Gay Patriot Header Image

Face it, gay Democrats, he’s just after you for your money

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 7:47 am - June 24, 2011.
Filed under: Gay Leftist Lickspittles,Obama and Gay Issues

Welcome Instapundit Readers!

The title at the left-leaning Huffington Post says it all, Obama, At LGBT Fundraiser, Gets A Pass For Punting On Same-Sex Marriage.  But, of course he does, it’s that all-purpose (D) after his name, the (D) that makes a political candidate immune to criticism from and subject to adoration by the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) and other gay activists to whom being loved by the Democrats means achieving your most sought-after goal, even if said lover only pays lip service to his affection.

Sure, he said yesterday “at a Manhattan fundraiser. . . geared specifically to the gay community” (the “Gala With the Gay Community”) that he believes “gay couples deserve the same legal rights as every other couple in this country,” but what has he done to make that a reality?  Did HRC head Joe Solmonese ask his BFF why the Democrat failed to press Congress to act on the Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act when his party held an overwhelming majority in the House and a filibuster-proof margin in the Senate?  And when they held that legislative majority, his Democrats didn’t even bring repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) up for a vote, crossing their fingers and hoping unelected federal judges do what they were afraid to do.

Even though he was in the Empire State, where at this very moment, the legislature is considering state recognition of same-sex marriage, the HRC-endorsed Democrat “did not personally endorse the pending New York bill — which is nearing passage in the statehouse — or same-sex marriage itself.”  And still HRC head Joe Solmonese and company just couldn’t keep themselves from swooning.

Face it, guys, Obama just wants your money, like the cute boy who sweet talks you at the bar while ordering a $20 cocktail, then reaches for his wallet, only to feign shock when he just can’t find it.  “Maybe you can help me look for it,” he says as he puts his hand on your knee and looks into your eyes, but once he’s taken a few sips from the pricey drink you’ve bought him, he manages to slip away.  And you don’t see him again, until having run up a $100-dollar bar bill (somehow he managed to slip another drink on your tab), you stumble out of the night spot and discover him talking with some hunky fitness model.  He tries to avoid making eye contact, but when you do, he promises he’ll get back to you just as soon as he catches up with his “old friend” whom he just “happened” to run into.

Face it gay Obama donors, you’ve been had.  Obama pretends to be your champion, but he had to be dragged kicking and screaming into moving forward on DADT repeal and doesn’t seem to be in any great rush to move forward on civil unions.

But, heck, you got to have a photo opportunity the President of the United States.  I’m sure the photo will look nice right next to your autographed picture of Lady Gags.

(At least some gay lefties had the integrity to protest the speech; they know this man hasn’t kept his promises.)

FROM THE COMMENTS:  Duncan offers:

Marriage, as a concept, should be removed from the sphere of government control. There are just too many religious connotations involved. The bland term of civil union or domestic partnership is a sensible route to go for all contractual arrangements between people who wish to make formal legal arrangements of this manner. Be it man and woman, man and man, or woman and woman.

Well said, read the whole thing.

Share

42 Comments

  1. yes, BDB, I be scratching my head as to why glbt folk would be willing to give any money to Obama, but I am sure most of those folk already purchased the tickets, or they had tickets purchased by their employers/benefactors to sit in the dining room with Pres Obama. (Don’t remember Reagan, Bush I or Bush II ever having dinner with GLBT folk though, even during PRIDE month)

    But will be interesting how much money that was promised last night will actually be delivered into the campaign coffers with the pending NY SSM vote. Will have to see how the NY senate votes.

    And then again, how many of those running campaigns on the other side of the aisle, will be able to live up to those expectations and campaign trail promises and rhetoric when speaking to the socons. How many candidates will actually step up (if elected) and follow through with their promises after asking for the socon’s support and financial backing. . .

    Comment by rusty — June 24, 2011 @ 8:55 am - June 24, 2011

  2. Dan, good points. I will not be giving Obama any money either. In fact, I didn’t the first time around either. If Obama wants federal civil unions, but not marriage, fine. But I have seen zero effort to push this to Congress. He can take lessons from Andrew Cuomo. He pushed for same sex marriage, and continues to do so while the Republicans are stalling. And he’s managed to cut spending as well. Go figure.

