Right played in the last few election cycles, to deny them equal rights as citizens of this country. We are not just talking about marriage equality, we are also talking about denial of adoption rights for same sex couples in Arkansas. The destructive role of likes of Warren played in last election cycle had been highly corrosive for GLBT community.
Even Bishop Gene Robinson had been left aghast by this invite...
 
by louisprandtl 2008-12-30 08:04AM | 0 recs
Never too early to make enemies your friends

If the worst this does is hurt the feelings of some gays, then it was the right move.  Full stop.  If there were another situation where an enemy my demographic group were given a prominant position that was incapable of really hurting me, I would be annoyed, but not this level of outraged.

Example: Let's say I'm a big video gamer, and Obama chooses an outspoken proponent of video game censorship (like, I dunno, Hillary Clinton) for a cabinet position that has nothing really to do with censoring video games (maybe something in the State Department).  I'd probably just sigh and be glad that the Wii is starting to make gamers of a lot more people that might not have considered themselves that before... someday folks will understand, but in the meantime I will put up with small indignities.

If Warren actually affects policy, I'll be right there with you in being angry.

by Dracomicron 2008-12-30 08:27AM | 0 recs
Let's us not trivialize Warren's bigotry

against gays and lesbians. Why the need to pile on or act tone deaf when the community already had been hit hard? Not being from GLBT community, I cannot claim to understand every thing that community feels under the circumstances. But the present situation definitely calls for more reaching out efforts to GLBT community from Obama's team and probably from progressives like us.

by louisprandtl 2008-12-30 08:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Let's us not trivialize Warren's bigotry

If we don't trivialize Warren's bigotry, then let's not overestimate it, either.  He's not as outspoken about it as a lot of the others, and he's even reached out to some (like Melissa Etheridge) to try and make peace.

I'm not tone deaf.  I hear you.  And, as a part of a sometimes demonized demographic myself, I'm sympathetic.  I'm telling you what I think you need to hear in good faith.  I'm not a troll, and I'm not a liberal homophobe (plenty exist, I know).

It's easy to get outraged and look a bit like a fruitcake to the "norms."  It's even easier to shut up and let people walk all over you.  It's hard to try and look at the whole issue at once and try to do what's right for people who don't necessarally understand it yet (and by "people" I mean folks on both sides).

by Dracomicron 2008-12-30 09:01AM | 0 recs
Hey I think you misread me. I was not referring

to you personally. I was referring to the Obama team in charge of setting up the inauguration...I think Warren invitation was an act of tone deafery...

Yes I know Warren talked with Etheridge and provided donuts to GLBT folks...and I also know what he continued to espouse about Gays and lesbians...

by louisprandtl 2008-12-30 09:09AM | 0 recs
I getcha

What I say stands, though.  If I had the brass clangers that Obama has, I might do the same thing he is doing with the inauguration.  It's a good idea.

Warren was shamed into scrubbing his website of the anti-gay stuff, and that's a great result already.

by Dracomicron 2008-12-30 10:08AM | 0 recs
Alright..we agree to disagree on this one then..:)

by louisprandtl 2008-12-30 10:12AM | 0 recs
Re: Let's us not trivialize Warren's bigotry

yeah, we don't want to look like 'fruitcakes' or anything. ;-)

by swissffun 2008-12-30 11:13AM | 0 recs
Re: Let's us not trivialize Warren's bigotry

What i find funny is how i provide you link that contradicts your claim, and yet you proceed with the same claims. That tells me that I can't trust you.

