I’m certainly not gonna defend President Obama’s thoroughly milquetoast attitude towards LGBT rights, but I have heard some conflicting information about the DoJ filing.

I haven’t actually read it myself, but I know in passing that it is essentially pissing all over the LGBT rights movement.  At the same time, I’ve also heard the defense from other progressives that the filing made by the DoJ was standard operating procedure, and that they were legally required to do it - that they weren’t filing out of philosophical agreement so much as legal necessity.  The way it was explained to me was that it would be similar to a situation in which a conservative group were fighting some law pertaining to federally-protected abortion rights during the Bush Administration, and the Bush DoJ would have had to file in such a way as to defend the pro-choice laws.

Anyway, I’m not exactly sure what is reality here as far as what Holder’s office did or did not have to do.

I’m unaware of any statute that legally requires the DOJ to file a brief in support of the constitutionality of DOMA. I don’t think it’s strictly “legally required.” As a practical matter, it’s easy to see why the DOJ should be arguing in defense of the government’s interpretation of a law in general. But in a case like this it can get tricky. I don’t think the executive is forbidden from making a fresh assessment of the constitutionality of a law. And I don’t think the DOJ was ethically required to throw the kitchen sink into that brief. I’m not falling for “they had to do it.”

As for how this brief affects civil rights litigation in general—eh. The judge is free to dismiss the arguments. And had the brief not included those arguments, the judge would’ve still been free to dismiss the claim based on those arguments. There’s nothing novel in that brief. Anyone looking to rule that DOMA is constitutional would head in that direction. I understand that people are upset that gay marriage is being compared to incest. But you really do need to make stupid crazy arguments like that in order to convince yourself that DOMA is ok. I don’t think there is a reasonable good faith argument to be made in favor of DOMA. That the DOJ stated the case in right wing terms doesn’t make it more likely a judge will rule in favor of the constitutionality of DOMA, it just means that if the judge does so, he gets extra cover.

The brief is a betrayal, but I don’t find it legally discouraging. I do find it politically discouraging. As a straight person, I’ve made an effort to become more vocal with friends and family arguing against political expediency when it comes to LGBT rights. I’ve had some success with that. I’m ashamed of myself for having fallen for “not now” for so long.

The brief is here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/16355867/Obamas-Motion-to-Dismiss-Marriage-case

In this brief:
* Obama invoked incest and people marrying children ostensibly because same-sex marriage is a similar threat to society. The incest/underage issue case cited:

See, e.g., Catalano v. Catalano, 170 A.2d 726, 728-29 (Conn. 1961) (marriage of uncle to niece, “though valid in Italy under its laws, was not valid in Connecticut because it contravened the public policy of th[at] state"); Wilkins v. Zelichowski, 140 A.2d 65, 67-68 (N.J. 1958) (marriage of 16-year-old female held invalid in New Jersey, regardless of validity in Indiana where performed, in light of N.J. policy reflected in statute permitting adult female to secure annulment of her underage marriage);

* Gays have no constitutional right to marriage, or recognition of their marriages by other states
* The defense, by default, argues against Loving v. Virginia. For the child of an interracial marriage and a Constitutional scholar, this is beyond belief.
* Gays don’t deserve same scrutiny in court that other minorities receive
* Provides legal argument against gays’ right to privacy (guess we’re going back there again...)
* DOMA doesn’t discriminate against gays - all they have to do to get the benefits is get married to someone of the opposite sex.

DOMA does not discriminate against homosexuals in the provision of federal benefits. To the contrary, discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is prohibited in federal employment and in a wide array of federal benefits programs by law, regulation, and Executive order.... Section 3 of DOMA does not distinguish among persons of different sexual orientations, but rather it limits federal benefits to those who have entered into the traditional form of marriage.

Some of the arguments and cases cited are horrible and unnecessary regardless of whether the administration “had to” file it (that question is not settled).  See Chris@ Law Dork, ”Obama’s DOJ Did Not Have To Go This Far.”

What a cop-out.  If one of my staff accountants screwed up an audit and I issued the report, passing the buck wouldn’t get me off the hook.  The bottom-line is that the President sets basic policy and it is up to his people to enforce it.

But we already know Obama, despite his campaign promises, was on the wrong side of this issue.  He said so in his own words in one of his books.

I wonder - though I’m sure I’m being too optimistic - if the DOJ is throwing in all this bullshit to make it easier for our lawyer to take them down.

A former WHITE HOUSE ATTORNEY on why the DOJ DIDN’T have to defend DOMA:

http://www.americablog.com/2009/06/choice-to-defend-doma-and-its.html

Also: more about Barack Obama and the lawyers, a very long quote, from John at Americablog, but I doubt he’d mind, since he’s writing from his own experience as a lawyer on his own blog.

