Positive Obama thread

TorchSong thank you for your post.  I had forgotten about the military, and even then, didnt realize just what was involved in the "don't ask, don't tell"!  That is horrible that you had to go through so much of this all alone, or at least not with your love.  And I bet it was HELL on her to not be able to be there for you.

I have said many times that my breast cancer "journey" has been WAYYYY harder on my husband and mother as care givers than it ever was on me.  They felt so helpless!

I didn't realize all the other things you pointed out.  I guess I thought of the things you mentioned as "isolated" incidences rather than "common".  I know that many gays can adopt children, and many gay couples will use surrogates and artificial insemination.

Madalyn, it wasn't that I was pretending injustice didn't exists, I just didn't KNOW it existed.  That is why I asked!  I knew there had to be more to it, for the gay community to be so passionate about marriage.

TorchSong your post was beautiful and moving and I thank you for sharing it with me and others reading.  I am sure I am not the only one that didn't fully understand "the deal", but evidently I was the only one "brave" enough to ask.  I am sure that now others will have a better sense of what the gay community does face daily.

Now I have one more question.  It is not to be mean, it is simply I want to know so that on this issue I can better understand it to:

Why is it that the gay community wont except the term "civil union"?  Why does it seem that gay's are offended unless it is called "marriage"?  Now, let me explain how I see it as it is only fair for you to understand why I dont understand.......The word "marriage" has always been a Biblical term.  In fact it was the USA that brought "marriage" into the government.  If gays can have a "civil union" that gives them the same exact legal rights as a biblical "marriage" what does it matter what term is used to identify it?

It is as if gay community wants to take something from the bible that is so explicitly explained as between a man and a woman and "exploit" it to make themselves feel better?  I dont know if that is why, it is just what it seems like.  I get this BECAUSE "civil union" seems to piss off homosexuals.

So if you and your partner could have a civil union, a ceremony, health insurance priviledges, buy houses together, file joint tax returns, etc.  If it meant that you had to go to court to get it terminated just like a divorce, isn't all of this what you are ultimately trying to accomplish? 

DD, This is a complicated question.

As you say, it's a word. Marriage means a great deal, so of course gay, lesbian and bisexual want to have that term. Wouldn't you? Would you settle for something that was "just like" but without the name?

Second, if you look at the Bible, there are many forms of "marriage" mentioned, most of which we no longer use--polygamy (David and Solomon, for example), levirate marriage (the man married the childless widow of his brother in order to give his brother children), and arranged marriages, not to mention the extremely young ages at which women were married in those days.So I'm not sure the Bible is a good place to look for examples.

Third, in many countries, there are, in fact, two separate ceremonies or events for marriages. There is first a civil ceremony--that bestows the legal recognition on the couple as a legal couple and often takes place at the city hall. Then, if the couple wishes, they can have a religious ceremony wherever they worship. It's two-part. In the US, the religious presider (pastor, priest, rabbi, etc.) is made an agent of the state for the purposes of the wedding, It makes more sense to me (and I am clergy, BTW) that they should be separated. Too many people get married in a church because it's "prettier," not because it's spiritually meaningful to them. If there were separate ceremonies, the two functions--legal recognition and spiritual blessing--would also be separated, and--I think--a lot of the resentment of same-gender marriage would go away. The spiritual communities that are willing to recognise us would do so and those that don't would be under no pressure to do so--which they aren't even in states which allow same-gender marriage anyway (just because a couple shows up with a marriage license, the pastor doesn't have to marry them--I'm forbidden to in certain cases, like if one of them is intoxicated). 

One note about parenting--adoption and AI are for folks who can afford it--which is true for everyone, of course, but most heterosexual people who wish to have children can do so without complications (not to put down or minimize the difficulties of people who are infertile). And often same-sex couples must "hide" a partner in order to adopt. There are also many cases of judges removing children from same-gender couples--when one of the individuals is a biological parent--because the judge feels the parent is "unfit" solely on the basis of their same-gender relationship.

I wish I could say these are isolated, and slowly fading, and they are in some places, but in too many places they aren't.

Finally, you ask whether my partner and I would be happy with all the privileges, legal rights, ceremonies, etc but not the name. I cannot answer for her, of course, but for me, the answer is no. My marriage with her would be in every way--emotonally, spiritiually, economically, psychologically--the equal, if not the better, of my marriage to my ex-husband. "Separate but equal" is still wrong, whether you apply it to race, gender, or sexual orientation.

