As the first candidate up to bat at the Presidential Forum, Barack Obama fielded questions on gay marriage, homophobia in the black community, and why he would make the best president. Check it out:
On the church’s role in determining civil rights:
On how he intends to unite our divided country:
HOW TO EMBED VIDEO: See the little blue downward-facing arrow in the blue cube at the bottom of each video? Click that, and then click “Embed.” Copy the code and post the video wherever you want!
On homophobia in the black community:
Stance on the marriage issue:
On comparing the fight for LGBT civil rights and black civil rights:
Closing statement:
Note: we had an encoding problem with the second video clip from Obama’s interview, but you can watch his interview in its entirety here.
Digg This
Why weren't civil unions good enought for Obama's parents or any of the other couples previously denied access to marriage in this country?
Whites are just simply treated differently by virtue of the color of their skin. It does not matter if you are bi-racial when you live in a culture that has subscribed to the "one drop" qualification of race based on a drop of black blood pulsing through one’s veins.
Therefore, to the majority whites in this society, Barack Obama is and always will be considered a Black man. I know...
I am a Black man of mixed race...Cherokee Indian, Irish, and African and believe me when I say that the only qualifier in the great “US of A” is that I have black blood. See if you can sell our Gay community on the fact that is bi-racial and not just Black. I have never been able to get beyond it here in South Florida.
http://kasunh.wordpress.com/2008/03/16/why-obama-should-win
When people say things like this, it makes me wonder what America is comming to.
Bigotry is prevelent in many forms all over the world.
His name could be Jesus Palos Consuelos.
Whatever dude!
If you would just stop being stupid and take Mr. Obama for who he is and what he stands for and not what his name is, you would get alot more fulfillment out of life.
Heres a quick question.
You are sitting right now, on a chair.
I want you to look at your chair and ask yourself, why is it called a chair? For called by any other name it would still be a chair.
Seriously, cmon dude.
As he makes clear in these videos, his support of the GLBT communities is rooted in a belief that full equality for us means the fulfillment of the American dream and potential for _everyone_. In other words, any other goal violates his core beliefs. I just don't see that foundation with Hillary Clinton, and as Etheridge pointed out in her question, the first two Clinton administrations "threw us under the bus." I'm not sure why our communities haven't remembered that fact. Defense of Marriage Act, anyone?
Hillary's answers to those questions were, as usual, evasive and not apologetic. From my perspective, not satisfying. She made excuses.
If Barack Obama can stand on the platform of the church of Martin Luther King and basically say, Shame on you for not embracing your gay and lesbian brothers and sisters, then I'm assured he can talk about, and work for, our issues anywhere.
By the way, thank God I'm not running for President. My middle name is Osamu, which means learn or master in Japanese--a pretty common name in Japan, but one that would make some voters think that I was a terrorist. You know one of those Islamic extremists with names that appear in Chinese characters that the Japanese civilization borrowed hundreds of years ago and made to sound like heads of fundamentalist religious groups.
I consider Barack Obama the frontrunner for the LGBT community for one personal reason: He ws the ONLY national candidate with reps handing out LGBT agendas and rainbow stickers at the Boston Pride in June. No other candidate has had the balls to come forward in this manner.
Basically, Mr. Obama believes in EQUALITY FOR ALL, probably influenced by his diverse background (which is very similar to mine except I'ma lesbian btw lol).
So, SUPPORT BARACK OBAMA WHO BELIEVES IN EQUALITY FOR ALL AND IS THE BIGGEST LGBT ADVOCATE IN THE GOVERNMENT RIGHT NOW!!! =]
Myself, I have been in the GLBT Norther California community all my life and a participant over twenty years.
First off I am Tri-Racial - Native American Cherokee, English descendant of the Mayflower pilgrims, fifth generation of Swedish descent and second generation from the Jungles of the Phillipines. My first issue in life was figuring out how to think about myself with a complex familiar dynamics of being cast a "Half-Breed" during the era when the Native American movement was initiating Hippies. My father looked %100 Cherokee yet being Cherokee was racially more isolated and prejudiced against than being "Black.". I used to get beat up during the race wars in kindergarten because I was not Black or White.
