President Talks About Gay Rights During Inaugural Speech

[sixdollarchampagne]

The Democrats did not expend much political capital, nationally or locally, in fighting for lgbt rights. On a state basis the Dems only supported same sex marriage when it was not politically risky. In Washington State it seems evident that the state Dems supported marriage equality as a distraction from the massive cutbacks in the state budget they were forcing though.

Obama did not support same sex marriage but "evolved" on the issue until opinion polls showed the majority of Americans support it and even then his support was very tepid.

What should Obama have done? The same thing he should have done with "single payer" national healthcare, the same thing he should have done in bringing the criminal bankers to account, the same thing he should have done with nationalizing the insurance, auto, and banking industries and placing them under democratic public ownership, the same thing he should have done with closing Gitmo, ending the Forever War....

The fact that he didn't and the reasons why should be self evident.

Obama won't be running again and mainstream lgbt rights groups like the HRC, Lamda Legal, GLAAD, etc are solidly embedded in the Democratic Party.Mentioning Seneca Falls, Stonewall, and other civil rights battles of the past are an easy way of looking progressive while doing well, jack shit,

I thought the first two paragraphs of Lenina's post, above, were valuable: they told me facts I did not know before. The third paragraph, listing all the betrayals through inaction, of the Democratic administration, was impressive.

Given that, at this late date, it was/is totally predictable that any Democrat, in office or seeking office, will betray, given that, as Lenina concedes, the truth about the Democrats is "self evident," shouldn't the far-left have mercilessly attacked the illusions people had in Obama and his pro-war, imperialist party? What I observed in the 2008 campaign was just the opposite: with very few honorable exceptions, the whole US "left" lined up behind the Democratic candidate (though I haven't looked up CWI's position on the 2008 election – maybe they didn't).

And, so, as always, when adults claim to have been fooled by the Democrats again, I wonder: how many times do the Dems get to betray, before politically aware people grasp the obvious, that betrayal is the Democratic Party's modus operandi? If I know that, surely others do too.

[RadioRaheem84]

I thought the first two paragraphs of Lenina's post, above, were valuable: they told me facts I did not know before. The third paragraph, listing all the betrayals through inaction, of the Democratic administration, was impressive.

Given that, at this late date, it was/is totally predictable that any Democrat, in office or seeking office, will betray, given that, as Lenina concedes, the truth about the Democrats is "self evident," shouldn't the far-left have mercilessly attacked the illusions people had in Obama and his pro-war, imperialist party? What I observed in the 2008 campaign was just the opposite: with very few honorable exceptions, the whole US "left" lined up behind the Democratic candidate (though I haven't looked CWI's position on the 2008 election – maybe they didn't).

And, so, as always, when adults claim to have been fooled by the Democrats again, I wonder: how many times do the Dems get to betray, before politically aware people grasp the obvious, that betrayal is the Democratic Party's modus operandi? If I know that, surely others do too.

It's because no matter how much the Dems shift rightward, politically "savvy" people will always consider them the lesser of two evils. Mitt Romney was so scary to them that they would drop all dreams of a viable alternative and vote Democrat, probably knowing full well that the Dems will betray them.

And I also want to add that this constant "betrayal" is not really betrayal. It's a concerted effort by the Dems to lure a voting bloc to the polls. Much like the right wing panders to the Christian right.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

That's mostly accurate. It's also true that politicians, by nature, tend to be cautious and conservative creatures.



That's pretty accurate.



Those all sound like excellent ideas, however; it should be pointed out that the President does not have the power to unilaterally do most of those things.

You've made a number of suggestions about the welfare state, drug law reform, foreign policy, etc. However; you still did not answer my question. What would you like to see the administration do (Note; future tense.) to advance gay rights?

Obama is the chairman of the executive committee of the ruling class.I don't really "want" nor expect him to do anything progressive or opposed in any way to those whose interests he's been chosen to represent.