    I like your bar analogy. Except I’ve never seen the type even attempt to go for any money. They’re shocked when you don’t automatically pay for the bill. I’m proud to say I never fell for those types, just like I never fell for Obama. The only difference here is that, unlike the bar where we don’t have to settle for anybody, we do have to settle for a president.

    Comment by Pat — June 24, 2011 @ 9:36 am - June 24, 2011

  3. [...] one unauthorized war and trippled rgound exposure in another)… check.  Pro Gay right (even though he has broken every promise me made in the run up to the election ins 2008)… check. Pro-growth (even though he has promulgated reams and reams of job-killing [...]

    Pingback by Must Be Time To Run Again « Random Neural Synapses — June 24, 2011 @ 10:08 am - June 24, 2011

  4. I agree with Pat, the Democrats are just the type of boy who just assumes that you’ll pay for his over-priced drink…even though you both know that he’ll wander away long before it’s time to go to your place later.

    Last week Gov. Huntsman was pilloried by the gay bloggers and activists for his stance on civil unions and state-sponsored gay marriage, yet the gay-Left darling Pres. Obama gets thunderous applause for exactly the same stance by the same bloggers and activists.

    Yo, gay Democrats!! Wake up and smell the rent-boy.
    He’s just not that into you.

    Comment by Ted B. (Charging Rhino) — June 24, 2011 @ 10:11 am - June 24, 2011

  5. Ted, my comments were specifically about Obama. And sure, many other Democrats are just as bad or even worse. But as I said, Andrew Cuomo is an example who not only spouts words, but puts it into action. Even if he fails, he has done much more than Obama has done. I’d almost pay for an overpriced drink for Andrew Cuomo.

    What will probably happen in 2012 will be analogous to one person expecting to pay for an overpriced drink, and the other won’t. Don’t buy a drink for either, but see what the latter person has to offer.

    Comment by Pat — June 24, 2011 @ 11:57 am - June 24, 2011

  6. Face it, gay Democrats; money and power is all *any* of your beloved politicians want from you.

    Comment by V the K — June 24, 2011 @ 12:43 pm - June 24, 2011

  7. Obama knows the GLBT community won’t go anywhere else. I mean, seriously now… why would they go associate with libertarians who probably see them as others useful not for their cash or political exploitation, but for merely recognizing and defending each other’s right to exist.

    What good is equality when you aren’t exploiting someone? Where’s the fun when a gay isn’t being used, abused and thrown away?

    Anyway, just keep pretending all the tea party “bible thumping racist gay-hating” propaganda, and whatever you do, do *not* actually go attend a rally yourself and seek independent verification. Believe the news media, believe your organizational leaders, and trust without questioning. They’re all in it for… you.

    Comment by Multitude — June 24, 2011 @ 12:47 pm - June 24, 2011

  8. I’d be curious to see if you could name one other president who did more of what the gay community asked for than Obama has in his first two+ years in office. He got hate crimes laws passed, ended DADT, and has stopped enforcing the gross overreach of federal power that is DOMA.

    The one place he doesn’t stand behind us is on gay marriage, that’s IT! Yes it would be nice for him to support gay marriage. With the current state of the country however, gay marriage is a very risky thing to come out politically in favor of. And honestly, myself and many in the gay community would rather have someone “not” be in support of gay marriage and accomplish more for gays than any other president in history, than come out for gay marriage and not have been elected at all.

    If he’s only after our money, then i’m glad. It’s money well spent. He’s accomplished more things supported by gay rights activist than the rest of the presidents combined. Really bad guy to have on our side..

    Also, plenty of bloggers and gays have taken him to task for his stance on gay marriage, he’s receiving a pass form the HRC, which we know doesn’t have the balls to demand it of him.

    Comment by aj — June 24, 2011 @ 12:50 pm - June 24, 2011

  9. and I should mention, some of us tea partiers are readers and lovers of Michel Foucault, Judith Butler, Donna Haraway and many other right-wing fascist theorists. Deleuze and Guattari, two French skinheads, wrote a couple of books together (Anti-Oedipus, A Thousand Plateaus) that talked at length on concepts seen in regular practice in the tea parties – rhizomes, recognition of multiplicities of identity, acceptance for unique individualities, etc. which the Democratic Party and its media outlets have warned us always lead to gas chambers and concentration camps.