by bruh3 2009-01-01 12:12AM | 0 recs
Clearly you do not see

the human rights issue at the center of this discussion.  You cannot compare video gaming with equal human rights for all American citizens.  It is morally simplistic to deny the significance of small statements/actions in the struggle for human rights.  Giving an avowed bigot this platform sends a statement that his bigoted views are okay.  The proliferation of those bigoted views impedes the cause of human rights for GLBT people.  You appear to be saying that only actions that directly result in the oppression of gay citizens should be challenged; that only these actions have a direct impact on people.  Movements for equality are built on the small steps, as well as the grand.  As someone mentioned, a lot of people thought Rosa Parks was making an unnecessary statement (gee, if you antagonize the white people they're never going to support giving you equal rights- sound familiar?), but that is seen as one of the pivotal moments in the black civil rights struggle.  It appears from your comments that you are not committed to equal rights for GLBT folks.  That is your prerogative.  Just leave it at that and don't pay lip service to our cause.  Your words ring hollow.

by orestes 2008-12-30 10:14AM | 0 recs
Nice shooting

It appears from your comments that you are not committed to equal rights for GLBT folks.

It appears from YOUR comments that you don't want allies who differ from your position in any way.  That's a good way to get marginalized, because everyone has a different viewpoint.

I was using video gaming as an example.  Examples don't have to be equal in scope, only in logical premise.  You're using the backlash against this prayer as false equivilence to Rosa Parks's historic civil disobedience (which, by the way, she never intended... her feet hurt and she didn't want to move).

Sorry to say, even if you got Warren kicked out of the inauguration, it wouldn't become a symbol of an intolerant society unjustly abusing the human rights of a minority, it would be a tyrannically-minded minority lashing out against another group as it was trained to do by years of Newt Gingrich-style culture warfare.  

Stop playing into their hands.  Be gracious even to your enemies.  Be the better person.  It's difficult, but I know you can do it.

by Dracomicron 2008-12-30 11:01AM | 0 recs
Thanks for showing your true colors

...it wouldn't become a symbol of an intolerant society unjustly abusing the human rights of a minority, it would be a tyrannically-minded minority lashing out against another group as it was trained to do...

Why didn't you just come out and say that in the first place and save us all some time?

by LakersFan 2008-12-30 11:26AM | 0 recs
Say what?

What I think the perception of the attack would be to the greater public?

How is that my "true colors?"

by Dracomicron 2008-12-30 11:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Say what?

Because you buy into that mentality and are telling people that they should be "well-behaved" in order to avoid that perception.

A real "friend" supports their friends' civil rights stuggle and tells the rest of the world to take their antiquated opinions and go to hell. You seem to be telling people something along the lines of "play nice, and then maybe people will want to give you your rights". That is an extremely conservative position. Civil rights in this country have only come to people who FIGHT for them.

by LakersFan 2008-12-30 11:54AM | 0 recs
I don't 'buy into' any mentality

I mint my own mentality, thanks.

by Dracomicron 2008-12-30 12:14PM | 0 recs
Re: I don't 'buy into' any mentality

Then don't repeat it.

Words have power. It's important to define words on your own terms in order to control the public dialog. Letting the opposition define terms gives them power. By repeating the oppositions' talking points, you are not only confirming their power, you are aiding and abetting it.

You seem to be interested in the hyper-partisanship of Newt Gingrich, so I thought you understood that "language matters" was one of his big themes. (And I'm not trying to criticize you here, I'm trying to educate you about how important it is not to repeat the words of the enemy.) Check this out to see what I'm talking about: http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1276

by LakersFan 2008-12-30 02:19PM | 0 recs
...where are you going with that?

Of course language matters.  I have never been in the "just words" crowd.

I'm not the one repeating talking points here.  It's the other side of this argument that's exaggerating the issue as if it were Rosa Parks on the bus.

I don't read right-wing tripe; if I make the same arguments, it's because I came to the same conclusion independantly... but I don't think most right-wingers would appreciate the fact that I want full marriage equality, universal health care, manditory HPV shots for girls by age 12, embryonic stem cell research, teaching of evolution in schools, and unflexible renewable alternative fuel standards in the next ten years.

by Dracomicron 2008-12-31 04:42AM | 0 recs
Re: ...where are you going with that?