It's about recognition--our relationship is as sacred and meaningful and strong to us as everyone else's is to them. We want that recognition.

DD, I meant to say thank you, too. For being willing to ask, for asking the questions and wanting to hear another point of view instead of thinking you knew...

Thank you for your willingness to hear! Something we could all use more of...

LA, that's right. Even if they are legally married in their state (say Massasschusetts), a same-gender couple cannot receive federal benefits--Social Security, SSI, tax breaks, etc. because of DOMA. I think there are 300+ benefits, ranging from SS to fishing rights, that same-gender couples are not eligible for.

mke, she's in the US military. Even if she and I had a Canadian marriage, though, it wouldn't be recognized by the US federal government.

Same-gender marriage has been legal in Canada since June 2005.

Edited to add: And it's not just about me and my partner. I officiate at lots of same-gender weddings each year, many of US couples who just want to know that somewhere in the world they are legally married. This may be dropping off now with Massachusetts not requiring residency anymore.

I didn't realize you were clergy TorchSong. I live near the Metropolitan Church of Toronto so I see more same-sex marriages than hetero ones I think. (Well I don't attend them, just observe the traffic) Also that church has an alternative high school for GBLT's and I know some of those kids would have had a rough time in a regular high school. Others probably would have done just fine but chose to be in the alternative school.

WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO HOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

CHANGE IS A GOOD THING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! MERRY CHRISTMAS TO ALL MY OBAMA BC SISTERS!!!

Love you all like Ben & Jerry's New York Super Fudge Chunk icecream!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Tracey

This attack was just this week ... an apparent effect of Prop 8 ... according to the article, anytime there is legislation aimed to "benefit" gays/lesbians, some feel justified in attacking them ...  this happened in SF.  Can't imagine the horror.

---

Lesbian's brutal gang rape investigated in Calif.

The Associated Press

Published: Monday, December 22, 2008 at 9:32 p.m.
Last Modified: Monday, December 22, 2008 at 9:32 p.m.

SAN FRANCISCO - A woman in the San Francisco Bay area was jumped by four men, taunted for being a lesbian, repeatedly raped and left naked outside an abandoned apartment building, authorities said Monday.

Detectives say the 28-year-old victim was attacked Dec. 13 after she got out of her car, which bore a rainbow gay pride sticker. The men, who ranged from their late teens to their 30s, made comments indicating they knew her sexual orientation, said Richmond police Lt. Mark Gagan.

"It just pushes it beyond fathomable," he said. "The level of trauma - physical and emotional - this victim has suffered is extreme."

Authorities are characterizing the attack as a hate crime but declined to reveal why they think the woman was singled out because of her sexual orientation. Gagan would say only that the victim lived openly with a female partner and had a rainbow flag sticker on her car.

The 45-minute attack began when one of the men approached the woman as she crossed the street, struck her with a blunt object, ordered her to disrobe and sexually assaulted her on the spot with the help of the other men.

When the group saw another person approaching, they forced the victim back into her car and took her to a burned-out apartment building, where she was raped again inside and outside the vehicle. The assailants took her wallet and drove off in her car. Officers found the car abandoned two days later.

The woman sought help from a nearby resident, and she was examined at a hospital. Although the victim said she did not know her attackers, detectives hope someone in the community knows them. One of the men went by the nickname "Blue" and another was called "Pato," according to authorities.

Richmond police are offering a $10,000 award for information leading to the arrest of the attackers.

Gay rights advocates note that hate crimes based on sexual orientation have increased nationwide as of late. There were 1,415 such crimes in 2006 and 1,460 in 2007, both times making up about 16 percent of the total, according to the FBI.

Avy Skolnik, a coordinator with the New York-based National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs, noted that gay, lesbian and transgender crime victims may be more reluctant than heterosexual victims to contact police.

"Assailants target LGBT people of all gender identities with sexual assault," he said. "Such targeting is one of the most cruel, dehumanizing and violent forms of hate violence that our communities experience."

Skolnik said the group plans to analyze hate crime data to see whether fluctuations may be related to the gay marriage bans that appeared on ballots this year in California, Arizona and Florida.