Fortunately, I had two tribal oritented grandparents and elders who understood the issues racism so I as mentored in merging my identity crisis. Fortunately for me, both tribal systems were not anti-homosexual. Homosexuality nor Transsexuality was seen as forbidden fruit. I was a cross dresser and never thought it was wrong because no one told me that it was wrong except my Anglo-Swedish mother.
However, the Anglo-Swedes who are my Mayflower cousins did have real issues with Sexuality. First was the English vs. Swedish difference. Being Tri-Racial I never identified with their Sado-Maschistic views of sexuality but learned to pay attention to their head trips and triggers.
The Anglos are much more odd around sexuality. I mean the whole Victorian Age really wacked them out. My Swedish side of the tree were all about talking about "boobs" during breakfast meals. Of course male parts were never discussed. I took that as the female body was worshipped by my Viking Ancestors. Even my great uncle said recently, in his seventies, "It was always obvious to me as a child that the women had the power. Who would question that?"
However, although everyone on the Anglo-Swede side can talk about sex like it is common knowledge "homosexuality" is a word not used. At our family reunion wherein elders and youngers travelled from various states of the union to hang out with our "tribe" my partner and I were given the best bedroom with the best bed. It was a peace offering because I had refused to talk to them on and off over the last twenty years. I refused to accept ignorance. And following my Viking heritage, I made it clear that they were my enemy until proven otherwise.
Well, it was a long haul but they conceded that on the family tree that is a huge wall size printout for our extended tribe, my partner is my "wife" even though my aunts said consecutively, "well, I do not approve of your lifestyle but I love you anyway." They must have been practicing that line because they said it at different times in different rooms seperately. My point is that Idealistic is right, semantics means a lot, especially to those Anglo-Saxons who are linguistic mind mazes of quirky head trips and triggers left over from the good old days of Inquisitions for Entertainment.
Personally, I am voting for Hilary because when Bill was at the edge of the rope with Lewisnski, he could have hung himself. Hilary knows better than anyone who is in love and loves someone who betrays hir trust that the world will attack a union merely to the fun of it. Handling that kind of world drama about one's sexual union with partner is not a light hearted experience. She proved her metal to me at that time. I have waited for her to run just so I can vote for her.
It astounds me how little people in the fighting LGBT community are aware of the importance of diction and terminology when it comes to tradition. I, myself would much rather have the same rights as heterosexual couples, whatever it's called. I will admit that I have, in my youth, gotten hung up on the word "marriage." I wanted to be married, not civilly unified. However, it is a very important point to understand that these things take time and echoing a comment left earlier, patience is a virtue that will be rewarded. As far as we have come, it is still a tough political climate. To criticize a candidate simply because he wants to give it a different name is naive. A step is a step, and civil unions, with EQUAL rights, would be an amazing, positive, step for the LGBT community.
Also, I think it's important that Obama makes an effort to play down his race as a political issue. If it were perceived by people that he is trying to move forward with the black agenda, to get a black person into the presidential office, that would put off a lot of people and cost him votes, just like gay marriage would put off people and cost votes, that's why candidates HAVE to play it safe. Maybe in ten years, people will be ready for the "love-all, who gives a damn if they're LGBT or straight" candidates. But not yet. And I'm much more likely to vote for a candidate who plays it *smart*. As much as I'd LOVE to see a Dennis Kucinich or Mike Gravel-type person as our President, we would be wasting a vote if we were to try and push them forward when the line-straddling voters are not quite ready for such radical positions.
We often here simple retoric of justice and civil rights, as a indicator of furture actions. Sadly, we often do not "unpack" and disect what is being said. Due to our stravation of justice and equality,because of the current adminstration and culutral climate, we are jumping at the breadcrumbs of progress, instead of demanding the feast of equality.
OBAMA inability to speak eloquenlty about LGBT issues or concerns.
-If no one else noticed, he barley could artlicute his ideas for our community. Specificlaly on his views of marraige. While I respect his views on individual faith based organzation defining thier stance on marriage, I am appalled as his lacking of understanding of marrage issues. If he would of said, that marriage is a constructtion of fatih-based organization, and everyone should have a civil union, and if you want faith based "marriage" that is your choice as well as that organizations choice. Instead, he appealed to his straight constiuents, and regeritated the typical main stream rhertoic. This debate clearly shows how OBAMA has made broad, uninformed, assumptions about these issues.