You don't need to read anything right-wing to repeat their talking points. That's the whole point -- their talking points have already infected the MSM and in doing so have affected your choice of words. You may think you're coming up with these things "independently", but unless you're cut off from all media, you are not coming up with these ideas and terminology all on your own. You're being affected by their manipulation of the language, and repeating their words (even in jest) only continues that cycle and keeps those words in the mainstream vocabulary.

I am quite certain you can make your point without resorting to their words. Try it. You'll become a more effective communicator and a better champion for liberal causes.

by LakersFan 2008-12-31 09:14AM | 0 recs
Re: ...where are you going with that?

Yes, I just had this convesation with someone who was claiming that gay rights opponents were not trying to deny gay rights advocates the legal cases involving civil rights. I am like- what rock have you been under that you did not see the right and anti-gay bigots say that gays are not like other civil rights issues, and thus denied civil rights laws? its the core of their argument. Plausibile deniability is the mantra of those who want to think of themselves as progressives  while backing up the worse of the right wing frames. They claim they dont see because that way they can still make the arguments they make to other progressives about how they are not reinforcing bigotry.

by bruh3 2009-01-01 12:16AM | 0 recs
Re: I don't 'buy into' any mentality

Except you are provide links that provide refutation of your claims, but you continue with the claims anyhow. Which says a lot about you.

by bruh3 2009-01-01 12:14AM | 0 recs
Don't be dishonest

You are not an ally.  At least have the cojones to admit it.  You accuse those of us who are angered by this Warren action of being fruitcakes, victimizers of Warren, trivial, and now tyrants!  These are not the words of an ally.  Oh, wait, you're just telling us what we need to hear because that's what a friend does.  You know the old saying, with friends like you...  
You appear to have a very limited perspective on the world.  You appear incapable of understanding and accepting perspectives that do not mesh with your own.  Your ears (or eyes, in this case) and mind appear to be firmly clamped shut.    

With regard to your gaming example, you should consider that when talking about something as significant and sensitive as human rights, you might want to choose an example that is in fact equal in scope.  You see, the scope of an issue is very important.   For example, if someone tells you they were denied entry to a club because they're black, it wouldn't be cool to respond, yeah, they wouldn't let me in either because I'm wearing sneakers.  You see, the logical premise may be the same (both denied entry), but the significance (or scope) of these experiences are not the same.  Additionally, your point would be strengthened by employing a parallel that is similar in scope.  For example, some have asked whether Obama would invite an avowed anti-Semite or racist to speak at the inauguration.  This is quite different from saying, would Obama invite a gaming enthusiast?

Finally, the last straw- for you to equate the fight for justice with tyranny and the tactics of Newt Gingrich demonstrates how limited your perspective is.  I started my communications with you regarding your bald statements about Harvey Milk's life story and beliefs on the basis of seeing a movie.  A more reflective person would have refrained from assuming he could speak about a subject on the basis of so little information.  But that is not you.  Your statement about tyranny and Newt Gingrich demonstrates that you also have little understanding of the history of the fight for social progress over the last one hundred years.  You know what, a lot of white people thought blacks were getting too uppity and were tyrannizing them.  They were wrong then and you are wrong now.  Spend less time typing uninformed comments on the internet and spend more time reading.

Now, if I have offended you and turned you against supporting human rights for gays and lesbians, so be it.  Just step out of the way and let us get on with it.  As I said at the start, you are no ally.  

by orestes 2008-12-30 12:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Don't be dishonest

Wow,orestes, what a great way to turn off potential voters to our cause. Draco is our ALLY you just want to speread hate and anger, ironically just like Warren

by venician 2008-12-30 12:17PM | 0 recs
It's okay venician

This guy isn't going to turn me against the gay rights movement.  I'm not that petty.

by Dracomicron 2008-12-30 12:33PM | 0 recs
Re: It's okay venician

I agree. Your posts are not that of ally. An ally would listen to evidence refuting his claims. You ignored anything that did not. You aren;t that petty? Really- then why did you ignore evidence refuting your claims? that seems petty to me.