However, the paragraphs left out make John’s argument even better, so the complete diary is here:
http://www.americablog.com/2009/06/word-about-barack-obama-and-lawyers-in.html

“Lawyers get very sanctimonious about the law, and the need to obey the law and legal precedent, above all else. But, the law can be very fluid—and lawyers are taught in law school to find new ways to interpret words.

...So, the notion that the Obama administration had only one recourse yesterday—to file a brief in support of DOMA—is very narrow legal thinking. Sure, the brief was a legal document, but it was also very much a political document. It had the backing of the President of the United States. And anyone who says that Republican and Democratic presidents alike don’t let their politics influence their arguments before the courts is either a liar or terribly naive.

For some, the decision whether to defend or oppose DOMA is purely a legal exercise. For many of us, it’s our lives. I’m sure, along the way, Thurgood Marshall and the NAACP were told to back off on their challenge to Topeka’s segregation law. After all, that law had been unsuccessfully challenged already, and there was that very clear Supreme Court precedent on “separate, but equal.” The law is the law. Who was this political activist Thurgood Marshall to suggest it should be overturned?

It’s shocking how many people viewed yesterday’s DOMA discussion through their own purely intellectual, legal lens. The condescending tone from some of the legal types, both straight and gay - all Democrat - was insulting, demeaning, and horribly out of touch (with their own humanity). Gay Americans lost rights last November in California. We had fundamental rights taken away by an election. Think about that. When was the last time that happened in this country?

Yesterday, a Democratic President of the United States of America, in the year 2009, and an African-American child of inter-racial parents no less, gave his lawyers the go ahead to compare our marriages to incest on the same day that 42 years ago the Supreme Court ruled in his parents’ favor in Loving v. Virginia. And these people, along with our President, are suggesting that the appropriate response is to shrug our shoulders and go home, since, after all, the law is the law?

So, yes, I am advocating that we push the envelope and demand new and creative thinking on legal issues, on our civil and human rights. That’s how change happens (there’s that pesky word again). That’s what we expect from our President who promised change, who promised to be a “fierce advocate” for our rights. Yesterday’s homophobic brief would have met the expectations we had from George Bush (or Jerry Falwell). From President Barack Obama, it was an appalling betrayal of our humanity, and his own.

I’m sick of being separate, but equal. And it’s now clear that many of you agree. We demand our rights, and we expect this President, who promised them in exchange for millions of our votes and millions of our donations, to deliver. And so help me God, we will continue to hold this President accountable for his broken promises and his betrayals, to hell with the lawyers.”

Add to the mess: it was a Mormon Bush holdover who filed anti-gay DOMA brief:

“one of the three Obama Justice Department attorneys who wrote and filed the anti-gay DOMA brief
last night is W. Scott Simpson, a Mormon Bush holdover who was awarded by Alberto Gonzales for his defense of the Partial Birth Abortion act.

...No wonder the brief was so filled with hate and bigoted religious right talking points, such as comparing gay marriage to incest and pederasty. Obama let a Mormon Bush Justice Dept. employee create his public position on DOMA with the courts. This is really beyond the pale. I can’t wait until Obama let’s W. Scott Simpson write the brief in favor of overturning Roe v. Wade.”

http://www.americablog.com/2009/06/mormon-bush-holdover-filed-anti-gay.html

There’s defending the law, and then there’s giving bigots the go ahead to write discrimination into the law, with the added bonus of allowing them to include incendiary hate speech in that defense.

The fact is that we actually do not know what Obama’s personal views are on marriage equality for same-sex couples. And that shouldn’t really matter. Because we do know he was on record at one point as supporting marriage equality and then that changed. We also know that he now espouses the tired rationalization that so many Democrats rely upon: “Aw, gee, I’m all for equal rights, but my religion doesn’t let me get behind the calling it ‘marriage’ thing for you all. Sorry.”

I bet I can guess....LOL!

You’re still comparing being Black to being gay and it still ain’t working with Black people. And by the way - that picture collage is over the fracking top.

What you fail to comprehend is that, when it comes to most Black people in the USA, you have three major mindsets to contend with:

1) I am all for equal rights for gays, but I believe marriage = 1 man + 1 woman for religious reasons...so I can’t help you.

</b>

What about those who are both gay and black?

They always, somehow get left out of the equation.

And I don’t give a crap about what your particular sliver of bigoted Christianity “beliefs”—my brother and sister are gay, each with a partner over 30 years—which has real world consequences.

Over 30 years with their partners, my sister a doctor, my brother a business executive. And yet, if my brother loses his job (of over 15 years), he will be without health insurance because he can’t be put on his partner’s.

