Yes this and everything else Medusa said. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions and priorities on things, but to see President Obama get picked apart by queers everywhere (not just this site) really just makes me wonder when is anything every going to be good enough? I think more progress is made from rallying behind something than picking things apart.

I know the conservatives always vote and are a hell of a lot better at showing a united front. We can pick apart President Obama and usher in another conservative Republican president. Yeah that will really help our cause.

Maybe nothing will ever be good enough. I sure hope not! What is wrong with striving and continuing to work? Hey the civil rights act was passed and everything is good now! Hey the first wave of feminism fixed it all up and everything is good now! Woo hoo a post racism, post sexism and very soon post homophobic world!

I fail to see how discussing things makes me some big party pooper.

I voted for Obama last time and I will this time and would have even if he had not said publicly his view on gay marriage. He said it before he was President. I get that it is more meaningful now. I still am bummed though that he left it to the states. Maybe he will change that view.

I prefer to build on victories. Momentum in a positive direction has the ability to change things.

So how is talking about what needs to be done in the future not building on victories? What does that mean to you? I am not being snarky with the question. Are you upset because there is not a longer period of celebration? To me Obama speaking out publicly is not a victory. Signed legislation is a victory. Court cases that set precedents are victories. I am very pleased to hear the President say clearly that he supports the right of same sex couples to marry.

I think perhaps you're not considering the cultural weight and ramifications of his statement and how it might positively affect ALL situations. Much remains to be seen. Much needs to be done. But it's one of the few times we've moved forward instead of backwards. At this point, there is no legal weight, but there is a ton of political weight. Sometimes a seemingly single issues such as gay marriage is a "gateway drug" to bring more change and awareness.

maybe so, blush. i really, honestly, truly hope you're right. that's not been my experience. my experience has been people say "wait and let us get our little bit of whatever rights we want, and it'll trickle down to you" and it never does. people get their rights and they suddenly forget about all the people they're leaving behind.

I have been hearing many folks toss around terms like "normalized" and "mainstream" as though these are dirty words and "real" equality warriors don't want families. I find this especially laughable given that many of these so-called "mainstream" queer folk have endured the same hatred and discrimination. Do we really think Phelps is going to distinguish his hatred between mainstream and non-mainstream queer folk?

It's like Reaganomics for the queer world, isn't it? :blink:

It gets heated because it is so important (all of it)and we shouldn't have to fight it.

phelps isn't, but a lot of other people do.

we live in a society where we have a certain conception of what normal looks like (usually male, white, middle/upper-class, able-bodied, cisgender, monogamous, for starters). everyone else tends to be judged by how well they conform to that idea of normalcy. we police people's identities based on that conception of normalcy. some people who don't fit into those categories have some amount of acceptance, but that acceptance is always conditional and can be easily taken away.

so, for example, being a woman - if you are a woman who's monogamous, white, and middle class, and you have the right job and you dress well and you stay inside certain lines, you have a certain amount of safety because you are trying to conform to the best of your abilities. if you are poor or a woman of color or a sex worker or fat or otherwise not a "good" woman, you are policed. and sometimes even if you try as hard as you can to be a "good" woman according to the standards of our society, that one time you get raped they'll try to find ANY indication that you weren't "good" and you'll get smacked upside the head so fast.

i don't think there's anything wrong with being a monogamous, white, middle-class lesbian couple who just wants to get married and live in suburbia. i do think that that vision of what "queerness" is is what gets privileged. i do think there is a problem with saying "all queer people want to be just like you normal straight people! we're all mainstream!" because those of us who don't fit heteronormative society's ideas of what mainstream looks like then end up getting labeled as "bad queers." we're setting the movement back. recently a friend of mine who's a bisexual middle class 20-something white cisman with a nice professional job, living in suburbia, said, "god, those crazy queers at pride parades and you poly people are making us look bad." if i had a nickel for every time someone told me that...i'd be a wealthy woman.