by bruh3 2009-01-01 12:18AM | 0 recs
You're as simple as he

You can employ the please the masters, don't rock the boat approach if you like. I was responding to YOUR ally calling gays and lesbians tyrants and all other manner of names.  If that doesn't seem incompatible with being an ally to you, then we are operating with different definitions of the word.  The struggle for equal rights is always difficult and nasty.  If you're afraid of pissing people off, you shouldn't get involved in the struggle.  That's not hate, it's political/social opposition.  And let me make this point clear to you simple-minded so-called lefties:  Rick Warren likens gays and lesbians to child molesters, supports anti-gay tyrants, wants to deny us our rights.  That is hate-fueled.  I disagreed with Dracomicron's statements, perhaps strongly.  I did not call his family or ethnic group, etc. any names and have not promoted oppressing him in any way.  Do you see the difference?

by orestes 2008-12-30 12:39PM | 0 recs
Re: You're as simple as he

this person is a hater. You can tell because he ignores anything that refutes his claim that warren is a moderate. For some fo these people, they are just spining and bullshiting, and thus they will say anything becuase they want to see themselves as progressives even as seeing gay rights as a "lesser" issue.

by bruh3 2009-01-01 12:20AM | 0 recs
You don't get off that easy.

Now, if I have offended you and turned you against supporting human rights for gays and lesbians, so be it.  Just step out of the way and let us get on with it.

If I based my support on whether anonymous internet strangers hurt my feelings or not, I'd be just as bad as the bigots that hate you for the kind of love you want.

Sorry, bud, but I won't step aside, and I won't shut up, because I believe that you deserve equal rights to me or anyone else, and I'm clearsighted enough to fight both effectively and honestly using the tools at my disposal.  You don't agree with me, that's just fine.  

I hope that, in time, you realize the hypocricy inherent in asking me to shut up because my view is slightly different from yours.

by Dracomicron 2008-12-30 12:29PM | 0 recs
I did not ask you to shut up

Read more closely.

by orestes 2008-12-30 12:43PM | 0 recs
Yes, you did.

You asked me to "step out of the way."  The only possible way in which I could be "in the way" is through words like I've written here today.  I've never lifted a finger or stood on a picket line against gay rights.

In order to step out of the way, I'd have to stop writing as I've done today... which would be to "shut up."

by Dracomicron 2008-12-30 12:47PM | 0 recs
Now, who's playing the victim?

by orestes 2008-12-30 12:54PM | 0 recs
That'd be you, still.

I'm feeling confident and powerful, thanks.

by Dracomicron 2008-12-30 01:01PM | 0 recs
Re: That'd be you, still.

The majority always feel powerful when it ignores facts that the minorty tells it.

by bruh3 2009-01-01 12:21AM | 0 recs
Re: Clearly you do not see

Oh, dear lord... histrionic, much?

by Dreorg 2008-12-30 04:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Yeah, hatemonger

wow - now gays are victimizing Warren?? just unbelievable.

by swissffun 2008-12-30 10:37AM | 0 recs
While you're reading up on Milk

look into the Anita Bryant flap as well.  Anita Bryant publicly stated that she thought gays should not be allowed to teach children (among other reprehensible comments).  The gay community boycotted Florida and its oranges (for which she was a spokesperson).  She got canned and the gay community developed some political power.  It was an effective boycott.  I assume you would argue that we should not have done that because it only alienated people and made gays look angry and mean.  This Warren episode is very similar, although there hasn't been much of a call for a boycott.  We need to go back to exercising our political power and that will mean making some institutional Democrats and some supposed progressives upset.  So be it.

by orestes 2008-12-30 05:14AM | 0 recs
Man that file footage

Bryant was a piece of work, that's for sure.

I don't think that's necessarally what I "would" say on the issue.  I believe in measured responses that fit the attack.  A boycott of something that she was spokesperson for sounds just about perfect.  Voting with your dollar is an effective tool.