Because of your bigotry, my brother could die.

If either of them dies, the remaining partner could lose their house—because of your bigotry, the remaining partner can’t collect Social Security benefits from his partner.

Despite each of them having paid into the Social Security system for over 40 years.

Because of bigotry like yours.

Because you pick and choose between “abominations” in an over 2,000 year old document—when was the last time you stoned your neighbor for watching a football game on Sunday, sold your daughter into slavery?

Other “abominations” listed in Leviticus: eating shellfish, wearing a mixture of fabrics.

Eaten a shrimp cocktail anytime in your life, wore a polyester/cotton blend?

You are an abomination unto God.

Keep up the bigotry, Uhura, and I’ll gladly throw the first stone at you.

The Bible verse, “Slaves, obey your masters” was used by the South to condone slavery for hundreds of years.

Nice company you keep, Uhura. Slave masters and bigots.

By the by, my brother losing his job and his health insurance (and possibly his health and house) is no hypothetical situation.

The cutbacks at his job are coming closer and closer, and their house has a second mortgage.

His partner Larry is nine years older, retirement age, but he can’t afford to retire without Bill’s income.

So thanks to bigots like Uhura they each have to worry even more about a bad situation—because of bigots like Uhura.

Remind me again, why bigots like Uhura get to post their hate speech against my relatives on Pandagon?

Uhura, you still haven’t explained how giving gay the civil right to marry would affect you as a religious person in your daily life.

A gay person has a little leeway to disguise the condition he was born with(get married, have a ‘beard’ to pose as his/her girlfriend/boyfriend in public, etc) and can do little to change.

A black person, OTOH, can’t do much to change their appearance, unless they are willing to go out in public covered head-to-toe, or do what Eddie Murphy did here.

That you continue to stick to your tired illogic demonstrates how far civil rights have advanced in this country, since apparently ignorance is an equal opportunity employer now.

I’m going to repeat a previous rant. Where are the public gay leaders? Black people didn’t get civil rights by hoping LBJ would come around. Black leaders led black people in marches and demonstrations to put pressure on the majority establishment. Where is the gay MLK? Where is the gay Bayard Rustin—who was in fact black and gay, and a squeaky voiced gay to boot? Who will lead the Million Gay March? It’s summer time; let’s fill up the National Mall.

The most public face of gayness is sexpert Dan Savage, who pops up looking boyish on CNN every once in a while. That’s not going to cut it.

I agree 110% that Obama has been a complete failure in leadership in pushing for DADT and DOMA to be overturned.

However, and even after reading many of the articles linked by Pam, I have not found a compelling reason for the current Department of Justice to function like the DoJ during Bush; i.e. thinking they’re the President’s team of lawyers either in selectively defending or enforcing laws.

The quote from President Clinton’s civil rights adviser to the effect of “where the law conflicts with the policy, the policy wins out” is exactly the wrong approach. Regardless of the DoJ lawyers’ backgrounds, it’s not their job to lie down to compensate for the total failure of the Congress and the President to overturn these terrible laws (ironically, passed during the Clinton Administration where Mr. Socarides served). That’s Monica Goodling/Alberto Gonzales territory.

If there is latitude right now, it’s for the court hearing the arguments to find a way to declare DOMA unconstitutional.

Here’s the thing: the DOJ could have, in fact, made legal arguments for the constitutionality of DOMA without being that douchey.
--The “incest and underage” thing: I’m sure the DOJ could have found a case where a state ruled that a marriage between two first cousins was invalid in that state.  (The DOJ could have then put a footnote noting that Queen Victoria and Prince Albert were first cousins) In the New Jersey case, how old was the guy?  If he was 18, then a marriage between a 16-year-old and an 18-year-old is a massive lapse in bad judgment, but not deeply squicky.  Yes, here you have the brief tacitly agreeing that its argument is crap, but that’s because 1. It is crap and 2. It’s a political document as well as a legal motion. 
--Constitutional right to marriage: Hah.  I’m pretty sure Skinner and Loving explicitly recognize marriage as a fundamental right, which kicks in strict scrutiny.  DOJ could have argued a semantic argument - marriage has been traditionally held, yadda yadda yadda…
--Gays don’t get same level of scrutiny - to be fair, only race, religion, and a few other factors get strict scrutiny review when there’s no other issue in the case that requires strict scrutiny.  Gender requires only intermediate scrutiny (which, in U.S. v. Virginia (the VMI case), got a lot tougher… but it’s still not strict scrutiny).  So this point is technically correct as far as the current state of the law.
--Right to privacy - Didn’t Lawrence settle that?  What argument is there to make here?
--"It doesn’t discriminate against gays because they can marry people of the opposite sex” - is just breathtakingly stupid for two reasons: 1. You do not generally choose who you fall in love with; 2. Some people really are Kinsey 6’s; they’re incapable of being sexually attracted to a person of the opposite sex.  I can only pray that Senior Lecturer Obama demanded better arguments in his Constitutional Law class.

