Brokeback Barack: Our First Gay President?

If Bill Clinton was, as Toni Morrison once argued, our first Black president, could Barack Obama be our first gay? Is Obama the hope lesbians and gays have been waiting for -- and if not, why should all Americans care?

Ellen is an outspoken Hillstar and gay boys, of course, have long held a soft spot for a tragic diva -- even a hawk-diva in a pants-suit who has only been married once. (Did Obama really think his booty-shaking on national TV was going to impress America's favorite lesbian?) But it may be the drama-free Obama -- despite his opposition to same-sex marriage -- who engenders a cultural breakthrough in LGBT history; at the very least, his example offers some hortatory lessons for the gay community.

One would have to be blind, deaf, and dumb not to recognize that gays would prefer any Democrat campaigning in 2008 to the night-of-the-living-dead running for the homophobic-is-my-sobriquet-GOP-zombie of the season. Taking a seat at the back of the Straight Talk Express, fast on its mettlesome road to cementing the status-quo, is hardly how any lesbian or gay person hopes to escape the fetters of second-class citizenship. Thanks, but I'll pass on President McLame.

But hope for legal equality no longer comes easy for gay and lesbian Americans -- not even from a Democratic party celebrating the historic milestone of nominating an African-American or a woman. The LGBT invitation to the Democratic orgy of multiculturalism has been tepid at best: the only candidates to unequivocally support same-sex marriage have long stepped off the primary stage (one of whom also believes in UFOs).

Though same-sex liberation defiantly emerged alongside its path-breaking sister movements in the 1960s -- the civil rights and women's rights movements -- not many in the Democratic Party seem disquieted that, while a women and an African-American share a milestone for their respective histories, a lesbian or gay presidential candidate remains beyond even the reaches of fantasy.

For all of our so-called American progress, lesbians and gays continue to suffer discrimination in the most retrogressive and violent (not to mention un-Western) of ways -- just ask the family of Lawrence King, a fifteen year old boy from Oxnard, California murdered this month by a classmate after proclaiming he was gay.

Not surprisingly, Hillary and Obama share almost all of the same LGBT policy proposals (with one exception: Obama avers that he will repeal the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in its entirety; Hillary only in part), but many of these policies have been promised -- and abandoned for political expediency -- before. The seismic Clintonian disappointments of the 90s -- including the execrable DOMA which Bill signed--still cuts deeply. We have no real evidence that either candidate will remain solicitous to deliver once elected (though certainly this goes for non-LGBT promises too). Fool me once...

Why then should lesbians and gays heed Obama's call to open their hearts again and hope?

The legal, political, and social changes lesbians and gays are fighting for will only come with a cultural revolution that changes the internal attitudes of the general public. It is no secret that American culture still vilifies lesbian and gay people. Gays are still objects of amusement or fear or hostility, but little else. As one scholar put it over a decade ago, "No one wants to be called a homosexual."

No one, perhaps, but Obama. Obama is rewriting and reframing the cultural discourse on gay and lesbian rights. He nearly always includes lesbians and gays in his breathtaking visions for our country. From his very first oration marking his entry into the primary to his unprecedented confrontation with African-American ecclesiastical leaders at Ebeneezer Church (on Martin Luther King Day in the heart of the South!) to his stump speeches across the country, Obama has found a place for the LGBT community within his American dream. "If we are honest with ourselves," Obama railed to black leaders, "we must admit that none of our hands are entirely clean. If we're honest with ourselves, we'll acknowledge that our own community has not always been true to King's vision of a beloved community. We have scorned our gay brothers and sisters instead of embracing them."

I am often sympathetic to Hillary's peevish refrain that Obama may be all Elton John and no Bernie Taupin -- all performance and no substance. Obama might move an audience to tears now, but will his speeches translate into real change as president?

Hillary fails to consider that sometimes rhetoric is change. With his rhetorical defense of lesbian and gay Americans, rooted in an ideological and philosophical commitment to re-humanizing and de-vilifying LGBT folk, Obama is creating the cultural conditions within which political, legal, and social change can take place.

Obama is showing gays and lesbians how to win. His rhetoric transcends the we-they mentality that pervades our culture wars and prevents productive political dialogue: "[As president] I would encourage people to recognize themselves in each other." Rather than vilify the opposition, Obama has an understanding of his political adversaries.