Thanks for the research tip, though.

by Dracomicron 2008-12-30 05:47AM | 0 recs
I dunno...

I imagine if Anita Bryant were still around today, some supposed "liberals" would scold us for "causing so much pain in her life". I've been flabbergasted lately by the way some in the "liberal media" have been demonizing our community for organizing boycotts against the businesses that funded H8. Even a usually left-of-center LA Times columnist repeated outmouth lies about "violent mobs" outside a Melrose Mexican restaurant & blamed us for "making the poor Mormon owner cry" when she donated hundreds of $$$$ to take her customers' civil rights away!

I guess this just confirms what Gandhi said. First, they laughed at us. And now, they deride us. Soon, they'll fear us. And one day, we'll get victory.

by atdleft 2008-12-30 06:13AM | 0 recs
There's your problem

You're conflating folks like me with the media.  I'm your friend (sometimes friends have the unenviable job of telling you when you're going too far).  The media is only your friend if they think that being your friend will help them sell advertisements.

by Dracomicron 2008-12-30 07:03AM | 0 recs
Re: There's your problem

thanks, really. but going too far? is that what you've been trying to tell 'us'? mostly what I've heard from the GLBT community has been voicing incredulity at the Warren choice, and basically letting Obama know he f'ed up on this one. is that going too far? letting him know we think this is a bad choice and why? if so, those guidelines are a bit too restrictive for my liberal mind.

by swissffun 2008-12-30 08:31AM | 0 recs
Yeah, that's too far

Undermining Obama's judgement before he even takes office is pretty much going too far over an invocation.

People aren't just "voicing incredulity," they're saying that he's "thrown them under a bus."  The first is fine.  I'm incredulous about it, too, sometimes.  The second is ridiculous.

You know that.

by Dracomicron 2008-12-30 09:04AM | 0 recs
Re: Yeah, that's too far

both are voicing concerns. sorry you seem to think being upset about this is ridiculous, and that all the different points of view in this diary don't seem to have given you any pause in your assessment. enjoy that book.

by swissffun 2008-12-30 10:17AM | 0 recs
Ugh

I never said that it's a problem being upset.  The problem comes when you go online and start ranting about how Obama has betrayed you or tossed you under a large moving object or put sugar in your gas tank.

by Dracomicron 2008-12-30 10:26AM | 0 recs
Re: Ugh

'I never said that it's a problem being upset. '

so be upset, just don't say anything about it.

read 1984 as well.

by swissffun 2008-12-30 11:02AM | 0 recs
I didn't say that, either

I have recced thoughtful diaries on this subject, actually.  I'm happy talking about it, if you're coming at it from a rational position.

by Dracomicron 2008-12-30 11:19AM | 0 recs
Re: I didn't say that, either

I don't believe you. You avoid anything that rquires you to think beyond what you already decided is the answer.

by bruh3 2009-01-01 02:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Yeah, that's too far

maybe if Obama had 's friend' around him that'd tell him he's being 'a dork' with this choice then we wouldn't be having this discussion.  that not seeming to be the case, now there's plenty of friends letting him no this.

by swissffun 2008-12-30 10:20AM | 0 recs
Re: There's your problem

No. You are not being a "friend" at all. A friend supports their friends when they are fighting for their civil rights.

by LakersFan 2008-12-30 08:45AM | 0 recs
When my friends fight for civil rights...

...I'm 100% behind them.

When my friends flip out over a trivial issue, I tell them they're dorks.

by Dracomicron 2008-12-30 09:02AM | 0 recs
There's nothing trivial about equality

By your logic, taking a seat in the front of the bus was a "trivial issue" too. But Rosa Parks took it and made history.

by LakersFan 2008-12-30 09:32AM | 0 recs
Straw man, much?

Seperate is inherently unequal.  Your desire to play the victim is casting unfair aspersions on me.

You know, I don't mind that much... it's a trivial issue, your preconceptions about me, and my skin is thick enough to take it.  I just don't think it's a productive method for you to pursue the issue.

by Dracomicron 2008-12-30 09:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Straw man, much?