OBAMA cited the homophobia is the "black" community was preventing that community from dealing with HIV/AIDS
-Homophobia has prevented the entire contry, all all community, from dealing with HIV/AIDS circa Nixon. Additionaly, the black community is not more homophobic than any other "racial" community in this country. (See hate crime statistic, court cases, and criminal statistics). Homophoia is often used to demonize communities of color. I would hope I would not have to mention Mattew Shepard, a henious crime committed to and by white men.
OBAMA stated in response to the civil rights momentment to LGBT movement, as a discourse in "victimology'
- First and forment, any person that speaks or dicusses either of these powerful and strong movements. Civils rights struggles that have been raging on for decedes and centuries ( see homophile movement, and aboloishist/anti-slavery movmement) would be demeaned by calling this issues discourses in "viticmology". That is further evidence of the lack of understand and empthay that OBAMA has for not only the "black" community, but civil rights in general.
OBAMA will never have my vote, and this debate further showcased his fear of a true political stance and lack of awareness of any issues affecting the most marginalized of this country. I hope that the LGBT community does support OBAMA, and realizes that we do not have to deal with breadcrumbs, but we can have a feast. Justice is not done is a peicemeal fashion, nor should we tolerate the partonization of our community.
"Two things occurred to me as I listened to the comparison of marriage and civil unions. One is that although I wish it were otherwise, I don't think our nation is quite ready to accept a same-sex union as "marriage." This is wrong, but this is real.
To compensate for this, although no candidate would ever propose it, perhaps "civil union" would be more acceptable to the LGBT community if the same term, and the same rights, applied to opposite-sex unions. If the concern is that too many heterosexual people think of "marriage" as a religious institution (narrow-minded though that is), then what if we call ALL unions that take place in a civil ceremony the same thing? At least that would be fair."
Very good point. Since it is a civil thing, these marriages from the power invested in a priest by a sky god(laughable indeed) for perks from the government, maybe "civil union" for all is a better way to go. Marriage is left to the ""I love you""I love you" and commit to it" mentality. Civil union is for the people who want to take their partner's cash and get out lol. You know what I mean.
I'm a skeptic when it comes to relationships. People say they desire each other but desire means to not have. People artificially say they love each other by asking the other out or asking their girlfriend to marry them. So a "civil union" is a nice artificial way of joining two people who seem to think that they desire each other. Then marriage is done on a personal level, not governmental.
Thank you for your post!...
To compensate for this, although no candidate would ever propose it, perhaps "civil union" would be more acceptable to the LGBT community if the same term, and the same rights, applied to opposite-sex unions. If the concern is that too many heterosexual people think of "marriage" as a religious institution (narrow-minded though that is), then what if we call ALL unions that take place in a civil ceremony the same thing? At least that would be fair.
Personally, I don't care if it's called civil union or marriage, I don't care if it's separate but equal; I just want the same rights as our hetero counterparts.
Even the black civil rights movement had to move thru the "separate but equal" phase. People we aren't even to this stage yet!!!!
I believe once the structure is in place the objections will start to melt away. When we can openly claim our partners in legal matters we push the door further open. Does it really matter what it's called?
I wish we could fling the door wide too but realistically we need a unifying candidate like Barack Obama who I believe will sincerely work for our fair treatment in these United States.
one must be careful when comparing the fight for gay rights to African American struggle for freedom in this country... Undoubetly there are some similarities and I understand the sentiment behind the comparison, but i feel that thier is an inherent LACK of EMPATHY for the history of african-american struggle by many who are quick to assert the black experience as a civil rights trump card. This I say as a black man.
I needent go into the horrors and atrocities of slavery, assult, murder, lynching and codified psychological torture that characterizes the black struggle for civil rights, as to intice a debate because (quite honestly) there isn't one. I will, however say that at this moment in time, as you seek a candidate sympathetic to your cause, there is no better model for the relationship between a opressed community and U.S. president than Martin Luther King's relationships with JFK and LBJ... JFK and LBJ both were very cautioned in the way the sought to get MLK's agenda passed, although he wanted them to speak out more... In the end I'd say that they were right...He had to let the presidents be politicians and politic and sometimes (in fact most times) politicing is not altruistic in tone....