Obama engages with the political opposition regarding the moral linchpin that divides this country with respect to gay rights--religion. Both in form and in content, Obama's speeches are infused with hypnotic spiritual power. He defends gay rights from conservative opposition--as very few other national figures have--on the latter's own religious terms, challenging those who, in his words, "elevated one line in Romans above the Sermon on the Mount." Because the gay rights movement has largely been defined on secular terms, religious conservatives have been given a free-pass when it comes to religious issues. Obama is willing and able to co-opt a spiritual orating style, to use Biblical allusion, and to speak from a deep commitment to hallowed religious and spiritual values when defending and embracing his gay brothers and lesbian sisters.

But Obama is no gay Moses. He refuses to bring gays and lesbians to their promised land: he strongly opposes same-sex marriage rights. Ironically, Obama points to his own interracial parents and the horrors of anti- miscegenation laws to express his solidarity with gays. I wonder: if Obama's parents had been forced to settle for a civil union instead of a marriage, would Obama have found it equitable and just? Obama has argued (mistakenly) that the difference between a marriage and a civil union is one of semantics, but was it not Obama who taught us to take our semantics seriously? Senator Obama: Just words?

There are millions of lesbian and gay Americans who dream about their wedding day just like straight Americans. Barack Obama has called on Americans, including lesbians and gays, to place their hopes in him, but how can the gay community support Obama when its dreams and hopes are too audacious for even him to support?

Comments

[rottweilertom]

Shaun: I beg to differ. Amazingly, the ONLY person (in leadership) who can promote civil rights for gays on a national level would have to be a moderate to liberal Republican (assuming conservative reps wouldn't give it the light of day). Then, and only then, would the Dems feel feel comfortable in coming to bat. i.e. Jon Corzine in Jersey. Don't sell McCain short, and assume Barack is our savior or allah of course depending on what religious theory you abide by.

[daveny]

Unlike Senator Clinton, he was never a part of making “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” and the Defense of Marriage Act part of American law. As Melissa Etheridge said of the Clinton administration, whose record Senator Clinton is running on, “We were thrown under the bus. We were pushed aside. All those great promises that were made to us were broken.” As of 2004 at least, nothing had changed, as the Senator’s husband urged John Kerry to support gay marriage ban amendments as an electoral tactic.

Some people may claim it’s unfair to blame Senator Clinton for misguided policies of her husband’s administration. But as long as the Clinton campaign seeks to run on the record of successes, and the stable of characters from the 90’s, they must be willing to take on the failures as well. After all, if she was such an important and influential advisor in the Clinton White House, she clearly made about as much of an effort on gay rights as she did for unions while on the board of Wal-Mart.

Senator Obama has taken a relentless beating from some in our community for having had an “ex-gay” minister, Donnie McClurkin, speak at campaign events. Not only has Senator Obama specifically repudiated and disagreed with the minister’s views on LGBT rights, but at the very same event, he was joined on stage by the openly gay Rev. Andy Sidden. Senator Obama has shown an ability to bring together gay activists and anti-gay religious leaders together on common issues, and is committed to promoting an open, honest, and civil dialogue.

It’s just as easy to play the same game of distortion with Senator Clinton’s associations and endorsements. Senator Clinton has accepted the endorsement and donations of prominent anti-gay ministers Eddie Long and Harold Mayberry, even publicly praising the latter for his “commitment to civil rights and equality.” She has never specifically repudiated or disagreed with her anti-gay supporters. It’s true that you’ll never agree 100% with all of your supporters, but for Senator Clinton, there is no dialogue, just trying to be all things to all people.

[BenMurphyNYC]

I like Senator Obama in many ways – but his quick dismissal of the 1990's is alarming.
I think many people in our community have forgotten the context of the 1990's. They have forgotten the Pentagon witch hunts President Clinton put a stop to by signing the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."
It is also easy to forget how important DOMA was in preventing the passage of the Constitutional amendment to define marriage 2003.
I was personally part of the lobbying campaign to defeat the proposed Constitutional definition of marriage and many conservative legislators did not support the proposed amendment because DOMA was already a law. Joe Salomnese, president of the HRC said Clinton was his first congressional strategy meetings to defeat the amendment -- because she called him before anyone else.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bSPxGmePSiA

[loisteagulp]

I agree Ben. Of course the 90's weren't the gay hayday, but really, they could have much much worse with a republican congress. I honestly believe Senator Clinton will advocate more forcefully due to the compromises Bill was forced to make. I don't think Senator Obama will be horrible for GLBTs issues, but I don't see him taking them on either. Other issues will always be in the forefront for him. If the congress forces the issues then I imagine he will provide support.