It's not a strawman at all. Just because you call it "trival" doesn't make it so. There is absolutely nothing "liberal" or "progressive" about trying to trivialize other people's struggle for equality.

by LakersFan 2008-12-30 10:30AM | 0 recs
Yes, it is

You said that my logic implies that Seperate But Equal is a legitimate philosophy, which has no grounds in what I've actually said.  That's actually the definition of a Straw Man Argument.

Description of Straw Man
The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:

* Person A has position X.

  • Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
  • Person B attacks position Y.
  • Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person.

by Dracomicron 2008-12-30 10:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Yes, it is

You must have me confused with someone else. I haven't said anything about separate but equal.

But thanks for the definition of strawman. Perhaps you should read it a little closer and recognize that's exactly what you are doing when you accuse people of "playing victim" when they are simply standing up for civil rights.

by LakersFan 2008-12-30 10:49AM | 0 recs
Right

Carry on then.

by Dracomicron 2008-12-30 10:50AM | 0 recs
Re: Right

I imagine in the 60s you would have been the guy supporting "negros' until they started all those pesky marches.

by bruh3 2009-01-01 12:23AM | 0 recs
Re: Straw man, much?

And speaking of straw men: Please tell me, when did I "play victim"?

by LakersFan 2008-12-30 10:35AM | 0 recs
Easy

When you started saying that a guy saying a prayer is a threat to your civil rights, you started playing the victim.

by Dracomicron 2008-12-30 10:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Easy

Nice try, but you've just proved that you're the one building straw men. I never said anything of the sort.

by LakersFan 2008-12-30 10:44AM | 0 recs
...alright then...

...so why are we talking about Warren?

by Dracomicron 2008-12-30 10:51AM | 0 recs
Re: ...alright then...

I'm standing up for my friends' civil rights. What are you doing, other than being a Warren apologist?

by LakersFan 2008-12-30 10:55AM | 0 recs
Who's taking your friend's rights?

I wasn't aware that actual rights-stealing was on the menu in this diary.

by Dracomicron 2008-12-30 11:03AM | 0 recs
Re: Who's taking your friend's rights?

The law.

You do understand that gay people do not currently enjoy the same civil rights that other people in this country have, right?

by LakersFan 2008-12-30 11:11AM | 0 recs
Right, that.

Some goof got off on a tangent about some dude asking God to protect Obama, and I guess I got lost.  My apologies.

by Dracomicron 2008-12-30 11:17AM | 0 recs
Re: Right, that.

another apologists.

by bruh3 2009-01-01 02:35PM | 0 recs
Re: There's nothing trivial about equality

mountain, meet molehill.

by Dreorg 2008-12-30 04:45PM | 0 recs
I agree

Anita Bryant made a compelling victim at the time.  The people who are complaining that gays shouldn't be so mean would be apoplectic if they saw Bryant crying and playing the poor defenseless victim of hateful attacks.  What has gone so wrong to cause such a change?  Is it the inability of the privileged to truly empathize with the battle for justice?  Or are they really uncomfortable with gay people as a political force?  Sure, they're generous about "permitting" gay people to live openly, but stop shoving it in my face.  I am really rendered speechless by the attitudes of some on the left.  

by orestes 2008-12-30 07:24AM | 0 recs
Re: I got the movie just fine, thanks

My central problem with your post is you have no real idea the  full extent of who Warren is. You see what he does as rhectoric, but there is also his actions:

"Warren-Endorsed Nigerian Leader Backed Anti-Gay Laws Worse Than Pre-WW2 Third Reich"

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/1 2/24/191631/90

Please read this diary, and, if you care not to believe the diarist, read his link.They are damning of Warren. He's not just a bigot. He's a dangerous one willing to push for people abroad who are more than willing to jail gays for being gay. That he can not implement here was he endorses abroad should not be the point.

