I’ve long believed that the government should remain neutral on gay issues, neither discriminating against us nor offering us preferential treatment. Â To that end, I won’t be upset should John McCain, in his acceptance speech next week, fail to address our community.
Gay activists, however, insist politicians reach out to us and identify us by name. Â So, I was wondering, how will they react should, in his convention speech tonight, Barack Obama, their party’s nominee not specifically reference gays?
The draft Democratic platform failed to mention gays or lesbians specifically. Â The final draft still does not address our community by name, but was tweaked to include this language:
We support the full inclusion of all families, including same-sex couples, in the life of our nation, and support equal responsibility, benefits and protections.
Emphasis added.
Gay activists have praised the platform while noting the omission of the “g” word.
I wonder if gay activists will be as effusive in their praise should Obama be similarly silent tonight. My prediction: they will. Because for them, it’s not so much about promoting gay people as it is about electing Democrats.
UPDATE: Watching the speech now, he mentioned us, saying that while there are differences on same-sex marriage, we should agree that our “gay and lesbian brothers and sisters” should be allowed to visit a loved one in the hospital.
UP-UPDATE: Â Patrick Range McDonald thinks that for gays, Obama’s speech was quite historic. Â Read the whole thing.
I’ve long believed that the government should remain neutral on gay issues, neither discriminating against us nor offering us preferential treatment.
So I would assume that John McCain’s belief that gays should be discriminated against in marriage and adoption law fails to meet your criteria, then?
Speaking of adoption, I think there should be limits on who can adopt. Hillary mentioned in her speech that she met a woman who adopted two disabled children without having health insurance.
Sorry, in my book, if you can’t provide health insurance -you have no right to adopt. That rule would apply if you are straight, gay or single!!
I am very sorry there is one state Florida that does not allow gay adoption, and unfortunately a few others are considering such a ban. But that is a state issue, and should be fought on the state level.
Agree with you Leah. if for no other reason than the Constitution is silent on the topic.
Oh and tp, how are you discriminated against? To fight the old battle, you can marry any one opposite sex person you like.
Well, this post once again proves that the writers of this site are more than happy to see all gays be treated like second class citizens. Denial to access of the same rights that all others enjoy under the laws of our country, act as if the equal protection clauses of the US and state constitutions don’t exist, etc. just as long as your adherence to the other political tenets of conservatives are upheld first and foremost.
2 – By that logic, then it seems to me that the government should be stepping in and stopping people from having children if they don’t have health or care. or stop people from having children if they don’t make a certain amount of money. or stop people from having children who live on the wrong side of the tracks. Where exactly should these children go in your opinion? Seems to me if these children are being adopted into loving families as full family members, then the state would be spending less money on the care of these kids by only footing the bill for health insurance rather than paying all the bills for them to remain wards of the state.
I have other plans tonight than watching the messiah, so I just read his speech and here is what he said about gays:
long before the Supreme court of CA decided upon Gay marriage, CA had exactly what Obama is calling for. It was called Domestic Partnership.
Kevin,
Ever going to reply to any other posts? Or are you just going to continue to whine?
You can start by condeming the Fulsome Street Fair.
Um Kevin, as to your point (1), how does this post show that we believe all gays should be treated like second-class citizenship? Or do you believe we need government affirmation to be considered first-class citizens.
I’m just saying that I don’t think sexuality should be a government issue, just as I believe race should not not be a government issue.
And given that those the federal and state constitutions have those protective clauses, why then do we need additional legislation?
I’ll wait for the blogs to tell me what Obama has to say (or not say) about gays. I watched his intro video (good) but once he got going, I tuned out.
While supporting gay marriage, it is not my biggest concern right now. I’m much more concerned with the damage to our economy and loss of my 2nd Amendment rights that will come with an Obama presidency. And then there’s national security and Supreme Court nominations. A country run by a Jeremiah Wright protoge, Nancy Pelosi, and Dingy Harry is a reality too horrible to contemplate. The GOP has some real idiots but they’re back-benchers against the low-wattage Speaker and Senate majority leader.
I’ll hand The Messiah this: Barry, with half His brain tied behind his back, has more IQ than Nancy and Harry combined.
Given the people Obama has associated with a who he’s surrounded himself with – I think I can safely say that a McCain administration will be less harmful.
Deep down, I think both candidates are dreadful so I go with the less awful choice.
Perhaps if you didn’t relish being a second class citizen??? Really, who’s the one with the problem?
Excuse me, but where in the Union is that banned? How generous of the Messiah to give us something we have.
Lies, more lies and canards. That appears to have been the theme of this insipid convention.
Who is arguing gays shouldn’t be able to see their loved ones in a hospital? I am unaware of anyone who is arguing that. But gays aren’t asking for that. they are asking for marriage. Not the same thing.
Torrentprime — Barack Obama is opposed to Gay Marriage as well. Or do you concede he’s a big fat liar?
Kevin — Like just about everything else, you haven’t the faintest clue what the equal protection clause means.
And in insipid liberal fashion you naturally assume that people have the same “right” to the fruit of other people’s labors as they do to the fruit of their own. But even I didn’t think liberals were so moronic as to think you were entitled to the fruits of another’s child bearing labor.
Sorry Kevin, there is a difference between people having their own children and people asking to raise someone else’s child.
But I don’t know why I should be surprised. Liberals definition of what constitutes a “right” has always been anything they happen to want.
I think Kevin needs some cheese to go with his whine.
Regards,
Peter H.
“While supporting gay marriage, it is not my biggest concern right now. I’m much more concerned with the damage to our economy and loss of my 2nd Amendment rights that will come with an Obama presidency.”
So, Robert, ensuring that homicidal nutcases get unrestricted access to murderous weapons is more important to you allowing all Americans to celebrate their partnership?
And have you looked at the presidential economic record since 1948? Kennedy and Johnson ran a $25bn deficit; Nixon reduced that by $19bn. Ford lost $68bn. Carter broke even. Reagan headed downwards by $81bn. Poppy Bush lost another $135 bn. Clinton took the country out of a $290 hole and ended up $128 in the black. Bush Jnr lost the country $632 bn. (stats from http://www.scribd.com/doc/3015540/US-Budget-Deficit-or-Surplus-1960present)
Short message: With the exception of Richard M Nixon, Democrats do much better than Republicans at looking after the economy.
If Robert’s views on guns and money represent mainstream Republicans is it any wonder that sane people tend to vote Democrat?