    Remember, the Democratic Party’s body armored riot police and prison state apparatus are here to protect us all.

    (The spirit of Paris ’68 belongs to the Tea Party now!)

    Comment by Multitude — June 24, 2011 @ 12:51 pm - June 24, 2011

  10. http://dailycaller.com/2011/06/24/obama-wins-gay-cash-applause/

    The Daily Caller writes, “…where roughly 600 gays and lesbians applauded the president as he broadly hinted his support for their priorities…”

    The key being – ‘broadly hinted’ – wherewith NYC gays and lesbians promptly p!ssed themselves and gave alms.

    Comment by Willys — June 24, 2011 @ 12:52 pm - June 24, 2011

  11. Obama’s hesitation on the gay issue really IS political, but not for the reasons many assume – to appeal to some small segment of Middle America. Rather it is a calculation at the consideration of the black vote. When we hear of anti-gay bigotry the conventional wisdom is that’s just reserved for old, out of touch bible thumpers. However, one would be hard pressed to find a population as reflexively homophobic as the African-American community. Obama knows he isn’t winning over conservatives on this issue. His ambivalence is strictly for the benefit of his relationship with the African-American voter. He can’t be all in on this, not because of certain white votes he would never get, but for certain black voters that he can’t afford to alienate.

    Comment by JDW — June 24, 2011 @ 1:14 pm - June 24, 2011

  12. ^ sad to hear, as a gay black man, but it’s shown to be true. A lot of his black support could be lost if he endorsed gay marriage.

    If gays want someone more amenable to their causes, as shown by his record, then it doesn’t make sense politically to have him come out in favor of something politically unfeasible given the current makeup of congress.

    Comment by aj — June 24, 2011 @ 1:30 pm - June 24, 2011

  13. Should their beloved term ‘self-hating’ be applied to these clueless people? Does ‘gay’ really mean ‘clueless leftist follower’? Who would want to self-identify as gay with all of the associated foolishness and political baggage?

    Comment by Fred — June 24, 2011 @ 1:36 pm - June 24, 2011

  14. 6.Face it, gay Democrats; money and power is all *any* of your beloved politicians want from you.

    V the K, I’ve already faced it. In fact, I faced the fact that’s ALL politicians (from any party) want from almost all of us. Some are better in sounding sincere than others. Obama failed horribly in the faux sincerity department.

    Basically, politicians appease the big contributors, than try to shovel it off as good for the rest of us, and hope to convince more than half of us that their pandering is better than the other candidates.

    Comment by Pat — June 24, 2011 @ 1:45 pm - June 24, 2011

  15. Of course the LBGT community will vote and donate. Where else do they have to go?

    Comment by Mils — June 24, 2011 @ 1:47 pm - June 24, 2011

  16. I’d be curious to see if you could name one other president who did more of what the gay community asked for than Obama has in his first two+ years in office. He got hate crimes laws passed, ended DADT, and has stopped enforcing the gross overreach of federal power that is DOMA.

    And this is why no one takes the gay and lesbian community seriously.

    The economy is in recession, people are losing jobs left and right, the government is hell-bent on putting us into a Greek-level death spiral of spending, and what do those like aj want?

    1) Laws demanding special punishment based on the minority status of the victim

    2) Laws demanding special rules for military members based on their minority status

    3) Ignoring the responsibility of the executive branch to enforce the law because it is more convenient for those of a certain minority status

    And of course, aj and his fellow gays and lesbians are just beside themselves with how “successful” Obama is and how it’s totally OK for him to be held to radically-lower standards than they would Republicans.

    That’s what life on the plantation does. AJ doesn’t care about anything other than what the plantation massas tell him he should care about. He’s gay, so the only thing he should worry about is special treatment for gays, and everything else can go to hell.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 24, 2011 @ 1:54 pm - June 24, 2011

  17. I salute your commenters as fellow depressive realists. Just when we think we can’t become more cynical.

    Comment by dr kill — June 24, 2011 @ 2:17 pm - June 24, 2011

  18. Didn’t Obama also say his reason for opposing same-sex marriage was because of his religion?

    North Dallas Thirty I agree with you. The Government shouldn’t be creating laws based on people’s characteristics. Laws should be based on the fact that we are all Americans and we should be treated equally under the law.