On another note: If you're going to make the black/gay comparison on this issue, then don't negate the enormous amount of time, energy and struggle and compromise and TIME it took before advances in the African American struggle were achieved. Yes, times are different, but patience in still a virtue, especially when you consider that we had Martin Luther Kings, Malcom X's and the like being beaten, arrested, and assinated for these rights....
I don't agree with the comparision of the old "separate but equal" philosophy to marriage versus civil unions with full benefits. The only difference between marriage and civil unions with the same benefits is that those with marriages can put a little asterick by their names. Whoop De Doo!!
union that takes place in a court and outside of a religious institution
as a "Civil Union"
We all win with them.
Vote.
It's sad, but I get the sense that most of these candidates -- especially Obama and Edwards -- really WANT to support full same-sex marraige laws, but are holding back because of the feared political fallout. I think I'm disappointed more in Obama than the other candidates on this issue, simply because I expect him to be less bound by politics. He's expressed his disgust with the US political machine on so many occasions... so why doesn't he follow his own insticts and support gay marraige? I love what he said about equality, supporting society's cast-outs, and not being afraid to address these issues in any forum. And I believe what he said. But I'm saddened that he couldn't go all the way on this one -- I think, in his heart, he'd like to.
Marriage is a religious practice, the legal privileges given to a couple is a government issue. I believe in the separation of church and state and therefore it is the legal union of two people that government should fix. Not the religious institution of marriage.
I understand your passion, but let's go with you scenario. Either of your candidates (one with a real chance of being elected...as much as I like Kucinich) signs on with a declaration of how if he or she is elected they will put gay marraige at the top of their agenda...Then what...
The upside is that they will get 100% of the gay vote. The down side is...
I believe that the negative is that that person will not get the deomcratic nomination (as much as I would like them to). In far off chance that they do then...
The right wing will once again mobilize the extreme right and evangelical base which would easialy overwhelm the 100% gay vote (that is assuming that all gay people are inclined to be democrat or liberal to begin with, which they are not)... Then they would loose a good portion of the black vote because a good portiono of the black vote takes cues from the black church and while alot of black churches are liberal...not on this issue.
Now lets couple those circumstances with the fact that the majority of the country is against gay marraige (i'm not speaking for me), Hillary who at this point is polling highest among democrats has a huge likability factor to overcome, and Barak still has to overcome the race issue which wouldn't take center stage until he were to recieve the democratic nomination...
Given that, ask youself...What happens if a strong canidate does things your way?
What's you end game? is it merely to bring the issue center stage, which would certainly happen if Barak were to say he was in favor of gay marraige? If so then you are content with gay marraige being relegated to an issue for the talk radio, the blogosphere and political talk shows to feed on, but no action comming from it because the backlash has scared all politicians into submission...
Call it selling you, call it side stepping, you can call it what you want, but it by definition is "politics" and if you want to move in this arena you have to respcet the rules, however deserving of recpect it might not be... I urge you and anybody else who is truly interested in advancing your cause to research relationship between JFK, LBJ and Martin Luther King.... Study the history of grudging give and take between them during that period which ultimately led to the LBJ signing into law the most sweeping social change in US history....Just something to think about.
Be married to your cause, not your pride, however understandable.
I'm not satisfied with being thrown crumbs and being hopeful that one day it will be "ok" for my civil rights to be advocated. What kind of self-loathing is that? If every candidate stopped tiptoeing around, America would have to deal with the fact that LGBT rights deserve to exist. The more it's brought into the "mainstream", the less "scary" it is to people.
Having said that, Kucinich is the only candidate worth voting for. He believes in equality NOW - not in 2008, not in 2009, not when it's politically convenient. He has PRINCIPLES. *That*, my friend, is true "strength" and "viability". Why don't we have some principles and support him with all we've got?
www.kucinich.us
I canidate might support gay marraige, but not be willing to squander their political capital by saying boldly during an election cycle... pragmatism would require people to stop expecting a democratic canidate to be the messiah for gay folks and look to elect a canidate who is sympathetic to the gay community, because the former will not get he or she elected.
Being anti-gay marriage but pro-civil-union with all the same rights as marriage because of votes is fine. If the Democratic presidential candidate can't pick up the swing votes(these are the people who are between Republican and Democrat), then he/she is SCREWED and we will have a Republican in office again. Supporting something as "far left" as full gay marriage will lose swing votes and be a shot in the foot for the Democratic presidential campaign.