And yes, the argument I’ve outlined above does have more holes than a strainer.  But it’s merely infuriating, not horrifyingly insulting.

The peacetime consiglieri who lost Prop 8 still have not been blacklisted for life, which is what you do with people who throw a critical victory down the fucking sewer.

I will tell you how the conversation might possibly have gone.

POTUS: so what’s with this DOMA thing we gotta file?  What did Eric say?

The Rahm: Well the queers aren’t going anywhere, cannot fight their way out of a piss-soaked paper bag.  Meanwhile we want to get this healthcare thing done and we need southern votes.

POTUS: so what did Holder tell you?

The Rahm: He’s got a Mormon hard-on holdover from ‘43, writing the damn thing like Fred Phelps would.

POTUS: Fred Ph-

The Rahm: Sorry, lunatic fucking gasbag who hates the queers and protests military funerals because we aren’t anti-queer enough.

POTUS: I don’t need gay trouble, Rahm.  I don’t need any trouble.

The Rahm: Mr. President, I refer you to my prior comment about the queeritariat not being able to fight its way out of a piss-soaked paper bag.  Losing candidates for central committee in my part of Chicago are a lot smarter than the ahem machers in fucking Queers ‘R’ Us.  They cannot win in the state that gave us San Francisco AND West Hollywood, they don’t know how to talk to Black people.

POTUS: A problem I DON’T have.  Fuck’em, is that how you pronounce it, Rahm?

The Rahm: Hahaha!  We will work on your pronounciation of “shmendrik” another time, Mr. President.

what the hell is the *PROBLEM* here?!

i voted, and campaigned, and contributed, to and for a president who would do just a few things.

1) get rid of DOMA and DADT and make sure *everyone* has the same rights - so long as it’s consenting, no one *cares* anymore, and the guy i elected was supposed to make laws ensuring this.
2) fix healthcare, however that needs to be done, in the way that is best for the *PEOPLE* - not the corps, not the companies, not the providers - the PEOPLE who need healthcare.
3) extend women’s rights and protections - VAWA, rape shield laws, strengthening abortion laws so that we could have only 80% of counties not covered, instead of 87%. or, hell, i don’t know, 100% coverage. more birth control, no more stupid abstinence ed. etc.
4) even if he had to pull an “FDR”, starting to “fix” the economy. this should *NOT* include paying execs bonuses when they fuck up, should *NOT* include GIVING untold billions of dollars to banks WITH NO OVERSIGHT AND NO REPAYMENTs
5) get us OUT of these stupid, costly, illegal, destructive wars.

that was all. but those 5? SHOULD ACTUALLY BE HAPPENING. so far, by my count, the ONLY things Obama has done are give way to much fucking money to people who piss on it, and make pretty speeches in other countries.
while i grant said speeches may help us avoid *another* war, they’re doing JACK to solve the CURRENT war.

I think this lawsuit is the wrong way forward. IMO it would be better to win state by state, especially focusing on California. There are now 6 states that have legalized gay marriage, get it to over 25 then push for a total repeal of DADT. I think this could be accomplished within 5 years.

I meant DOMA not DADT and full recognition of gay marriage.

My husband’s three teenage concubines want to defend traditional, biblical marriage!

Remind me again, why bigots like Uhura get to post their hate speech against my relatives on Pandagon?

JudyB, what you need reminding of is how to read and actually understand what you’re reading.

JESUS H. CHRIST - why can’t people read for comprehension in here?

I was summarizing the views that equality marriage & LGBT activists face with respect to getting the “Black Community” on their side, not stating my own views.

Uhura, you still haven’t explained how giving gay the civil right to marry would affect you as a religious person in your daily life.

I can’t explain that, Dark Chow Mein. I am not a religious person.

Some of the people here had better not be at the helm of the marriage equality effort, because they don’t have the capacity to think strategically.

Sadly, rather than accepting what’s going on in people’s minds and then figuring out how to change it -you focus on whining and complaining about bigots and racists and religion.
The fact is - the bigotted, racist, religious nuts are preventing LBGT & marriage equality activists from getting what they want. You must figure out a way to convert them to your POV or you need to figure out a way around them.

That’s reality.

I say option 2 is the most likely to succeed.

Uhura, the Bible says I can sell my daughter into slavery.  What do you think would be a fair price for her?  She’s five.

According to the bible, gays are an abomination, and I believe marriage = 1 man + 1 woman...so I wont help you.