"Anytime there is an anti-LGBT initiative, we tend to see spikes both in the numbers and the severity of attacks," he said. "People feel this extra entitlement to act out their prejudice."

Tracey, yup, the Bailey's ice cream is for real!  I don't even like Bailey's, the drink, that much, but the ice cream is divine (and a little less fattening than some other flavors).  They used to only sell it during the holidays, but I think you can get it year-round now.  You can check which stores carry it in your area at the Haagen Dazs website:  

http://www.haagen-dazs.com/products/product.aspx?id=79

Our man is definitely HOT.  

Tracy my ears are getting sore lol.  I wish you all health, happiness and wealth in 2009.

Summer, thanks for the holiday greeting.  Same to you!

PatMom, what a great site!  And a great contest.  It dovetails nicely with New Years resolutions.  Thanks for passing on the info.  One thing that Obama's candidacy has definitely done is inspire people to volunteer and get involved politically, people who never have participated or haven't in a long time.  That's something his detractors can't take away from him.  Those are facts on the ground, as they say. 

Hillary's certainly going to have her hands full in the Middle East.  Another crisis to add to the pile.  Hope she and Obama can come up with some ideas on how to deal with that violent impasse. 

Rock, I'm no expert on financial matters, but as far as I know Obama's stimulus package focuses on job creation, especially alternative energy jobs, tax breaks and relief for distressed homeowners.  I think the Dems in Congress (both houses) have more or less the same agenda.  I guess the question is, how much deficit raising can we take?  Economists don't necessarily agree that balancing the budget really should be, or can be, a priority right now.  I've heard convincing arguments for both sides--what do I know?  It seems incredible to me that we can keep going further and further into debt, but bigger brains than mine have argued otherwise:    

Still, even budget hawks acknowledge that now is a good time for the government to step up its borrowing. With the Treasury Department paying the lowest rates on government debt in years, taxpayers will pay less in interest on all the new debt.

In recent days, the Treasury has sold one-month bills at zero percent and three-month bills at rates near zero.

That's because the financial meltdown has caused large institutional investors to seek out the safety of T-bills, increasing demand and lowering the yield on government debt.

But Robert Bixby, executive director of the Concord Coalition, a nonpartisan budget watchdog group, warned that the low rates won't last forever.

"This is like a teaser rate for the federal government," he said, referring to the low initial interest rates that many mortgage lenders offered to entice consumers to buy a home. Many homeowners have since struggled to pay higher rates that have kicked in after the teaser rate.

But Rosenberg thinks the U.S. can afford the extra spending, as total public debt is equal to about 40 percent of the U.S. economy, he said in a research note Tuesday.

That is "well below any level that would suggest a cause for concern about the credit rating on U.S. debt."

Here's an article about how Toledo turned itself around through solar energy jobs.  The financial point is that these companies need loans to start up or convert factories, something the govt. can help with:

Money also must go toward upgrading the power grid to make it easier to use solar and wind.

Congress has extended tax credits through 2016 for solar developers as part of the financial rescue plan approved in October, and more than half of all states have set dates when utilities will be required to produce some of their electricity through alternative energy.

http://news.moneycentral.msn.com/provider/providerarticle.aspx?feed=AP&date=20081208&id=9434585

I'm sure budget trimming will also be a part of Obama's plan.  If we get out of Iraq ASAP that will save billions a month right there.  The trick will be distinguishing true pork--aka "bridges to nowhere"--from viable projects like converting factories to green technology, repairing interstates, improving levees and dams, building schools, etc.  Not all earmarked spending is bad and wasteful after all.  It's a matter of oversight and thoughtful, long-range planning, things that have been in short supply of late.  If we do it right, taxpayers should see a return on their investment.        

Delete

I believe that Cheney is truly evil, greedy and corrupt .... I'm thinking that Bush just isn't that smart.  Like on the SNL skit where he said the President does what the VP tells him to do ... I've always thought there was some truth to that .. kinda like the Wizard of Oz ... or a puppeteer.

Hi Obama Ladies!!!!  I haven't been on in a while, with the storm and holidays...you know.  Where is Amy??  I don't see her posts?  What's been going on here?  We are SO close to the inauguration and a change!!!  I can't wait!! 

g