    Comment by MV — June 24, 2011 @ 3:01 pm - June 24, 2011

  19. Yeah, the Democrats love an oligarchy, which is rule by the few. One of the reasons people have come to American is to avoid being ruled by a monarch, which is why one of the phrases we use in America is “Majority rules.” We have a check and balance in the Supreme Court, but this idea of “minority rules” could easily come back to bite us in the backside someday, and then we’ll wonder how we could have been so stupid as to throw money at a party that uses us as props and then promises they’ll fix everything if we just give them more money and more time. Yeah, that’s the ticket….

    Comment by Dottie Laird — June 24, 2011 @ 3:31 pm - June 24, 2011

  20. I faced the fact that’s ALL politicians (from any party) want from almost all of us.

    Which is exactly why conservatives favor limited Government.

    Comment by V the K — June 24, 2011 @ 3:58 pm - June 24, 2011

  21. Nutsy wutsy people are easy to con.

    Comment by Salene — June 24, 2011 @ 4:13 pm - June 24, 2011

  22. Obama’s campaign theme song:

    Just a gigolo
    everywhere I go
    people know the part
    I’m playing

    Paid for every dance
    selling each romance
    every night some heart
    betraying

    There will come a day
    youth will pass away
    then what will they say
    about me

    When the end comes I know
    they’ll say just a gigolo
    as life goes on
    without me

    ‘Cause I aint got nobody
    nobody nobody cares for me
    I’m so sad and lonely
    sad and lonely sad and lonely
    Won’t some sweet mama
    come and take a chance with me
    cause I aint so bad

    Get along with me babe,
    been singin love songs
    All of the time
    Even only be, honey only, only be
    Bop bozadee bozadee bop zitty bop

    I ain’t got nobody ‘cept love songs in love
    Hummala bebhuhla zeebuhla boobuhla
    hummala bebhuhla zeebuhla bop

    I ain’t got nobody, nobody,
    nobody cares for me
    Nobody , nobody
    I’m so sad and lonely,
    sad and lonely,
    sad and lonely,
    Won’t some sweet mama come
    and take a chance with me
    cause I aint so bad

    Get along with me babe,
    been singin love songs
    All of the time
    Even only be, honey only, only be

    Comment by MarkJ — June 24, 2011 @ 4:39 pm - June 24, 2011

  23. and why should gays be any different than Jews, Hispanics
    and other useful idiots.

    Comment by PTL — June 24, 2011 @ 6:50 pm - June 24, 2011

  24. #22 Louis Prima or David Lee Roth?

    Comment by TGC — June 24, 2011 @ 7:27 pm - June 24, 2011

  25. If he’s only after our money, then i’m glad. It’s money well spent.

    Except you don’t have any because you don’t have a job and the rent on your refrigerator box is outrageous but, by DAMN, you can now join the military (even though you could before) even though you won’t because you wouldn’t want to associate with baby killers (unless they’re recommended by Planned Parenthood).

    Comment by TGC — June 24, 2011 @ 7:29 pm - June 24, 2011

  26. If he’s only after our money, then i’m glad. It’s money well spent.

    Explain to me again how progressive leftists are any different than senile old people who send their social security checks to televangelists, or Scientologists, for that matter?

    Comment by V the K — June 24, 2011 @ 8:29 pm - June 24, 2011

  27. Perhaps the NYS republicans were watching the money? They passed gay marriage legislation tonight 36 -26. Good luck to you folks that supported it.

    Comment by Richard Bell — June 24, 2011 @ 10:44 pm - June 24, 2011

  28. Dan, if you’re comparing Obama to a cute gay boy who sweet talks you into buying him a $20 cocktail and then runs away, then okay.

    Then the Republicans (Romney/Bachmann/Palin/Pawlenty/Santorum et al) would be the equivalent of the attractive guy at the bar who seems impressive. You think he might also be gay & strike up a conversation with him. You buy him a drink (on your own volition) and he thanks you for it. Then suddenly his girlfriend arrives. “I only date women, you fa***t”, he says. “Real men only date women. But thanks for the drink anyway, you fa***t.”