Sadly, rather than accepting what’s going on in people’s minds and then figuring out how to change it -you focus on whining and complaining about bigots and racists and religion.

Yes, that worked so well before, not complaining about bigots and religion:

According to the Bible, mixed-race marriages are an abomination, and I believe 1 white man + 1 white women.... so I won’t help you.

(To paraphrase many American Southern politicians from the last century and before).

I can’t explain that, Dark Chow Mein. I am not a religious person.

This is what I’d tell religious people:

“All mankind is of one author, and is one volume; when one man dies, one chapter is not torn out of the book, but translated into a better language; and every chapter must be so translated...As therefore the bell that rings to a sermon, calls not upon the preacher only, but upon the congregation to come: so this bell calls us all: but how much more me, who am brought so near the door by this sickness....No man is an island, entire of itself...any man’s death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind; and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.”

I don’t care about gay rights. I have other things to worry about....so I’m busy helping myself.

Nice set of ethics you got there, be a shame if anything happened to them..............

Counselor, your witness.

I’ve read and reread Uhura’s post, and nowhere does she differentiate her opinion from the “black people” who call the GLBT “abominations.”

She’s also pretty gleeful about posting it.

It’s hate speech, it simply repeats obnoxious talking points with no stats (just that “most” black people feel this way, supposedly.)

If we must have a troll could we please have one without the hate speech against my relatives, and a better writer? Please.

Uhura, the Bible says I can sell my daughter into slavery.  What do you think would be a fair price for her?  She’s five.

There’s also a story about a man who offered up his virgin daughters to a crowd intent upon raping two angels who had come to visit him.

The bible is full of tales which are very disturbing.

Judy, you’re being absurd. I never stated my opinion. That was not the point of that post.

Here was the major clue:

“...when it comes to most Black people in the USA, you have three major mindsets to contend with: ...”

It’s very obvious that I am summarizing the prevailing thought processes of OTHER people & not addressing my own viewpoint at all. But you either need someone to be angry with or cannot read for comprehension, so I will no longer respond to you on this topic.

Dark Avenger are you planning on confronting a religious person with those words? I would love to hear what takes place afterward.

I’m not saying your responses and that paragraph are wrong or irrational. I think it’s important to frame arguments in a way which your opponent understands or at least has a chance of listening to.

To answer the question this thread is based on:

What kind of leadership does the LGBT movement need?

In the case of marriage equality, I think the best path to success is to be strategic & work on changing the legislation. So, I think the leaders of the movement need to be rational & strategic, not emotional & reactionary.....focused on laws and not so much on the opinion of the Black community, the White Evangelicals, etc.

Dark Avenger are you planning on confronting a religious person with those words? I would love to hear what takes place afterward.

Yes, I’m not afraid of confronting someone with words that were written by another religious person,. words which I think is more in tune with what the founder of Christianity intended for people to live by, judging by the non-Pauline Scriptures.

Of course, my inspiration came from this passage from The Devil’s Disciple:

RICHARD. Answer for your own will, sir, and those of your accomplices
here (indicating Burgoyne and Swindon): I see little divinity about
them or you. You talk to me of Christianity when you are in the act of
hanging your enemies. Was there ever such blasphemous nonsense! (To
Swindon, more rudely) You’ve got up the solemnity of the occasion, as
you call it, to impress the people with your own dignity--Handel’s
music and a clergyman to make murder look like piety! Do you suppose I
am going to help you? You’ve asked me to choose the rope because you
don’t know your own trade well enough to shoot me properly. Well, hang
away and have done with it.

SWINDON (to the chaplain). Can you do nothing with him, Mr. Brudenell?

CHAPLAIN. I will try, sir. (Beginning to read) Man that is born of
woman hath--

RICHARD (fixing his eyes on him). “Thou shalt not kill.”

The book drops in Brudenell’s hands.

CHAPLAIN (confessing his embarrassment). What am I to say, Mr. Dudgeon?

RICHARD. Let me alone, man, can’t you?

I’m a bit bummed out by the Dalai Lama’s take on homosexuality, but then I console myself that it’s not like he’s God Almighty or anything like that.

Whatever, Whiteboy.

You did not address my inquiry. And you owe me an apology for your stupidity.

Not-Uhura, you haven’t earned anyone’s apology or respect.

Uhura;

whatever you are *trying* to say is being lost in translation.

you are not specifically stating “i think people think X”, and the *way* you are phrasing how you think other people think, really does look as if you are saying what YOUR actual opinions on gay marriage are.

if one person misunderstands you, it is obvious that there is a misunderstanding. if *everyone* misunderstands you, then you are not communicating effectively.

Uhura, do you think you could be a little more patronizing the next time you get a response you don’t like?