[loisteagulp]

He has had 8 years in the IL Senate, has he accomplished civil unions there?

[esq193]

You must think the gay community is stupid if you think they would support Barack. He is totally hypocritical on this issue. He says he sort of supports gay rights (civil unions and not marriage) and then has fundraisers with vehemently anti-gay preachers. Barack claims that he can do this because he does not think people need to see eye to eye on every issue.

Let respond to that with a question:

How do you think voters would respond if a politician said he or she supported "equal" rights for African-Americans and then held a fundraiser with a KKK clansmen?

Do you think the voters would think the excuse that one does not have to agree on everything would work?

Barack Obama is a packaged, polled, rhetoric-filled joke and this member of the LGBT community knows that.

[daveny]

I'm gay, very well educated and informed, and I wholeheartedly support Barack.

While I can't judge whatever "community" you're from, I certainly have no problem seeing that, if you're not stupid, you're at least very misinformed.

Thanks to the Clinton campaign's mudslingers, an ex-gay preacher (who shared the stage with an openly gay pastor!) has become "vehemently anti-gay". Her failings on DADT and DOMA go unmentioned. Her endorsements of anti-gay preachers like Harold Mayberry go underreported in the gay community.

They have the same voting record on gay rights in the Senate -- and back when Hillary was getting her "experience" with DOMA/DADT Bill, Obama was helping get gays domestic partner benefits in IL.

Go take your disinformation and pitiful anger elsewhere.

[cuthbertallgood]

Daveny-
McClurkin did not share the stage with the gay pastor. Sorry. It ticked me off when GW Bush had McClurkin sing to him at the GOP Convention 2004, all weepy, 'Stand, Mr President.­" When Obama turned around hired this same Republican Fundy activist to speak against gay people at official events, I was ticked off again. According to McClurkin, Obama personally called him and asked him to host the events.
The Ex-Gay Industry is far worse than vehemently anti-gay. Far worse. That you should know. Your ignorance of the issue is very telling. Not a big church background there Davy?
I don't support Clinton either, but she was not the President during DOMA and DADT. Those failings were not hers. Women are individuals, not reflections of their husbands.
You are the one with disinformation and rationalization and a servile attitude toward your candidate.

[LAJonathan]

I just think this kind of talk is alarmist, the gay version of "He's a closet muslim and he's friends with anti-semites, his name is Hussein" - I just don't buy it. To have a fundraiser (one of thousands) with a shady background is one thing, but to be outright involved in their dealings and secretly and devlishly supporting their cause is another. Everyone seems to be analyzing every single "story" and making an issue out of nothing. I once worked with someone who was arrested for identity theft, I don't advocate crime, but I guess if I was running for president, I would be called on it!! "LAJonathan advocates crime" I could just see the headline. Let's get to the real story here, Barack Obama has the judgment, intelligence and backbone to work on our behalf. Let's get over the negativity, embrace it, and go for it. Its our only chance at this point to make any progress. Hillary will say anything, at least I believe Obama will take on the cause because he is credible, and he speaks to me.

[jnm594]

Right On!
If HRC had an anti gay preacher on her tour these same people that claim Obama as the next messiah would be the first screaming from the rooftops.

He is another packaged candidate with no substance that is going to cost us the election in November.

At least with the repubs I know where they stand not lying to my face to get my undying loyalty!


He is getting a pass because if his race. There I said it. The 400 pound gorilla is free!

I'm starting to lose faith in the DNC
due to them shoving their choice for a candidate down my throat.
Too bad Bloomberg dropped out I was really interested in his ideas.

[LAJonathan]

I think that if he becomes president and he can sit down with the right people to discuss the issues, I think it will come out in our favor. Showing up at a rally is one thing, or placing an ad in a gay pub is another, but really understanding the position of the LGBT community takes a lot of dialogue I just don't think he's had the opportunity to get his hands dirty on this subject, so to speak. I do think he will commit to the cause.

[daveny]

AMEN. And just because you disagree with someone vehemently on one issue, doesn't mean you can't work with them on issues where you have common ground. That's the only way you move forward.

I can't stand some of the gays I know thinking that somehow it will make "progress" if you just try to shut out and yell down people who don't support gay rights, but are hardly homophobic.

Obama has a proven ability to bring people together and move the dialogue forward. By not being dogmatic, he can get more done than any posturing, DOMA-backing Clinton ever could...