The majority of Americans DO NOT support full marriage rights.
And remember this, the next President will most likely appoint TWO Supreme Court judges. So, if a Republican wins office, we probably won't see any equality for a good 10-20 years or so b/c Supreme Court judges are appointed for life. This battle will be fought in the courts, the same way the black civil rights movement of the 1960s was.
Between Hillary and Obama, I definitely see Obama as the stronger candidate. He also has a pro-LGBT track record, and track record is good in determining creditability of a candidate's platform. Hopefully he wins the primary.
I believe that Barak gave the correct answer, albeit not the one you wanted. Marraige in America is both, a government construct and a religious one. For anyone to deny that, begins suggest that they are looking for a champion of the gay community in thier politician, which may be unfair. Also, it would be unfair for a politician to mandate to a religious institution that they recognize gay marraige if it be against their faith.
In that regards the issue does come down to semantics. The correct question to pose to political canidates is "is the civil union performed by the justice of the peace "marraige?" If they answer "yes" then it probably means that they are in favor of gay marriage as a government sanctioned construct, seperate from religion.
Lastly, I know that you may believe that it'd be great for a politician to stand on the mountain top and shout out "if i'm elected I will push for the legalization of gay marraige", but you have to remember that this is still politics and as a number of people mentioned, what good is it for your candidate to say that and never get elected....Why is it that the right wing understands political code speak (i,e, "i will appoint strict constructioninst judges to the supreme court" is code for I will appoint judges who will overturn Rvs.W and stop gay marraige). When a right wing politician says this their conservative base understands the code and in most cases never asks him to come out witha mountain top proclimation that an apponent will use to rake them across the coals with....
Political Savvy is important...Just somethin to think about.
Also, one must be careful when comparing the fight for gay rights to African American struggle for freedom in this country... I understand the sentiment behind it, but i feel that thier is an inherent lack of empathy for the history of african-american struggle. This I say as a black man. I needent go into the horrors and atrocities of slavery, murder, lynching and codified psychological torture, as to intice a debate because (quite honestly) there isn't one. I will, however say that at this moment in time, as you seek a candidate sympathetic to your cause, there is no better model for the relationship between a opressed community and U.S. president than Martin Luther King's relationships with JFK and LBJ... JFK and LBJ both were very cautioned in the way the sought to get MLK's agenda passed, although he wanted them to speak out more... In the end I'd say that they were right...He had to let the presidents be politicians ans politic and sometimes (in fact most times) is not altruistic in tone.
I was a Hillay supporter going into this forum, and remain so now.
I for one am in full agreement with Joseph S. Give civil marriage to heterosexuals and non-heterosexuals alike, or, two, give Civil Unions to both heterosexuals and non-heterosexuals alike.
I've always liked this man, I trust in most of what I hear him say and I do believe he is the kind of person that will make some fantastic things happen on the Human Rights battle front. I state things in that manner in that I also have fears and reservations that stem from other "hot" topics and his position with them, which lends reprise as to why I see him as the "Lesser" of two evils and the better human being for getting things done.
Since I already knew the answers to the major questions before hand I was much more interested in the questions being asked. Asking the candidates what their stances on issues are when we already know the answers is mind numbingly redundant. I want to hear questions that are pointed and knocks the candidates off of their prepackaged responses. Something like asking those that support Civil Unions, “Would you be willing to exchange your Marriage for a Civil Union?” Also for those that use their religion such as Mr. Edwards but not limited to Mr. Edwards, “How is using your religion as an excuses to create a ‘separate but equal’ institution such as civil unions not an Iranian styled Theocracy Lite?” or “What is your retort for those that think by using your religion vs. scientific data and the basic principles inscribed in the U.S. Constitution to craft public policy is in-effect theocracy lite and buy doing so infringing on the religious rights of those being governed.? I would like for some one to ask Mrs Clinton “Do you think Mr. Clinton’s action of signing DOMA. was hypocritical given the fact he was not faithful in his own marriage?”. These are th questions I wanted to hear because these are the questions to which I do not know the answers.
I understand this is the first time such a major event as taken place for the non-heterosexual and intersexed communities and there is a learning curve that is under way. But please in the future ask questions to which the answers aren’t known to the public and omit the mind numbing redundancy.