I really didn’t feel offended and put down, and I did answer your “inquiry”, just in a manner that you didn’t like. SFW?

I’m Chinese/Scottish/English/German, and if you don’t like what I post here, talk to the hand. That’s all you’ll get of an apology from me.

If I were a Christian of the type whose viewpoint you seem to sympathize with,if not advocate here(as denelian has already noted), I end with telling you how “I’ll pray for you, you poor, misguided thing”.

But I follow different traditions, so I’ll chant a few verses tonight, that you may come out of the cloud of fear and delusion that presently engulfs your mind and spirit.

Om, mani padme om.

OT: but i am chanting with you. because the “moni” chant is the bestest thing in the world sometimes. and today i have reason to need it. and you made me think about it when i should have thought of it on my own, so i am really grateful you mentioned it!

Sadly, rather than accepting what’s going on in people’s minds and then figuring out how to change it -you focus on whining and complaining about bigots and racists and religion.

No, we already understand what is going on in their minds.  They’re bigots and they have every right to be, and we certainly should call them on it.  But here’s the tricky part, so pay attention.  Nobody ever has to change their minds about the morality of being gay.  The only thing we as is that they keep religion out of politics.  It’s that simple.  They can hate gay people all they want.  Allowing gay people to get married will not infringe on their religious rights in any way.

Allowing gay people to get married will not infringe on their religious rights in any way.

But THEY don’t think this, Catgirl.

Anyway...I don’t think bigotry is a “right”.

Uhura, do you think you could be a little more patronizing the next time you get a response you don’t like?

Well...I could try...or I could just use the commonly employed method I see used around here:

Ah!!!!!!!  You are a trollllllll!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If I were a Christian of the type whose viewpoint you seem to sympathize with,if not advocate here(as denelian has already noted), I end with telling you how “I’ll pray for you, you poor, misguided thing”.

GTFO Paleface. I don’t sympathize with those hyper religious - pleasure is sinful - wimmin must be submissive - sex for procreation only - pray on it gurl types.

Once again, you melanin challenged marsupial:

What kind of leadership does the LGBT movement need?
In the case of marriage equality, I think the best path to success is to be strategic & work on changing the legislation. So, I think the leaders of the movement need to be rational & strategic, not emotional & reactionary.....focused on laws and not so much on the opinion of the Black community, the White Evangelicals, etc.

Now...I will leave you angry ignoramuses to continue your masturbatory conversation without further interruption.

But THEY don’t think this, Catgirl

That’s because they’ve been lied to by too many people.  We need to call them on their misinformation or outright lies.  Being nice and polite won’t get anywhere with them.  This is also why we shouldn’t allow people’s rights to be determined by a simple popular vote.

GTFO Paleface. I don’t sympathize with those hyper religious - pleasure is sinful - wimmin must be submissive - sex for procreation only - pray on it gurl types.

Ah, bringing in my skin color, that really adds credibility to your argument.

Now...I will leave you angry ignoramuses to continue your masturbatory conversation without further interruption.

I could respond with “No, you listen, you dark-skinned primate”, but that would be going down to your level.

Uhura, Your post was not at all hard to comprehend. That more than one person misunderstood it says nothing about you.

1000 Thanks to you TH.

Catgirl, I can definitely see the inherent dangers of allowing a majority to determine civil rights for a minority. In fact, I believe that it’s equivalent to mob rule.

I don’t see the utility in all the anger I’m reading here though. The energy should be aimed @ changing the legislation, not at changing certain people’s minds.

My skin in more of a medium brown...caramel colored actually. It’s quite attractive.

Again, could we please have a better troll than name-calling Uhura?

Again, could we have a remedial reading program for the folks who require it?

Calling her a troll is cheap and just wrong… judybrowni, have you actually processed the fact that you misread Uhura’s post where she described common mindsets towards GLBT in the Black community? Or are you just holding to the idea that she’s a antigay Christian troll? Why?

Can you blame her for reacting with some heat to continued misreading of her points?

Hector makes a very excellent point:

I’m going to repeat a previous rant. Where are the public gay leaders? Black people didn’t get civil rights by hoping LBJ would come around. Black leaders led black people in marches and demonstrations to put pressure on the majority establishment. Where is the gay MLK? Where is the gay Bayard Rustin—who was in fact black and gay, and a squeaky voiced gay to boot? Who will lead the Million Gay March? It’s summer time; let’s fill up the National Mall.

The most public face of gayness is sexpert Dan Savage, who pops up looking boyish on CNN every once in a while. That’s not going to cut it.

Where are this movement’s leaders?

“You cafe-au-lait-looking anacephalic member of the genus Homo.”

It’s quite attractive.