[Researchguy66]

The distinction is laughable - that people who knowingly agree to deny us basic human rights can have our best interests at heart. If you're willing to give up your hopes and your rights for political expediency, all you'll ever get is political expediency and quite honestly that's all you'll ever deserve.

I'm willing to accept the fact that Obama will be a better president than McCain and that's enough to get gay votes. Trying to make him out to be more than better than the worst is truly self-deceptive.

[GetHappy]

Please tell me your secret: How do you distinguish "people who don't support gay rights" from those who "are hardly homophobic"? Perhaps the former are good mannered enough not to use the word "faggot" in mixed company?

And while I agree that no one can hope to agree with a candidate on every issue, I would argue that some issues are much more important than others, particularly issues having to do with one's own civil rights and dignity. If the LGBT community, after decades of compromise, of NOTHING but compromise, choose for the first time to withhold their support from a likable candidate who hasn't the guts to support our full fledged citizenship, then I say our community has earned that right.

We LGBTs understand the value of working with folks whose world view is not a perfect match with our own. If we lacked that understanding, we wouldn't be able to get out of bed in the morning.

So spare us the lecture.

Amen.

[bookerone]

You must be joking....­Barack has proven how homophobic he is with his stand on gay marriage and his stand on DON'T ASK...

His extremely fundamentalist church preaches against gays.

Barack is scarier to the lesbian and gay community than the James Dobson crowd because he is stealth with his hatred.

[daveny]

Outright falsehood -- Obama's church is neither fundamentalist, nor anti-gay. In fact, they perform gay comittment ceremonies!

And how exactly is opposing DADT and DOMA "homophobic?"

If you're scared by him, maybe you're just another racist white gay man...

[Researchguy66]

Sweet Jesus...it seems that the Obamatons can't just let go of the racist crap. When Hillary's gone and you can no longer argue (sometimes correctly even) that he's better than Hillary, is that what's left? Do we really haveto look forward to eight months of his supporters screaming racism any time someone has a criticism of Obama?

[QuietObserver]

daveny is correct, you obviously know nothing about Obama's church. It is extremely progressive. Pastor Jeremiah Wright has been a strong voice for all forms of social justice. I personally heard a sermon there that openly challenged homophobia in the black community and in the broader Christian community.

Either you've been given bad info, you are making stuff up, or you are purposefully lying. I'll give you the benefit of a doubt and assume you had bad info.

[omaro]

Obama is not a member of an "extremely fundamentalist" church. The United Church of Christ is one of the most liberal denominations in the U.S., similar to groups like the United Methodists, Reform Jews, and Unitarian Universalists in its public positions. Every denomination and every minister has personal quirks and issues one might not agree with. His particular congregation and its minister, operating in the heart of the Chicago African American community, are "unashamedly Black" and reach out and work together with many other groups with whom they disagree on some issues (such as the Black Muslims, who for all of Farrakhan's odious anti-Semitism have done much that is very good for the Black community of Chicago. Far from being homophobic, Obama has made a practice of mentioning gays every time he goes through his litany of all the groups that he wants to bring together ("We have gay friends in the Red States" etc.)

[amberglow]

you must be thinking of closeted Log Cabin Republicans when you say this--he refused to even have his picture taken with SF's mayor because of the marriage thing.

He's awful on our rights, and the McClurkin thing and his pandering to Pastors who run "we can make you ex-gay" ministries is appalling and insulting.

[daveny]

You mean like Clinton's praise for anti-gay preachers, acceptance of their endorsements and funding, and talking about their "commitment to civil rights for all?"

Yeah, right.

[mikekev58]

I'm not doubting you on your point, but could you cite an example or two? We know at least 2 religious homophobes who support Obama, and one of them is his pastor. I don't understand how you could attend a church that has such an attitude towards a group of human beings, especially if you're seeking their political support.

[Researchguy66]

Clinton's record has nothing to do with Obama. His actions can speak for themselves Or perhaps are you the kind of person who has to measure yourself in comparison to others?

[Ides]

"But Obama is no gay Moses. He refuses to bring gays and lesbians to their promised land: he strongly opposes same-sex marriage rights. ... Obama has argued (mistakenly) that the difference between a marriage and a civil union is one of semantics, but was it not Obama who taught us to take our semantics seriously?"

Maybe it's the Constitutional Law scholar speaking?

Obama doesn't "strongly oppose same-sex marriage rights." He actively endorses providing civil unions that confer ALL 1200 federal "marriage" rights onto partners.