Not related to the forum but related to the site, The opinion poll should be asking for whom one would vote in the democratic primary as opposed to for whom would you vote. The latter is ambiguous.
Speaking of broken hearts, Kucinich said it would be devastating if some law prevented him from marrying the person that he so deeply loves. Accepting civil unions, I agree, is like supporting separate but equal. Everyone deserves full marriage rights. It is a matter of freedom and love. As mayor of Cleveland, Kucinich had members of his Cabinet who were gay. He's not playing politics. He's genuine, and he needs our support! dennis4president.com
Let's Settle!!! Let's step back from that counter, and let that straight person have our seat.
If Martin Luther King Jr. were here he would give you a sermon.
How do you expect to ever get ahead if you back off ever!!!!!! You will not!!!! You will get thrown under the bus again, just like Bill Clinton did to you.
You stand Behind Mike Gravel, he will Stand up for you. He stood up against Richard Nixon and all his croonies back in the 70's, when the odds where against him. He won then. If you back Hilary or Barack, you are backing big money and you lose.
We the People must stand up this time. Do not listen to polls, who owns the polls? The big news!!!
Stand up for yourself and fight, you may never get another chance, you keep losing ground. Just like we keep losing rights.
Edwards is not going to do damn thing for LGBT
Gravel is perfect, but like a Stanley Kubrick film, won't be recognized until 20 years later.
Bill Richardson is like a Dad, trying to accept his gay son.
Clinton was (I think) more subtle than people realize.
Obama has been careful with his words...because he wants to remain consistant. And personally, I think that once he becomes president, he will keep his promise, create equal law in a civil union, and leave it for the church to decide the rest.
There's no turning back because America needs a UNITER, & improve our country's image & regain the respect worldwide.
HILLARY is our next President!
God bless America & Hillary!
The children of US interracial unions still suffer terribly, as Obama can testify. A big reason some African Americans question his blackness is because his mother is white, though in almost every African American (and Latino and Native American) family there is a white great or great-great or great-great-great grandmother or grandfather. In nations where race equals access or lack of it, rules to keep everyone in their place, which is below the elites, are social, not only legal.
Black straight women are only starting to mix more with men who aren't black. In Canada, the US and most of Latin America, Native Americans are treated as outsiders despite all the laws and treaties to the contrary. Social stigmas encourage every group to exclude people as much as sometimes more than laws.
The point is discrimination is just a symptom of willful ignorance, which no one can legislate out of existence. That ignorance (not sexuality, not birth-nationality, not race) is a choice enforced by social stigma and laws that benefit the elite group that most influences how laws are made. Change requires leaders and activists who shake the manipulated masses out of their ignorance and convince the elites it was their idea all along. Seems like Obama makes for a good leader.
Did you listen to Dennis Kuchinich...I think he is the best candidate the we have. I want a world that is different, that is equal and peaceful and caring.
Kuchinich for 2008
Obama!
It's only when we forced states to abide by the law that churches, synagogues and now mosques began to change. That's how interracial marriages went from sin/miscegenation/criminal to standard in both spiritual and legal circles within democratic countries. Cultural shifts instigate shifts in laws, but if the laws don't shift they remain "sub" cultures and gains are absolutely limited. If the laws grant legitimacy, the culture changes more rapidly until it becomes an institution that houses of worship have to follow if they want a following. That's how I see it.
Legitimacy to me at least is not an institutional spiritual blessing; it's my legal right in this country. I don't care if straight people call my civil union with another woman a "marriage" or not; I want the 1,100 rights straight couples get. That's the start. The spiritual institutions will catch up if/when it suits them. If I want a Christian spiritual blessing I'll join Obama's very controversial church (for ordaining a woman and an out gay minister) or Glide Memorial in SF; if I want a nondenominational spiritual thang maybe the Unitarians. I've got a choice 'cause churches can't be the state, they don't get to deny me legitimacy from the state. I get legitimacy from the state. Heck as a Native American, the state doesn't even recognize most of our religions. If it weren't for my individual rights, I'd have none at all.
Obama's right, again.
SHE'S MY GIRL
Hilary is savvy enough not to commit. She is waiting for the voting middle American to move closer to supporting non-traditional couples in joining of some type.