In the best of all possible worlds though I would like to see the administration take political risks and actually lead a movement for lgbt (not just gay) rights.I would like to see an aggressive mass mobilization for equality for all those who are seen as different by society.A mass education campaign. Strong anti-hate crime laws.Obama could have intervened in the horrific CeCe McDonald case-this would have been far more meaningful than any cheesy inaugural speech.He could have spoken out against the extreme homophobic bullying of the NYCPD.

http://supportcece.wordpress.com/


Such a campaign for lgbt liberation can ultimately only be successful if its solidly rooted in a movement for worker's democracy-worker's control over production and distribution and challenges capitalist property relations. For permanent equality there also needs to be a dramatic change in the family system-equality for women and some sort of communalized housework and child rearing.

I am not holding my breath.

In 2008 the CWI very critically supported Nader, although admittedly this received criticism from elsewhere on the left.After the election instead of saying to Obama supporters, "how can you be so naive?", we said we fully empathize with people's desire for radical change but pointed out how ytthe corporate sponsored Democrats by definition are incapable of producing this change.

[Ostrinski]

Indeed, RadioRaheem. There is no betrayal to be found or to be spoken of on the part of the Democrats as there is no real instance where they have been treacherous to their class, the bourgeoisie, at least not one that I can think of.

I'll say this, though, as there is a betrayal that takes place every four years here in the United States and in other countries during election season. That treachery is not when the Democrats all but unexpectedly do something the left doesn't like - the treachery, is when the left goes out and votes and/or shills for those very Democrats.

tl;dr, it's not the Democrats that betray the left and the working class, it's the left that betrays the left and the working class when they make conscious efforts to get Democrats into office.

[NGNM85]

It's because no matter how much the Dems shift rightward, politically "savvy" people will always consider them the lesser of two evils. Mitt Romney was so scary to them that they would drop all dreams of a viable alternative...

There aren't any viable alternatives, especially in the presidential race.

[RadioRaheem84]

There aren't any viable alternatives, especially in the presidential race.

They won't come from the mainstream. What kind of radical says stuff like you do?

[NGNM85]

Obama is the chairman of the executive committee of the ruling class.I don't really "want" nor expect him to do anything progressive or opposed in any way to those whose interests he's been chosen to represent.

You may not expect the President to do anything really bold, and progressive, but, clearly, you want him to. I've just been trying to get you to sketch out what that; 'something' might be.

In the best of all possible worlds though I would like to see the administration take political risks and actually lead a movement for lgbt (not just gay) rights.

When I said; 'gay rights', I did not mean to imply I was excluding the 'B', or the; 'T', I figured that was sort of implicit, and I like to mix things up a bit.

I would like to see an aggressive mass mobilization for equality for all those who are seen as different by society.A mass education campaign.

What does this mean?

Strong anti-hate crime laws.

What do you feel was lacking from the '09 Matthew Shepard Act?

Personally; I'm totally against hate crime laws.

Obama could have intervened in the horrific CeCe McDonald case-this would have been far more meaningful than any cheesy inaugural speech.He could have spoken out against the extreme homophobic bullying of the NYCPD.

http://supportcece.wordpress.com/

That's more of a symbolic gesture, but at least it's something specific.

Such a campaign for lgbt liberation can ultimately only be successful if its solidly rooted in a movement for worker's democracy-worker's control over production and distribution and challenges capitalist property relations. For permanent equality there also needs to be a dramatic change in the family system-equality for women and some sort of communalized housework and child rearing.

First of all; that's way beyond the power of the presidency. Second; none of these things are really exclusive to the gay community.

In 2008 the CWI very critically supported Nader, although admittedly this received criticism from elsewhere on the left.

Rightfully so, although for the wrong reasons, I suspect. They should have been criticized for this because Nader never had a snowball's chance in hell of actually winning, and supporting his candidacy was tantamount to supporting President-then-candidate George Bush. In fact; Nader's campaign was a significant factor that led to George W. Bush becoming our 43rd President.

After the election instead of saying to Obama supporters, "how can you be so naive?", we said we fully empathize with people's desire for radical change but pointed out how ytthe corporate sponsored Democrats by definition are incapable of producing this change.

Radical change, like the working class taking control of the means of production, almost certainly will not occur via parliamentary means, and I can virtually guarantee it won't come about through the Democratic party. However; at this time, the working class isn't even seeking control over the means of production. What people want is jobs, affordable healthcare, and education, etc.