I know that this is not the same thing, and I understand the power of semantics, but this is actually a pragmatic approach -- the ignorant will assume this is the state forcing churches to marry people off.

Furthermore, if the civil union conveys all of the rights of marriage and your church allows it, you are FUNCTIONALLY MARRIED in every conceivable way, identical to how the function of the state in marriage was intentionally designed before the separation between church and state was blurred.

[amberglow]

Separate is not Equal--he should know that. Civil Unions are not the same thing except in name by any means.

[daveny]

Yeah... but it's better than what we have, and it's marginally better than any of the other candidates remaining have put forth.

[NoGoodNamesLeft]

what Obama supports with civil unions is using the bully pulpit of the presidency to try to get states to enact civil unions. And, if a state does, then granting full federal marriage rights to gay couples in that state. he would accomplish the federal benefits by getting rid of DOMA.

In no way does Obama support FEDERALLY MANDATED civil unions in ALL states.

So, he actually supports the status quo as far as states go. He supports allowing any state to continue to discriminate against gay couples if they want to.

[shrake]

Hillary walks the walk in Pride marches:

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2008/02/examining_why_baracks_mojo_wit.html

While Barack chooses his words ever so carefully, snubs gay-marriage hero Gavin Newsom, campaigns with vocal ex-gays, and plays footsy with Farrakhan.

Go with your gut.

[daveny]

Yeah, I'm gay and I've voted for, and worked for, Barack. He's walked in the Chicago pride parade (gee, sorry its not in the media capital of the world... it's only where he's from).

I didn't see Hillary embracing Newsom. She's praised and accepted the endorsement of rabidly anti-gay preachers.

She was silent on DADT and DOMA, the two worst anti-gay measures of the past 20 years.

And when Barack had an ex-gay preacher (who you probably share a lot of non-gay related policy ideas with) on stage, he ALSO had an OPENLY GAY preacher on stage with him.

The hillary people may complain that the MSM is biased against them -- but the LGBT media is rabidly biased against Obama for no good reason. He's done more for gays than Hillary ever has. She's promised more, but done less.

[NoGoodNamesLeft]

I'm tired of tusing the openly gay preacher on the gospel stage as an excuse for the McClurkin incident.

That openly gay preacher did nothing by open the show with a prayer. He did so before a half-filled audience and didn't address the issue of anti-gay bigotry at all. He says because he wasn't asked to.

Obama promised that McClurkin would just be there to sing and not be expressing his views on gays. But, McClurkin went right ahead and expressed those views anyway.

Obama accepts antigay bigotry in people because it is socially acceptible in this country. He does so because the bigotry is religious in nature.

But, when it comes to racial bigotry it is totally different. There were two recent incidents where officials in the current administration made what were considered to be racist remarks. They both apologized. But, Obama didn't accept their apology. He called for their resignations.

But, when it comes to anti-gay bigots, he takes a much different position. Bigotry is bigotry even if it is based in religion.

[cuthbertallgood]

Ok, once more. The openly gay minister opened the event with a prayer before most of the audience arrived and McClurkin did NOT share the stage with him. He just didn't.
And where do you get the idea that McClurkin would share policy ideas with some liberal? Donnie McClurkin has been a very active and public supporter of George W Bush and the Republican Party, he appeared at GOP National Convention last election cycle in 2004 and sang directly to Bush on national television. He is an evangelical who is active in all the issues those folks take up. He is anti-choice and all of that 700 Club stuff. The other Obama basher is Kirbyjon Caldwell, known as GW Bush's 'spiritual advisor'. Caldwell says he called up and asked Bush's permission before openly bacing Obama.
So Dave, what is your basis for thinking McClurkin would share policy ideas with anyone here. McClurkin is pro-Iraq War, the whole nine yards. He once said 'being close to the President is more important to me than anything.'
Not sure you know anything about McClurkin. He's a famous Bush backing Fundy activist, if that helps. Geez, policy ideas! You are hilarious! Foisting opinion based on nothing but conjecture.

[RISEUPAMERICA]

well according to larry sinclair he is

[hank48188]

yesterday while going through the check-out at the supermarket I saw "the Globe" and they had a little thing on the cover about Larry Sinclair knowing Obama, maybe the story is going mainstream.

[Brooklynindy]

On Feb. 22 Larry Sinclair got to take his lie detector test as he wanted, and failed miserably.­..