i don't have anything wrong with mainstream people. i think mainstream people deserve rights as much as the rest of us. i'm not saying every middle class lesbian who just wants to get married and live in suburbia needs to go live on the streets and be homeless. the problem is mainstream people tend to get rights and the rest of us tend to get left behind, in my experience (at least with the mainstream feminist and disability movements). i know so many straight people who are like "i'm all for gay marriage, but all that partying and hookup culture and crossdressing and stuff is just icky and gross." if we look like monogamous middle-class straight (mainly white) couples, it's sorta kinda okay. other expressions of queerness are not okay.

obviously some straight people will never accept us no matter what. but it is true that if you try hard enough to conform and you don't have certain markers that automatically put you outside of the mainstream, you can get a little bit of conditional acceptance. and that's great. but it can be taken away in a heartbeat because that's how the society we live in operates. (and as we've seen with violence against poc and with the recent war on women, just as examples, it can be taken away from you no matter how much legal protection you think you have.) and some of us will never even have that.

Yanno, you're absolutely right. And so is Ender on this one. I shoved my thinking through a shit-ton of my white privilege. Sorry about that.

Putting it beautifully in Australia

Again,

Thank you President Obama for saying what you did about Gay marriage. NO other sitting President has ever done that.

I will not participate in picking apart what he said.

I never ever thought a day would come when I was not afraid to walk down the street or go in a bar without being killed or ending up in jail.

I am grateful and proud of President Obama.

White, middle class people are not the only people who get married.

I was waiting for someone to say that.

My point, exactly. Trans people of all income levels get married. Very poor people get married. The benefits to them are many, and that seems to be the issue here. Why are lgbt people who don't believe we should be working on marriage equality in the habit of telling me that marriage is a privileged state precisely BECAUSE it brings financial benefits? If it's so privileged, why is it just as easy for a poor person to get married as a wealthy one? And, what's wrong with anyone accessing a state that brings some financial stability?

I don't have the energy to search through this thread to find Ender's post wherein he asserts that there's no real benefit to bi-national couples who want to marry. That pissed me right off, but I'm already so irritated that I decided not to answer. That's a flat out ridiculous assertion, and there are a few people on this site who would be breathing fire if they were to have read it because of how deeply their forced seperation hurts them. There are far too many lgbt binational couples who are kept apart by their inability to marry. Amongst my friends, the butch member of the binational couple in the direst circumstance due to marriage inequality is a low-income woman of colour. There, now. Does that mean you can care about marriage equality now?

There are people in this thread whose sole argument against marriage seems to be that minorities won't have access to it. That's crazy. Straight people don't have to be white to be married. In fact any old poor, non-white, sex-working, non-monogamist with a criminal record can put a ring on their beloved's finger, provided they're of the opposite sex. But not gays of any ilk*.

In my own life I've had TWO ''gay" marriages. One to a TRANS MAN from a working class background (as am I from a working class background) and another to a woman who was NON WHITE and wasn't even born in the western world. Part of the reason we broke up was because she wanted to return to her part of the world which didn't recognise gay marriage (the other part was because she was an asshole, but enough about that).

Earlier I posted a link to a Facebook page. If anyone believes that Bi-national couples don't need marriage, please click on it.


*depending where you live of course

I admit to not reading every single post, but I think I pretty much have the jist here.

Not to sound ageist here, BUT, I do think that age may play a part in how significant one sees this announcement.

First, living history is different from reading/hearing about it, so the feeling of validation from the President after spending a chunk of your life sneaking into gay bars, or just worrying about being beat the hell up (with societal support), is pretty damn powerful.

Additionally, for those of us who are looking ahead to retirement and death, we tend to think about what we will need as we age and also what we will be leaving to our partners (including social security benefits). When I was in my late 20's or early 30's, this stuff wasn't as important to me. Now that I am 41 (and also had a serious health condition), I do.

I guess I am saying two things. One is tangible and one is not. Both are important.