My central problem with a lot of people is that they think bigotry must the cartoon version from the movies where evil tells you what it is. Evil can have a smile on it. That's the kind of evil of a Huckabee (who will deny violence against gays) or a Warren:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/12/17 /181910/79/92/674197

This is my diary on the subject of how polite bigotry works. Its a public relations ploy. I saw it with the racist groups that went underground. Many of them are still around, but they have soften their image. Don't confuse the image with substance. These are men are more than just verbally bad, but also in action.

They are a part of the machinary that promotes the death of gay people abroad. Why do you think the U.S. absained from U.N.'s nonbinding resolution on decriminalizing homosexuality (in at least 6 countries being gay is grounds for death).

http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2008/ 12/us_refuses_to_sign_un_resoluti.php

This is the stated reason for the failure to want to decriminalize it:

"According to some of the declaration's backers, U.S. officials expressed concern in private talks that some parts of the declaration might be problematic in committing the federal government on matters that fall under state jurisdiction. In numerous states, landlords and private employers are allowed to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation; on the federal level, gays are not allowed to serve openly in the military."

They want to retain for people ability to fire gays and throw them out of their homes.

One of the issues is that Americans are so insular that they don't realize how these men operate outside of our borders or influence efforts internationally. They also do not understand the full breath of gay rights issues. Someone would try to blame gay activists, but this is more about the majority having no reason to know about the plight ofthe minority. Remember in most states the gay marriage issue was raised by conservatives seeking a wedge issue. So, the issue with thrust upon us.

by bruh3 2008-12-30 07:54AM | 0 recs
The benign bigot

is a construct I have always found more insidious than the foaming at the mouth type.  I like my bigotry straight up.  Give me Dobson, because at least you know where he stands.  With the likes of Warren, you are treading on more dangerous ground, as is apparent by the number of supposed left-leaning people who think of him as moderate, or not-so-bad.  The ones who can con people are the dangerous ones.  Look at how this Warren debacle has caused rifts in the left- it is because some are unwilling to see who Warren really is.  Equating gays with child molesters, etc. is not moderate and is not a slip of the tongue.  I'm sorry you can't simply apologize for intemperate language and expect to get a free pass.  My mother didn't raise a fool.

by orestes 2008-12-30 08:16AM | 0 recs
Re: The benign bigot

We live in a media savvy society. That has its pluses, but here it's definitely a minus. Image trumps substance, even when that substance  is evil.

by bruh3 2008-12-30 08:56AM | 0 recs
If there is one thing

we have learned from the Democratic Congress under Bush, it is exactly how useful all that "dry powder" really is. I mean Nancy Pelosi has gobs and gobs of it, just laying around the house.

Maybe we can go borrow some from them when we need it?

by Sadie Baker 2008-12-30 03:29AM | 0 recs
Pelosi doesn't have the will

She was keeping her powder dry for a Democratic president, because she saw no purpose in fighting Bush.  I disagree with her strongly on that.

She and Reid are not good examples.

by Dracomicron 2008-12-30 04:20AM | 0 recs
Re: Pelosi doesn't have the will

well it seems a D-president elect is getting off to a perfect start with choice of the invocation speaker.

by swissffun 2008-12-30 08:27AM | 0 recs
How very true...

If there is one thing we have learned from the Democratic Congress under Bush, it is exactly how useful all that "dry powder" really is.

It just reinforces my view that typical politicians won't use their spines unless they're absolutely forced to. For the last two years, Pelosi & Reid have been afraid of everything including their own shadows. No matter what we wanted them to stand up for, they'd back down.

That's why we can't just expect them & Obama to suddenly stand up & fight hard on their own for ENDA or for DOMA repeal. We must exert enough pressure on them to force them to act! Because FDR & LBJ were pressured publicly by the left, they acted. Because Carter & Clinton weren't, they caved.

Let's not make the same mistake today.

by atdleft 2008-12-30 06:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Well-Behaved Queers Never Make History

I am always well-behaved except when I am not.

by Charles Lemos 2008-12-29 04:04PM | 0 recs
And honestly...