    He would then go on to say that he only believes that the US government should only recognize heterosexual unions, and that gays have no business serving in our military. He would say the reason for this is to “strengthen America.” And since strengthening America is good for gays too, you would rejoice. Banning same-sex unions and banning gays in the military is good for America, and good for gays!

    Meanwhile, you would stare adoringly at the straight guy while he made out with his girlfriend and ogled all of the other ladies at the bar.

    Comment by James — June 24, 2011 @ 11:06 pm - June 24, 2011

  29. Is it just me, or after reading Jame’s rant/example thing I cannot help but think ‘well in the examples given the straight guy is at least honest and isn’t manipulating anyone’.

    Honestly though, are Republicans really that bad? I don’t mean Republicans as a concept, I mean Republicans as people. Is it possible for people to be as cartoonishly vile as so many leftists imagine Republicans as being?

    Comment by Khepri — June 24, 2011 @ 11:31 pm - June 24, 2011

  30. Honestly though, are Republicans really that bad?

    Without them, New York wouldn’t have just passed a marriage bill.

    Comment by NYAlly — June 24, 2011 @ 11:51 pm - June 24, 2011

  31. Khepri,

    Exactly. That’s why I made the analogy of the “Republican” to be the “straight” man who is upfront & makes it very clear that he does not support gay people. I also repeated the notion that many gay Republicans believe — that as long as banning same-sex marriage & preventing gays from serving openly in the military “strengthens America” — then that is really “pro gay.”

    NYAlly,

    Touche. But the 4 Republicans pushed it over the finish line (and I greatly applaud them for standing up for that). But if it weren’t for the Democrats and Democrat gov. Andrew Cuomo, there wouldn’t have been a push for same-sex marriage in NY to begin with.

    Comment by James — June 25, 2011 @ 12:21 am - June 25, 2011

  32. Khepri, James is a classic example of how the Obama Party infantilizes gays and renders them completely convinced of their own helplessness and utter dependence on the Obama Party. James can no more think in any fashion other than the Obama Party tells him than he can flap his arms and fly to the moon.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 25, 2011 @ 12:50 am - June 25, 2011

  33. I got a personal shout-out by North Dallas Thirty. Yay! :)

    I was actually thinking about NDT when I wrote that analogy. Because he doesn’t believe the GOP should back off on social issues (as GOProud suggested earlier) but instead “triangulate” on social issues. As for the military, it’s a math thing apparently, as we should not “piss off 30% of our current military to please a minority of 3%.” (Interestingly, we have forgotten to survey the troops on every other matter related to their military service. Maybe they can tell us where the US should engage in militarily next).

    So NDT would likely agree with the argument that the US government should ban same-sex unions, and should certainly not allow openly gay troops in our military — because we need to strengthen America. And when we strengthen America — everyone benefits, including gay people. Therefore, NDT would likely conclude that banning same-sex unions and banning openly gays from serving in the military, actually benefits gay people.

    Comment by James — June 25, 2011 @ 2:22 am - June 25, 2011

  34. But if it weren’t for the Democrats and Democrat gov. Andrew Cuomo, there wouldn’t have been a push for same-sex marriage in NY to begin with.

    I have to wonder why it took so long for this liberal bastion to do so. Somebody made the comment that it’s now legal “where gay pride began”. Sooooo…. if liberals love gays as much as they pretend to, then it should have been done decades ago, right?

    Comment by TGC — June 25, 2011 @ 4:52 am - June 25, 2011

  35. I have to wonder why it took so long for this liberal bastion to do so. Somebody made the comment that it’s now legal “where gay pride began”. Sooooo…. if liberals love gays as much as they pretend to, then it should have been done decades ago, right?

    TGC, first of all, no one, including liberals were ready to endorse same sex marriage. When people were ready to endorse it, New York was there. But the state senate had long been a Republican majority for a long time. The state assembly had passed it, because the Democrats had been a majority there for a long time. When the Democrats finally had the majority in the senate two years ago, a tenuous one, a couple of anti-gay Democrats voted against it (my understanding that they were anti-gay, not just on the marriage vote, and some of them were crooks, as a bonus).

    What finally got this through was that Cuomo pushed this and didn’t give up, and the Democrats held firm. And yes, the four Republicans who also supported it was what finally put the vote over the top.

    Comment by Pat — June 25, 2011 @ 10:26 am - June 25, 2011

  36. So NDT would likely agree with the argument that the US government should ban same-sex unions, and should certainly not allow openly gay troops in our military — because we need to strengthen America.

    Ban? No. Not only is it impossible

    We simply shouldn’t waste governmental time and resources on recognizing or privileging them, because there’s no benefit for doing so. We should focus our time and energy on recognizing and privileging male-female couplings because that is what sustains, supports, and maintains our society long term.

    Meanwhile, the best argument for DADT is that it requires people who wish to serve to put their priorities in the right order. As we see from the example of Bradley Manning, the gay and lesbian community openly endorses and supports behavior that is absolutely contrary to proper functioning of our military. Since gays and lesbians cannot be otherwise counted upon to put service first, as we see with Manning, laws like DADT exist to compel them to do so as a condition of serving.

    The simple problem is, James, neither our society or our military are served by those who put their minority status first and use it as an excuse for refusing to obey orders or follow rules. That is what the gay and lesbian community does, and therefore society need not waste effort on it or grant it any sort of privilege — because it does nothing useful for society.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 25, 2011 @ 11:27 am - June 25, 2011

  37. This whole gay marriage issue is getting old. It is time for both sides to settle their differences. Not gays and straight. But religious and nonreligious. That is the rub in this topic. You have one side that looks at marriage as a bond created by God. You have the other that looks at it as nothing more than a contract to share resources.

    As one that looks at it from a religious perspective, I don’t want the government trying to step in to decide the meaning of the sacrament. They cannot.

    Marriage, as a concept, should be removed from the sphere of government control. There are just too many religious connotations involved. The bland term of civil union or domestic partnership is a sensible route to go for all contractual arrangements between people who wish to make formal legal arrangements of this manner. Be it man and woman, man and man, or woman and woman.

    Comment by Duncan — June 25, 2011 @ 1:53 pm - June 25, 2011

  38. [...] Face it, gay Democrats, he’s just after you for your money Face it, guys, Obama just wants your money, like the cute boy who sweet talks you at the bar while ordering a $20 cocktail, then reaches for his wallet, only to feign shock when he just can’t find it.  “Maybe you can help me look for it,” he says as he puts his hand on your knee and looks into your eyes, but once he’s taken a few sips from the pricey drink you’ve bought him, he manages to slip away.  And you don’t see him again, until having run up a $100-dollar bar bill (somehow he managed to slip another drink on your tab), you stumble out of the night spot and discover him talking with some hunky fitness model.  He tries to avoid making eye contact, but when you do, he promises he’ll get back to you just as soon as he catches up with his “old friend” whom he just “happened” to run into. [...]

    Pingback by Daily Dive 25 June 11 | adeliemanchot — June 25, 2011 @ 6:08 pm - June 25, 2011

  39. Oh please Gay Patriot. You are getting old. U wanna shock me? Post something positive about President Obama for a change.

    Comment by a. mcewen — June 26, 2011 @ 4:33 am - June 26, 2011

  40. For what it’s worth, A. McEwen, I’ve seen Dan post more positive things about Obama, than just about any gay liberal blog post something positive about Bush.

    Comment by Pat — June 26, 2011 @ 2:37 pm - June 26, 2011

  41. [...] he’s fighting their fight in Washington. Gay Patriot comments on the President’s all-talk-and-no-action approach and counsels gay Democrats that “Obama just wants your money, like the cute boy who sweet [...]

    Pingback by Interesting Happenings While I Was Away « Musings from the Den Mother — June 26, 2011 @ 6:08 pm - June 26, 2011

  42. [...] all about the money.  You know all the media bellyaching about the corrupting influence of special interests and [...]

    Pingback by GayPatriot » So early HRC endorsement was all about raising cash for Obama? — July 5, 2011 @ 2:31 pm - July 5, 2011

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.