As was my grandmothers’ yellowish skin she having a Chinese mother and all that, but then I am beginning to think your real problem is that you can only think in terms of b(B)lack or w(W)hite.

What Shaw wrote, judybrowni:

BRITANNUS (shocked). Caesar: this is not proper.

THEODOTUS (outraged). How!

CAESAR (recovering his self-possession). Pardon him. Theodotus: he is a barbarian, and thinks that the customs of his tribe and island are the laws of nature.

3(Blah) Dark Avenger.

You misread my comments, ignored the parts you couldn’t pick apart - such as when I gave my opinion about the question posed in the opening post - & now you’re a pitbull.

Does anyone have a comment about the original question: What kind of leadership does the LGBT movement need?

now you’re a pitbull

And all unearned because of your dedication to civil discussion:

GTFO Paleface. I don’t sympathize with those hyper religious - pleasure is sinful - wimmin must be submissive - sex for procreation only - pray on it gurl types.

So..I speak in a colorful and vibrant manner...so what?

FOAD.

Because I also know how to speak in a colorful and vibrant manner.

What is FOAD?

Though you were the bright one here, Ms MBA.

This should help you figure things out.

Not understanding the aggression and distrust aimed at Uhura. I thought her original breakdown was reductive, but she’s given adequate clarification that I don’t understand how someone can think she’s pushing any of this as a great thing. Admittedly, I don’t track commenters from thread to thread so there might be some outside reason for people to distrust her. But based on what has been posted here, I’m not seeing the justification for the hostility.

Here’s the thing.Let’s say I have somehow offended these people in another discussion. Should we be dragging corpses from thread to thread? I mean, why can we not discuss the issues?

I mean, why can we not discuss the issues?

Let’s have a few corrections, as I’m a sickly yellow-colored monotreme, not marsupial.

Since you don’t think changing some peoples’ minds is doable, your plea to ‘return’ to discussion is most risible.

Remember, when you point the finger at someone, there are three fingers pointing back at you.

FOAD, Dark Avenger. Admit you misread Uhura’s first comment (which was quite clearly stated, and does not reflect well on your intelligence or reading skills), or FOAD. Please.

TikiHead, I didn’t misread her, as you can see if you read my first reply to her and do some thinking about it for a few minutes.

Even so, that wouldn’t justify her snarky remarks about my skin color being linked to my other supposed deficiencies, funny how you or other Uhura defenders don’t want to bring that up.

TikiHead, Not-Uhura is a consistently attention-seeking and racist troll. At this point, she does not deserve the benefit of the doubt.

Thank you for your observation, Rebecca.

For Christ’s Sake...The marsupial comments and others like it are just humor.

You & Rebecca misread the comment. Since you’ve already jumped on me, you can’t admit the truth.

OK - Let’s say for the moment that Avenger & Rebecca are right and somehow I stated my POV here:

...What you fail to comprehend is that, when it comes to most Black people in the USA, you have three major mindsets to contend with:

1) I am all for equal rights for gays, but I believe marriage = 1 man + 1 woman for religious reasons...so I can’t help you.

2) According to the bible, gays are an abomination, and I believe marriage = 1 man + 1 woman...so I wont help you.

3) I don’t care about gay rights. I have other things to worry about....so I’m busy helping myself…

Which one of the three is actually my POV? I mean....how can you tell?

#3, or this?:

Let’s keep it really real:

marriage equality in the state has begun to crack through the wall of homophobia within the black community

Ain’t gonna happen.

or

I am able to look @ behavior & see a pattern.

Then, you should be able to tell is what this ‘behavior’ you’re looking at consists of, and what is ‘the pattern’ that your special gifts that you see that is invisible to folks like me who aren’t black folks.

You can only get the world which actually exists to more closely resemble the world as it should be by understanding the former and figuring out a way to turn things around.

But, you start from the premise that things can’t be turned around, so your argument makes no sense whatsoever.

But from past posts here, I know that you are personally opposed to gay marriage, even if you’ve been secretive as to your reasoning behind your stand.

I encourage others to use Google to see who is closer to the truth, as a show of good faith.