One, for some of us Obama's announcement is the highest validation that we are just people, just like anyone else. We haven't heard that before. There is reason to believe that this will trickle down to how N. American society views, and then subsequently, treats us (like when I, a butch, am laying in a hospital bed and need my pain pill, the nurses might not move as slow to give it to me as they do now).

Two, there is more hope now that I will be able to marry my partner and she can get my social security benefits at my death. Yeah, that is a big deal.

Late for work or I would clean the above up a bit. Hope it makes sense.

Pardon me for jacking the thread. Not trying to belittle anyones point here. I agree on boths points. There's no shortage of identities except for human identities. But, I think I missed the part about Prop 8 and how big business (aka money) influences politicians and the media. I just can't think of a time in herstory/history when this was'nt true. Where there is money, folks will use it to influence politics. Hell, there's almost no point in being rich if your not going to use it to control politics and the media and the environment, and I don't think this is ever going to change.

Ya know I get that words are not legislation. But it is also true that you cannot legislate acceptance. Therefore it is also useful to have people in the public eye, especially respected individuals, advocating acceptance. Yet we do need the legislation. However to get the legislation before the acceptance is not without its own set of difficulties. I imagine you could pass a law making bigotry of any type illegal and you would not have any less bigots just more criminals.

Still laws need to change, however when they do it does not guarantee much of anything except exactly what the law allows. If you are allowed to marry then that’s exactly what you will get. No more, sometimes less, like when someone refuses to marry you because it’s against their religion, or if you can afford and want a wedding some will still be able to refuse to plan your wedding or allow you to hold your wedding in their establishment because of religious concerns. Perhaps because they advocated enthusiastically for the preservation of their particular version of human rights.

When humans are not allowed to exercise what are considered human rights there needs to be a law in order for many of us to have any recourse, because clearly human rights are not a guarantee for all human beings. And for many of us humans they are non-existent unless specifically legislated.

Legislation won’t change the fact that some people will still hate queers of any ilk (or hate some particular ilk much more energetically and emphatically than other ilks) and wish us nothing but pain and misery and even participate in various activities geared toward ensuring that we suffer pain and misery abundantly. But it will make certain activities geared toward creating specific pain and misery against the law. It will also add a small measure of protection in the form of consequences for breaking the law and trying to withhold the specific human right a specific legislation has granted us. And whether we personally want that right or not it’s still in all our best interests that we are validated legally as being worthy of a specific human right. I get that doesn’t mean diddly squat in regards to the plethora of basic human rights many of us are still denied.

It also won’t change that some of us can and some of us will choose to join mainstream society. It won’t change that some (queer republicans come to mind) willfully, even cheerfully participate in their own oppression because they realize that the oppression of the rest of us, even if it means that they are also minimally oppressed in one aspect of their lives, is of more financial value to them than personal freedom and that equality in any form simply means less for them.

It won’t change that some of us are myopic and see the world through a very privileged lens. It won’t change that some of us only have interest in what personally affects us and when we get what we want we go back to apathy, beer and baseball or whatever entertains us. It won’t change much, but it will require one particular human right to be available to one group of human beings previously denied it. And to me this can never be a bad thing.

I guess I am trying to understand what exactly is being said here. If you are against gay marriage could you explain specifically what gay marriage will do to oppress certain segments of the queer population? Is it that it drains too much energy from various movements? Or is seen as the only legitimate movement? And if you are not against gay marriage per se, could you explain what you are against surrounding gay marriage.

I have to add that the fact that without Canada’s federal recognition of same sex couples rights to immigrate Truly Scrumptious and I would not have been able to live together and that might make it difficult for me to understand another point of view. Neither of us are occupationally or financially privileged so we would have had no way to circumvent the immigration laws in the US. Family class was the only possible avenue open to either of us for immigration. So without Canada’s immigration laws it would have been exceedingly challenging, probably impossible, for us to be together sharing our lives every day (at least legally). I get that kind of relationship is not for everyone but it is for some of us and I doubt that sexual preference, class, race, gender, sex, intelligence, or even mental health dictates the existence of this need in an individual. Besides I don’t believe human rights are rights because they are popular or because everyone wants to exercise them.