That's why we love you, Charles. I still say you're the hottest blogger in the left blogosphere. Really, discussing the failures of market fundamentalism & the fossil fuel based economy is... Well, as Paris Hilton would say, that's hot. ;-)

by atdleft 2008-12-29 04:16PM | 0 recs
Re: And honestly...

You're too kind but I am afraid my modeling days are behind me.

On the substance of your post, I agree. I was never a gay activist until the Texas sodomy law was struck down. That sort of opened the flood gates for me leading me to think that yes perhaps change in my lifetime was possible.

Coincidentally, tonight here in the Castro I ran into Howard Wallace who organized the Coors boycott along with Harvey Milk back in the 1970s. We chatted about a number of things but it struck me that sort of alliance between gays and labor is missing. It's worth exploring again a broader base social movement beyond just "gay" issues.

by Charles Lemos 2008-12-29 06:24PM | 0 recs
You were a model, too?!

My goodness, what haven't you done? :-D

Anyway, I agree with you on the need for the LGBT community to make allegiances again with natural allies. I was horrified when I found out from my LA sources that the No on H8 campaign turned down help from the LA County Labor Federation! That turned out to be a big mistake.

Perhaps we can start on the national level by getting the AFL-CIO & Change to Win to push harder for ENDA if we get The Task Force & HRC to push for EFCA. Both bills will be a hard fight, and perhaps a united progressive front behind both bills can help both get passed.

And perhaps in California, we can get EQCA to lobby for a fair budget as the unions sign onto the Repeal H8 campaign. No matter what happens in court next year (and I'm pretty hopeful), we'll need to be prepared to either repeal H8 or defend our gains next year. We should start building alliances now to put together a strong coalition to withstand whatever sh*t the radical right tosses our way in the coming months.

by atdleft 2008-12-29 07:44PM | 0 recs
Re: And honestly...

And that's why I keep pushing for our battle to be about equal rights. Bringing back the E.R.A., with some modifications, I feel is the way to fight and win this battle.

by venician 2008-12-30 07:43AM | 0 recs
Re: Well-Behaved Queers Never Make History

a side-dish thought that came to me after viewing milk is the old "there's freedom in the ghetto" cliche.  i live in nyc, but with our somewhat increased liberties, gays no longer really have a neighborhood.  (ok, ok, chelsea, but with regards to people who live there, the primary qualification is money, not sexual orientation anymore)

of course, that's a good thing.  it's great that we don't have to fear for our lives in other neighborhoods anymore (although there's still work to be done on this front).  at the same time though, it is harder to organize a community without a geographic base.  today, we can't run through the streets of the castro yelling "out of the bars and into the streets" and whip a crowd of thousands.  the gay bars and the gay community are spread out over the whole city (and increasingly, over the whole country).  

in the long run, this is probably a good thing.  but strictly with respect to organizing direct actions, it makes things a little trickier.

by bluedavid 2008-12-29 05:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Well-Behaved Queers Never Make History

(obviously, the castro reference was to "milk" and doesn't relate to nyc)

by bluedavid 2008-12-29 05:52PM | 0 recs
this diary makes me think of this...
"At the time I was arrested I had no idea it would turn into this. It was just a day like any other day. The only thing that made it significant was that the masses of the people joined in."
Rosa Parks
by canadian gal 2008-12-29 06:57PM | 0 recs
Re: this diary makes me think of this...

rightly said!! someone has the courage and need to voice outrage at anything that affects their civil rights, and this should be greeted with support not pressure to stop complaining - especially in a progressive blog space

by swissffun 2008-12-30 03:02AM | 0 recs
Thanks..well said..

Nothing will happen unless GLBT folks speak up and stand up for their Right to Equality. I did not like the Rich Warren's invitation, nor can I appreciate of some progressives' effort to minimize the effect that it had on GLBT community, especially after the last election.

by louisprandtl 2008-12-30 06:16AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads