Gay Patriot Header Image

The simple answer to your question, Jennifer, is, “Yes,”
(gay marriage advocates are being taken for fools)

Let me begin by reminding you of some important facts.  Democrat Barack Obama was elected president in November 2008, with strong support from gay groups, including many supporting state recognition of same-sex marriage.

When he took office, the president’s party, the Democratic, enjoyed overwhelming majorities in both houses of Congress.  From July 7, 2009 until February 4, 2010, that majority was filibuster-proof, that is, Senate Democrats didn’t need a single Republican vote to invoke cloture; they could vote on any item they wanted to.  Said legislative Democrats never voted to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act or even to pass a federal civil unions bill.  They only got their act together to vote on repealing Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell (DADT) after the election, but before the swearing in, of a Republican Congress in November 2010.

In short, Democrats in the 111th Congress had the chance to act on issues of concern to gay Americans, but failed to do so.

Now to the question.  Earlier today, Jennifer Rubin asked, “Are gay-marriage advocates being taken as fools?

On “Meet the Press,” Vice President Joe Biden said he’d be “comfortable with gay marriage,” an odd formulation for an important matter of public policy. (This is truly liberalism’s triumph of good intentions over actions.)

. . .

This is becoming the proverbial Lucy and the football. One wonders how often pro-gay-marriage activists, like poor Charlie Brown, are going to fall for this stuff.

. . . .

First, forking over lots of money gives you access; threatening to cut it off gets you attention. The leverage is with the gay community, whose financial and electoral power is considerable. But as long as the campaign takes gay voters (like Jews, Hispanics and union members) for granted, there is no reason for President Obama to move on this before the election.

Maybe had HRC not been so quick to endorse Obama, they might have been able to extract some concessions from the Democrat.  It seems though that the heads of that and other gay groups would rather be loved by the Democrats than see legislation passed recognizing our relationships.

UPDATE:  Deborah Kerr reminds us (@ 2:35 below) how HRC treats Obama:

All that bowing and kow-towing
To remind you of your royalty
I find a most disgusting exhibition
I wouldn’t ask a Siamese cat
To demonstrate his loyalty
By taking this ridiculous position
How would you like it if you were a man
Playing the part of a toad.
Crawling around on your elbows and knees.
Eating the dust of the road!…

Toads! Toads! All of your people are toads!
Yes, Your Majesty;
No, Your Majesty.
Tell us how low to go, Your Majesty;
Make some more decrees, Your Majesty,
Don’t let us up off out knees, Your Majesty.
Give us a kick, if you please Your Majesty
Give us a kick, if you would, Your Majesty
Oh, That was good, Your Majesty!

Share

12 Comments

  1. Eurocentric cultural (and racist) imperialism at work in the days before the enlightenment of multiculturalism.

    Comment by EssEm — May 7, 2012 @ 7:11 pm - May 7, 2012

  2. Recognize your relationships? Dan, when are you going to shut up about social issues like you’re always telling social conservatives to do? Oh, I forgot. Talking about social issues is detrimental and divisive only when the speaker comes at them from the traditionalist perspective.

    Comment by Seane-Anna — May 7, 2012 @ 8:45 pm - May 7, 2012

  3. they could vote on any item they wanted to.

    They did (emphasis on wanted).

    Comment by TGC — May 7, 2012 @ 10:47 pm - May 7, 2012

  4. Dan, when are you going to shut up

    When are you going to shut the hell up? Your faux outrage is a total snooze.

    Comment by TGC — May 7, 2012 @ 10:48 pm - May 7, 2012

  5. Dishonest editing job there, TGC. I didn’t ask Dan when was he going to shut up. I asked him when was he going to shut up ABOUT SOCIAL ISSUES like he’s always saying social conservatives should do. Shouldn’t Dan at least try to practice what he preaches? And if my “faux outrage is a total snooze” why did you bother responding to it?

    Comment by Seane-Anna — May 7, 2012 @ 10:56 pm - May 7, 2012

  6. This is David Frum’s thing about the conservatives fearing their base and the liberals hating theirs. Democrats take the liberal constituencies for granted because they know they won’t vote Republican. National Democrats are always playing for independents and soft conservatives and that’s why they stake out these positions. It’s a terrible strategy of course but it is what is. I don’t think gays are being taken for fools – I think most gays know that the Democrats don’t offer much more than lip service. Gays will still support Democrats because they’re not Republicans.

    Contrast this with Republican electoral politics, which is completely about motivating the base by using wedge issues. So you have Republicans catering to extreme conservatives, and you have Democrats catering to independents. If you’re not one of those things, the parties assume you’re on cruise control and they ignore you.

    That’s it.

    Comment by Levi — May 8, 2012 @ 12:08 am - May 8, 2012

  7. Dishonest editing job there, TGC.

    Ok.

    Dan, when are you going to shut up about social issues like you’re always telling social conservatives to do?

    Now shut the hell up.

    Comment by TGC — May 8, 2012 @ 1:00 am - May 8, 2012

  8. I think most gays know that the Democrats don’t offer much more than lip service.

    I think you give them far more credit than they deserve. Liberals don’t offer much more than lip service on anything and have proven that they stand for little more than economic disaster. Which begs the obvious question: What’s the point in voting for the Same We Can Believe In or the Marxist FORWARD?

    Comment by TGC — May 8, 2012 @ 1:04 am - May 8, 2012

  9. Gay marriage advocates are taken for fools? Taking lessons from Joseph Goebbels? LGBT community has received everything they’ve asked for from an administration inundated with homosexuals/bisexuals. It’s not our problem that the homosexual/bisexual-in-chief refuses to acknowledge his allegiance to the legalization of homosexual marriage. Are really going to ignore the executive branch’s utilization of the US State Department to impose homosexual marriage on a global basis? How you no shame when you willfully prevaricate?

    Comment by rjligier — May 8, 2012 @ 8:34 am - May 8, 2012

  10. “Maybe had HRC not been so quick to endorse Obama, they might have been able to extract some concessions from the Democrat. ”
    Actually, I believe no matter what concessions they might have been able to get from Obama, those would have been broken too. Remember all of his promises comes with an expiration date.

    Comment by Louise B — May 8, 2012 @ 10:00 am - May 8, 2012

  11. No, TGC, I will not shut up about Dan’s social leftism and hypocrisy on the “don’t talk about social issues” matter. Too bad for you.

    Comment by Seane-Anna — May 8, 2012 @ 8:32 pm - May 8, 2012

  12. Nice to see Levi is here to provide the voice of reason. God knows this blog needs it.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — May 9, 2012 @ 2:42 am - May 9, 2012

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.