Some thoughts
 

I don't blend in with society's version of normality I'm also one of those people who feel I should not have to argue, prove, or debate my civil rights. I'm glad Obama took a stance but I'm also aware that what will trickle down as far as benefits will be so for those who do want to marry. Marriage shouldn't garuantee my rights that to me falls under that whole binary you gotta be married to be validated. I'm also ELATED that those who can CAN!

I think Obamas gay marriage endorsement is a tool for all of us under the LGBTQI spectrum to get out there and fight, not stay silent, change legislations etc.


"I" would love for this to be a Federal law not just state to state. I'm also very aware unless we (queers,gays,etc) do something it isn't going to happen overnight.


My kids have it a tiny easier because change has happened.

This is frustrating. I support marriage equality 100 percent! I am extremely pleased that President Obama has publicly stated that same sex couples have the right to marry.

Ok. So now let's look at what exactly he said and how that affects the still ongoing fight for marriage equality. DOMA, while not being defended by his Justice Department, is not on his agenda to repeal. He said that on The View yesterday. Without the repeal of DOMA same sex couples will not enjoy the rights of tranferring social security benefits, having access to federal pensions, enjoying federal tax treatments for married couples or surviving spouses, and immigration. These are all things that have been mentioned in this thread that will not be changed by what President Obama said.

We are still in the same space as before. Yes we have recognition and that is very important!!!!

The second issue is the emphasis on gay marriage as THE issue facing queer people. It is one issue. Everyone has their idea as to how marriage equality will affect other issues queer folks face. I have heard compelling arguments on either side. I do not understand why we have to all be if the same opinion.

I'll be 60 the end of June. Trust me on this: Obama is not the enemy. Obama does not deserve being picked apart. I am stunned that in my lifetime a sitting President has vocally supported homosexuals and marriage for homosexuals............stunned. I am stunned Obama got rid of DADT.

Why on this earth are we taking Obama to task for being a vocal supporter of equal rights? It sounds like a bunch of whiney kids who are having a temper tantrum because they only got 1 scoop of ice cream instead of 2 scoops.

The real enemy (in the US) is fundamentalist evangelical Christianity. Here is an interesting blog about how it is chasing many many many folks away from Christianity.

http://rachelheldevans.com/win-cultu...north-carolina

I don’t care to have to argue, prove or debate my civil rights either. Yet, nobody is offering to give them to me. And I sure don’t fit society’s idea of normal. That’s not likely to change any time soon either. And I’m very okay with that. Nor do I believe gay marriage is the only gay issue. As far as human rights issues are concerned it’s not even in the top ten. That said I certainly support gay marriage. And although Obama’s personal declaration concerning queer marriage is not going to translate into legislation at this time, it is acceptance on a personal level and that has value. You cannot legislate acceptance. You cannot legislate public opinion. You cannot pass laws that will erase bigotry. That happens gradually over time and movements in that direction are just as important as legislation in my opinion because once you have acceptance legislation is much easier to come by. Although traditionally it is not done that way. It is usually civil rights that are legislated and then with any luck acceptance follows a few hundred (sometimes a few thousand) miles behind.

I have to say I am having a bit of a difficult time understanding what is going on in this thread. I'm not following it. I'm not even sure where the dissention lies exactly. People seem to mostly agree or maybe it's just that I don't get it. I don't know where the paths diverge, except maybe in regards to the level of importance that should be placed on Obama's declaration. Or maybe on gay marriage? Too much thinking makes my head hurt.

I specifically started the thread because we ALL have different opinions on what's going on politically with "gay marriage" being a focus. We all aren't going to be shaking our head yes yes yes, some will stop think others may not.

The article I posted has some things I agree with others not, it certainly is nor has my opinion been stated by whining, shredding Obama apart or demonizing the marriage thing.