Major reforms don't just drop from the sky like presents, from the elites. That would be atypical. Reforms and concessions are always enacted in the White House, in Congress, in the courts, or in the state legislatures, that's where it always ends, but they begin in the streets. That's where we come in.

[NGNM85]

They won't come from the mainstream.

There is absolutely no possibility, whatsoever, of a third party candidate being elected President, in any kind of conceivable near future.

What kind of radical says stuff like you do?

One that knows what they are talking about. Just look at the track record of third party candidates. Even when the Socialist movement in this country was probably as large as it has ever been, dramatically larger than it is, now; Eugene Debs only got 6% of the vote. Nader got less than 3%. The most impressive third party presidential candidate in recent history was Ross Perot, in 1992, with almost 19% of the popular vote, and zero electoral votes. Furthermore; in the wake of Citizens United, the cost of running a presidential campaign, or any other kind, for that matter, has spiked substantially. Who, especially on the Radical Left, has that kind of capital? That's ignoring the party infrastructure, the hordes of experienced political operatives, etc., etc. I could go on, and on. The fact is; at this moment, there is no possibility, whatsoever of a third party candidate being elected president.We'd need to completely overhaul our campaign finance system (Which is not a bad idea.) to even make such a thing possible.

[NGNM85]

I'll say this, though, as there is a betrayal that takes place every four years here in the United States and in other countries during election season. That treachery is not when the Democrats all but unexpectedly do something the left doesn't like - the treachery, is when the left goes out and votes and/or shills for those very Democrats.

tl;dr, it's not the Democrats that betray the left and the working class, it's the left that betrays the left and the working class when they make conscious efforts to get Democrats into office.

So; you're suggesting Radicals should vote Republican. That's.......interesting. However; I don't find it very persuasive.

[RadioRaheem84]

There is absolutely no possibility, whatsoever, of a third party candidate being elected President, in any kind of conceivable near future.



One that knows what they are talking about. Just look at the track record of third party candidates. Even when the Socialist movement in this country was probably as large as it has ever been, dramatically larger than it is, now; Eugene Debs only got 6% of the vote. Nader got less than 3%. The most impressive third party presidential candidate was Ross Perot, in 1992, with almost 19% of the popular vote, and zero electoral votes. Furthermore; in the wake of Citizens United, the cost of running a presidential campaign, or any other kind, for that matter, has spiked substantially. Who, especially on the Radical Left, has that kind of capital? That's ignoring the party infrastructure, the hordes of experienced political operatives, etc., etc. I could go on, and on. The fact is; at this moment, there is no possibility, whatsoever of a third party candidate being elected president.We'd need to completely overhaul our campaign finance system (Which is not a bad idea.) to even make such a thing possible.

So in essence what you're saying is the system holds a radical alternative candidate back at all costs, making it harder these days more than ever for a party to even form......and you want to work within that same system to enact social change?

[RadioRaheem84]

So; you're suggesting Radicals should vote Republican. That's.......interesting. However; I don't find it very persuasive.

That's not what he said and you know it. Unless you're implying some bullshit Dem talking point about how voting third party is a vote for the right wing.

[NGNM85]

That's not what he said and you know it.

It is; if you understand it. I don't think he understands what he is saying.

Unless you're implying some bullshit Dem talking point about how voting third party is a vote for the right wing.

It's not a talking point, it's a mathematical fact. A vote for an unelectable candidate, on either end of the spectrum, only helps the opposite side.

[NGNM85]

So in essence what you're saying...

Not exactly. Part of the problem is that you are fusing two disparate statements.

...is the system holds a radical alternative candidate back at all costs, making it harder these days more than ever for a party to even form......

I don't think it's a deliberate conspiracy, or anything, although some actions have been taken to exclude third parties, etc. It's definitely not in the interests of the establishment parties to widen the playing field. However; for a number of reasons, the Democratic party has largely supported campaign finance reform. The thing is that what we really need is public campaign financing, which would probably necessitate a Constitutional amendment, which would be most easily obtained through pressuring the individual state legislatures.

The biggest roadblock is campaign finance. Before the Supreme Court opened the floodgates, running campaigns was an expensive business. Now that there are no limits; the cost is growing rapidly. Because of this, the control which special interests (Read: 'corporations.') are able to exert over our political process is increased. The increasing cost narrows the field of potential candidates to the select few who can acquire the prerequisite capital. Furthermore; if they want to stay in office, they had better toe the line, lest some corporation, or lobbyist group write a six-or-seven figure check payable to their opponents' reelection campaign. As I've been saying; this is, clearly, a massive loss for the working class.

and you want to work within that same system to enact social change?

Again; what I want isn't really the issue. I want an end to poverty. I want an end to war. I want the physique of a 17-year-old, etc., etc.

At this moment; we are not living in a revolutionary period. The working class is not ready to seize the means of production. It doesn't even look like we're close. That being the situation; it is the task of Radicals to be on the front lines fighting for the working class, defending their interests when necessary, and when at all possible; forcing reforms, and enacting concessions to empower the working class. You do that by defending, or, ideally, expanding the welfare state. You do that by legalizing gay marriage. You do that by reforming our drug laws so more workers, primarily blacks, and latinos, don't get incarcerated. You fight these; 'right to work' laws which are a fucking blatant assault on unions. Etc., etc. As I've said; these battles, if we are successful, must, inevitably end in the White House, Congress, the courts, or the state legislatures. Believe me; if there was any other way... Now; if we acknowledge that, and we're serious about that, one part of that is determining who holds those offices. Does it make any sense to devote all this energy protesting, etc., for gay rights, and then not voting against a candidate who runs on a homophobic platform? How is that constructive?

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

NGM - you don't seem to understand the difference between political struggles and economic struggles, the offensive and defensive sections of class struggle respectively.

Political struggle is engagement with all levels of politics:

in elections for propaganda purposes (since the bourgeoisie will never allow a true radical candidate to win)
at the local neighbourhood level
at a national, campaigning level
including all protests, demonstrations and most importantly solidary, wildcat and secondary strikes leading to a mass strike that paralyses both the bourgeois state and the capitalist economy

Economic struggle is, in times of capital offensive, being able to defend what we already have:

limited hours working day
the existence of the minimum wage
welfare
working conditions
pensions
etc.

The economic struggle is not code for: 'right, there's no chance of revolution guys so lets hope for some reforms now since it's the best we can do'. That attitude, which you display so frequently and so wrongly in the name of radical politics, has nothing to do with being a revolutionary; it is straight up reformism and does little to help the working class, because in 2016 there will be a new President who will take away any little crumbs that activists have exhausted themselves in trying to grab from the Democrats' table.

It's a hopeless strategy and it's a continued source of annoyance to me that you peddle it on this board.

Oh and please, DO NOT de-construct this post and reply line-by-line. Just think about the bigger picture, ok.

[Dennis the 'Bloody Peasant']

Gays shouldn't be equal under the law because it condones a more selfish lifestyle that people with a conscience would rather not condone, not because they are homophobic, far from it, but because humans are happier when they are not selfish so people would prefer to condone and encourage what makes people happier and what is best for people and society.

Hehehe..oh you're not kidding!?
'Condones a more selfish lifestyle'...nope, nothing bigoted or homophobic there.
Idiot.

[graffic]

Selfish = "seeking or concentrating on one's own advantage, pleasure, or well-being without regard for others." I fail to see how not having children qualifies as "being without regard for others." You seem to want to reduce human relationships to the level of livestock breeding productively, which is a totally fucked up worldview.

You are in denial about what makes people happier. Men are happier with their own families. There's a number of people who swing both ways or have homosexual tendencies. If you legalize same sex marriage that person has an option to live for himself in a gay lifestyle and not reproduce or have his own family instead of being correctly swayed culturally towards the better and more fulfilling latter model.

Actually choosing to not have children does show a disregard for others. Giving life is a major component of our existence. The homosexual sex act isn't "sexual love" the same way that heterosexual sex is because a component of "sexual love" is to reproduce and to create. Heterosexual sexual love brings life, which is the opposite of death. To anyone with self-respect that makes that act more erotic and embracing than any other type of sex act.

That might not be a politically correct or "right on" opinion but I don't really care because in political terms the whole gay marriage fuss smacks of desperate popularity-seeking rather than a serious project. It's symptomatic of an elite more concerned with gesture than reality. It confuses equal treatment and equal rights with a corruption of language. The term 'marriage' is specific, and is rooted in the notion of a heterosexual relationship.

[Dennis the 'Bloody Peasant']

You are in denial about what makes people happier. Men are happier with their own families. There's a number of people who swing both ways or have homosexual tendencies. If you legalize same sex marriage that person has an option to live for himself in a gay lifestyle and not reproduce or have his own family instead of being correctly swayed culturally towards the better and more fulfilling latter model.

Actually choosing to not have children does show a disregard for others. Giving life is a major component of our existence. The homosexual sex act isn't "sexual love" the same way that heterosexual sex is because a component of "sexual love" is to reproduce and to create. Heterosexual sexual love brings life, which is the opposite of death. To anyone with self-respect that makes that act more erotic and embracing than any other type of sex act.

That might not be a politically correct or "right on" opinion but I don't really care because in political terms the whole gay marriage fuss smacks of desperate popularity-seeking rather than a serious project. It's symptomatic of an elite more concerned with gesture than reality. It confuses equal treatment and equal rights with a corruption of language. The term 'marriage' is specific, and is rooted in the notion of a heterosexual relationship.

YAAAAAAWN, yes, anyone who supports homosexual rights of any kind is just playing the PC card for brownie points blah blah blah. (Sure Obama may be doing this, who knows, but I'm not and I'm willing to bet most others on this forum aren't either).
But you're so right, if we let these selfish homosexuals do what they want and not make babies and / or have the wrong kind of 'marriage' or legally recognised union, we're doomed as a species. Doomed I tells ya!!
It's equally frustrating and amusing that you hold these views. Hope to fuck you never hold a position of authority or power.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

You are in denial about what makes people happier.

Perhaps you should allow people to have the relationships and families that make them happy.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

You are in denial about what makes people happier. Men are happier with their own families. There's a number of people who swing both ways or have homosexual tendencies. If you legalize same sex marriage that person has an option to live for himself in a gay lifestyle and not reproduce or have his own family instead of being correctly swayed culturally towards the better and more fulfilling latter model.

If people are happier with their own families, how does denying marriage to same-ex couples help them achieve happiness?

Actually choosing to not have children does show a disregard for others. Giving life is a major component of our existence.

As a bald biological fact, it cannot be denied that humans in general are capable of reproduction. But just because something can be done (in this case, having children) does not mean that something should be done.

The homosexual sex act isn't "sexual love" the same way that heterosexual sex is because a component of "sexual love" is to reproduce and to create.

So sterile people shouldn't have sex? Why not?

Heterosexual sexual love brings life, which is the opposite of death. To anyone with self-respect that makes that act more erotic and embracing than any other type of sex act.

Heterosexual activity does not necessarily bring life. See my point above concerning sterile folk.

That might not be a politically correct or "right on" opinion but I don't really care because in political terms the whole gay marriage fuss smacks of desperate popularity-seeking rather than a serious project. It's symptomatic of an elite more concerned with gesture than reality. It confuses equal treatment and equal rights with a corruption of language. The term 'marriage' is specific, and is rooted in the notion of a heterosexual relationship.

No it is not. Marriage is a contract. Why should same-sex couples be barred from making such contracts with each other?

[Jason]

It's because no matter how much the Dems shift rightward, politically "savvy" people will always consider them the lesser of two evils. Mitt Romney was so scary to them that they would drop all dreams of a viable alternative and vote Democrat, probably knowing full well that the Dems will betray them.

Perhaps Obama won because of the increasing Latino population which gains no advantage by voting Republican. Even Bush, who backed milder immigration reform (than most Republicans) only got 44 percent (Romney won 27 percent). Romney took a hardline against immigration which sealed his fate.