[mountainmama]

The whole discussion of who can get married is in fact irrelevant. To anything. If you are gay and want to get married but belong to a church that won't perform your marriage, get out of the dang church. Or get over the notion that the government and private institutions like churches own the institution of marriage. Get married on your own. You know who you love! Get a lawyer to make the legal arrangemen­ts--owners­hip of this and that.

In Colorado, by the way, you can marry just like that--as far as I know. Lots of beautiful mountains here to wander in and streams to sit by as you declare yourselves married.

Here's a quotation I love--it's not about separation of people into genders, confusing as that is, but a marriage of all genders in one mind:

A great mind is androgynous. Resonant, porous, incandescent, undivided.
SAMUEL TAYLOR COLERIDGE

[standforpeace]

Just wondering if you know a lawyer who can "make legal arrangements" that cover social security benefits or family memberships at the gym or that allow gay couples to incorporate their partner into their home ownership without having to pay deed transfer fees? Do you know a lawyer that can set up joint tax returns or force employers to cover the partners of those who have "married on their own?" There are many important benefits that are open only to those who can claim a legal bond.

As for civil unions versus marriage? This is a matter of human rights, of who we as a society, as a national community, are going to exclude from the human right to make a permanent connection, to form a family. One of the lessons of our country's history has to be that separate but equal is a myth. "Civil unions" for gays and lesbians versus "marriage" for heterosexuals is just another way to maintain a separate and unequal society. And those who know better need to start raising our voices and demanding better from our leaders.

[Brooklynindy]

My prediction: the Supreme Court will eventually conclude that "Marriage" is a religious term. At that point, Marriage will be relegated to churches only, where it belongs, and Civil Union will be the only government­-recognize­d status for both straight and gay couples. So...Civil Unions are fine with me as long as they carry identical legal weight.

[mountainmama]

Your point is well taken. No, I don't know how to change the weird relationlship government has with marriage. I only know that I married quite easily (in Ohio) and got divorced with great difficulty (in Maryland). I simply don't believe in marriage, period. And I wish the state government was not then, at that time, so involved in my personal affairs. About social security and so on--these laws need to be updated. I'm 78 years old and still working because I spent 25 years being an unpaid mom, wife, cook, house cleaner, wall painter, floor installer, gardener. No savings. No pension, since my husband was a federal employee and not covered by social security. My kids are all happily married, and it is good to see. I was probably a wife in the really wrong era, the 1950s. The changes for women since then are like miracles. I hope for the same move toward acceptance that has happened for women since the fifties will also happen for you.

[mountainmama]

Weird--she's replying to her own post. No she's not. She is simply embarrassed that she didn't explain the quotation.

Coleridge's idea of the androgynous mind was really the point of the first post, unexplained though it was. But here I think I've got it. I think Obama's mind comes close to this ideal of the androgynous mind: resonant, porous, incandescent, undivided. It's as though he gets all of us, including those addressed by the article above, the gay and lesbian people who wish they could marry. Much as I would advise you against such a medieval practice, you should have as much a right to marry as the next gullible young person. (Sorry--I usually don't talk like that.) My admiration of all, please accept.

Here though is where it seems to be irrelevant--why not aim for being the kind of person who doesn't need the dependencies implicit in "marriage.­" And just be in love. And take care of each other.

My other unspoken thought is that, if Bill could be called our first black president, maybe Barack could be our first female president. He has all the qualities I would want in a female president.

[AnninCA]

SF gay community pretty much voted for Hillary after Obama pronounced that marriage is only for men and women in SC.

Now, if you'd like to overlook that, OK.

I'm not gay. So I don't have a horse in this race.

But he made his attitude clear.

Hillary has been outspoken for legal partnerships as well as ending the rule in the military on "Don't tell."

Your choice, of course.

[daveny]

Umm yeah so where the hell was she back when her husband made DADT, or DOMA?

Back in the 90's, Barack was helping get gays domestic partner benefits in IL!!!

[Brooklynindy]

Ann, an excerpt from Politico.com; full article at this link:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8573.html

Gay Marriage: Both Clinton and Obama oppose gay marriage and support civil unions, but Clinton’s opposition is stronger than Obama’s in one key way. If a same-sex couple gets married in a state allowing gay marriage, under the federal Defense of Marriage Act, the federal government cannot recognize that marriage, and other states can choose not to recognize it. Both Clinton and Obama favor changing DOMA to let the federal government recognize states’ same-sex marriages, but only Obama favors repealing DOMA entirely. Clinton favors keeping the part that protects states’ rights to refuse to recognize other states’ gay marriages.