I expected different views and opinions with some being agreeable some not. It's not a pick a camp thread I'd hoped it could should be a conversation that could be civilly had knowing not everyone has to or will agree.


Opinions are just that, opinions

!
 

PS

I also agree strongly Toughy, religious hands are way to deep in the government cookie jar but that's a whole other thread and a whole other brain aneurism:|

I personally believe that one day, hopefully soon, gay marriage will be on the national level. It wasn't that long ago, in my lifetime actually, in which whites and minorities (not just African-Americans) could not marry. One by one, the anti-miscegenation laws were struck down until 1967. Then as now, it was the Deep South who were the last to get rid of them. Gay marriage will do the same.

The Zealots don't share this viewpoint, they see interracial marriage being accepted finally as "natural" between man and woman. The Christian Nation is defending the sanctity of natural marriage what we do according to them is against scripture. Churches are SCREAMING in anger that Obama is betraying Christian law.


A law that has no business in Government buy I'm telling ya that's a whole other thread about us (queers) and Zealotry running this nation.

Yes, and as with basic human rights equitably assured for all, it is certainly something we can hopefully achieve.

I don't need someone's approval or acceptance about who I love or fuck. If it was illegal, lets face it in some places it is, I would have to be more careful. As a human being I want the same rights as everyone else, of course, however having lived in this USA I can't support any government venues. The whole thing with marriage, paperwork, etc is a big turn off to me. I understand equality but if you think about we have never ever been treated equal and as women we may not see that day in our lifetime. I also feel like its a sell out on their part and although I think Obama is a fucking great president I don't trust any of them.

I don't need legal marriage to show my love and devotion.

I am finding some of the posts in this thread disturbing and a bit mind boggling because it seems that the message is: if you're not exclusively cheerleading Obama in response to his announcement then you're a naysayer and a nitpicker and a parade-pee'er.

What is wrong with looking critically at the Presidents' actions and words?

I think Obama is a fantastic President. I admire him. On some issues I don't agree with the choices his administration has made. On other issues I am 100% behind him. I consider his bravery and progressiveness in relation to the LGBT rights groundbreaking, but let us be honest, the bar wasn't set very high (in terms of presidential support for equality). I think Obama publicly supporting gay marriage is amazing, unexpected and quite possibly political suicide.

I voted for Obama once and I will vote for him again, he already had my vote prior to his announcement and despite my critical view of his administration.

And I strongly agree with the posts of aishah and julieisafemme (and a few others), I believe we must CONTINUE to take a critical view of all of our political leaders. I believe we must keep our eye on the big picture, which includes a number of different legal rights, not just marriage.

I believe that "gay marriage" is one piece of the pie when it comes to LGBT rights. It is potentially a large piece of the pie IF (and only if) DOMA is repealed and legislation happens on a federal level.

While DOMA exists, marriage equality does not.
As an aside, I far prefer the phrase/term "marriage equality" to "gay marriage" which sounds a whole lot like "special rights" to me.

I live in Massachusetts, I've had the legal right to marry for years. I'm very proud of my state and grateful for the rights it affords me and very-very-very aware of the rights my state has no ability to give me (federal rights). I expatriated for this reason. I continue to funnel my resources in to immigration equality because my lack of rights impacted me so deeply.

Meanwhile...there are so many other pieces of the pie to be advocated for, to be fought for and to be won. And Obama saying he supports gay marriage, while a wonderful endorsement, does not equal legal change on any front.

It really bothers me that taking a critical view, not only of Obama's announcement but also the actual and potential legal and political ramifications of the announcement (or the lack there of) is labeled "picking apart" the President!

I celebrate Obama's announcement, I tip my hat, I salute him, I throw a virtual ticker tape parade for his announcement.

And I want more - I want full legal parity.
I want my basic human and civil rights. Full stop.

And I will not stop taking a critical view.
I hope, when the virtual confetti is swept off the virtual streets, the rest of our community won't either.

Hmm well I am not some mindless cheerleader.

Those taking a "critical view" - what exactly is it that you want? What should be done differently?

I believe in riding momentum for all of it's worth rather than sitting around and criticizing. I think we have a better chance of positive change with that type of strategy. That's just me.

I think everyone is well aware that same sex marriage is not the only important issue in this world.

Perhaps we have different views of the language I used...

I think taking a 'critical view' and 'criticizing' are wildly different, in connotation and denotation.

Taking a critical view is saying: "I'm proud of my president AND I'm really concerned about how marriage equality can be achieved while DOMA continues to exist? how do we move forward from here? what are the next steps? how can we capitalize on this endorsement?"

criticizing is saying: "our president sucks, he should have said this 4 years ago, this is all motivated to win more votes, he's disingenuous, he doesn't care about us and I think his tie was really ugly."

Yes how can we capitalize on the momentum- I believe that is something many people could agree on. I do think those of us who find the President's announcement to be a positive thing are quite aware there is much more work to be done. I think President Obama is aware of that as well.

I agree that the President is aware of that as well.

And the part I bolded, that is what I am responding to - I haven't seen anyone in this thread who has not said they think "Obama's announcement is a positive thing". And that is why it bothers me that people posting views in this thread that go beyond unequivocal cheerleading have been labeled as "picking apart" and diversive.

Pretty much everyone (in this thread and that I personally know) thinks Obama's announcement was a great thing and that it has very positive cultural and political ramifications AND some posters continue to analyze the political climate, the legal status of LGBT rights and continue discussing a strategy for leveraging that endorsement in to legal change. And doing so does not take away from the awesomeness of Obama's public announcement.

Well I certainly don’t need anyone’s acceptance, approval, understanding or permission to love anyone I please or to be exactly who I am. And I also want my basic human and civil rights. I do not plan on stopping wanting and advocating for them until I have them and then until every human being has them or until I stop breathing whichever comes first. However, I am very clear on the reality that I cannot achieve this alone or with only others like me. I do not need acceptance and approval on a personal level. But we all need it on a political level if we expect to achieve equal rights. I didn’t understand people’s posts about the good that can come from Obama’s statement as a cry to stop taking a critical view. I don’t believe politicians are anything but pawns for the financial elite who bought and paid for them. I have more than a critical view of all political figures. But again we cannot achieve anything alone. It is necessary to have support to affect change. I can understand both the impotence legislatively speaking of Obama’s statement and the monumental importance of it. I have seen many going beyond unequivocal cheerleading that have been quite delighted with Obama's statement. I don't think it is only those who are not unequivocally cheerleading who are taking a critical view. I also haven't seen all those not unequivocally cheerleading being labeled as "picking apart" and diversive.

We are definitely reading some of the posts as well as the original article quoted differently then.

I think you are over stating things on your end. I am not looking for cheerleaders.

I think those of us on the left have a tendency to shoot ourselves in the foot when it comes to strategy and trying to work towards positive change.

There are queer issues that wouldn't affect me directly- such as trans sex/trans gender that I would still support. I would support them because of people I care about personally as well as my community. It would also be smart in a strategic sense.

The anti-marriage queers don't want certain legal rights to be attached to marriage. I can see the point, but truly I would like to make some progress instead of holding out for the Revolution which may never come.

I sincerely hope it comes and soon. But I do agree with your point.

Thank you Sparkle! The only thing I am picking apart are the public policy questions that will lead to federal legislation recognizing same sex marriage. I am from California and Prop 8 was such a painful blow. I could not believe the voters did that.

What if, G-d forbid, Obama does not win? What if we cannot get change on the federal level in the next four years and the next administration seeks to strengthen DOMA?

What if everything goes well and marriage equality is the norm and the rest of the LGBT issues are put on the back burner for another decade?

I don't necessarily have answers for all these questions. I am just asking them because I want to know what others think.