Tiki… did you read *all* the comments here?

did you read the one that *I* addressed to Uhura?

because, i have to say - until she said other, i thought the first comment she made *WAS* reflecting her own, personal views.
i am not the only one who thought so. Dark Avenger, i am pretty sure, did not think that she was stating her own, specific personal views in that post.

but I did.
and so i wrote her a very nice comment, very mild, in the hopes that perhaps she would pick up the fact that her writing style is, in this thread at least, contributing to people misunderstanding her.
i don’t really mind Uhura. i don’t dislike her.
but she says some aweful shit - lke the crack above, “paleface” and etc. she has called a lot of people names based on the color of their skin, as long as (she thinks) their skin is white.

the way that she writes is VERY much like that of other people who WERE trolls. her basic style is enough to set many sets of teeth on edge, because we all have lots of experience with lots of trolls who write just like her.

again, i wrote a very nice a polite comment pointing out to her that many people misunderstood what she was say.

did she appologize?
no. she insisted that EVERYONE WHO TOOK WHAT SHE SAID AT FACE VALUE WAS STUPID.

this is not the first time this has happened WITH UHURA.

and, i have to say - when a group of people notice a specific set of behavior paterns in another person, they are going to start reaction TO THOSE PATTERNS. not to any specific thing - the PATTERN. everyone does this.

even i don’t know if she wants to engage in honest discussion or not, because despite what she claims, she pretty much NEVER starts off ACTING as if she wants a discussion. her tone and style are always aggressive, rude and inflamatory. if some one yells at you in an incredibly hateful and derogatory manner “YOU ARE PRETTY”, 99% of the time, all you’re gonna get out of it is the hateful and derogatory.
but repeated requests for her to take it down a notch, to be a little bit more respectful, have garnered nothing but further scorn and name-calling from Uhura.

Here’s what one commentator had to say to Uhura on a similar thread:

Allow me to make it plain: I am black and gay. If anyone can compare the discrimination and marginalization experienced by both communities, it is those of us who fall into both categories. For those straight blacks who are unable to accept the similar, continuing, and now greater stigmatization, by the majority, of the gay community, it boils down to simple bigotry: either their religious beliefs short-circuit the empathy necessary to understand the truth, or their ignorance informs an opinion that being gay is a choice, and I could happily have sex with and marry a woman, if I tried.

You can’t begin to understand what it feels like to walk into an interview, or a new job, and wonder if my coworkers are intelligent enough to hear about my boyfriend. To walk from the bar to my car at 2:00 am and wonder if I my outfit is so “gay” that I will be a target. To contemplate whether I would be allowed into the emergency room to see my boyfriend, after he was hit by a car two weeks ago.

At this time, I have no tolerance for ignorance, and I honestly don’t even care to explain. It is clear that one of our participants doesn’t even have the character to honestly present and analyze the animating emotions and prejudices that support her ignorance.

But from past posts here, I know that you are personally opposed to gay marriage, even if you’ve been secretive as to your reasoning behind your stand.

To be honest - I have no dog in the fight.

I am married and what other people do inside their marriages does not affect mine.

The thing is - I’m not going to attend any rallies in support of gay marriage, nor will I attend any opposing it. It’s just not a concern of mine.

You all can turn this thread into a troll trial; however, I’m moving on.

Sorry to say it, but I didn’t even read what that person wrote.

Denelian, did you take your meds this evening?

...when a group of people notice a specific set of behavior paterns in another person, they are going to start reaction TO THOSE PATTERNS. not to any specific thing - the PATTERN. everyone does this.

How dare you say that mob rule or mob opinion is justified in this troll trial but not for the gay marriage question?

Hypocrite much?

...Uhura is a consistently attention-seeking and racist troll. At this point, she does not deserve the benefit of the doubt.

The only people who give me “troll attention” are Rebecca, Denelian, & Dark Avenger.

Rebecca, Denelian, & Dark Avenger consistently turn the conversation away from the topic and make it about me (or whoever their target happens to be) and their speculations as to whether I am a troll (or whether their target is a troll).

It’s as predictable as a booty blow out after a big bowl of bran flakes.

Ugh…

The thing is - I’m not going to attend any rallies in support of gay marriage, nor will I attend any opposing it. It’s just not a concern of mine.

Then why do you become such a nay-sayer of what people say about the subject if you aren’t concerned about it personally?

Just because some ‘religious people’ might be offended by the tactics we use is no reason not to use the same tactics that were used on those who opposed interracial marriage and other civil rights for African-Americans based on their religious beliefs.

if it isn’t important to you, other than an excuse to tote your “expertise” about African-Americans, make remarks about peoples skin color first instead of responding to dialog with more dialog, or because your sensitive but stout ego needs to be fed, then find some other subject to engage on.

You all can turn this thread into a troll trial; however, I’m moving on.

Oh, did we hurt your widdle feelings?  Let’s everyone say “AWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW!”

Sure, just kiss my pasty yellow ass before you leave.

Sorry to say it, but I didn’t even read what that person wrote.

Of course not, responding would require thinking, and this thread demonstrates how well you do at that activity.

30

It’s as predictable as a booty blow out after a big bowl of bran flakes.

I can well believe you have finally revealed your area of expertise.

You know a lot about uncontrolled shitting.

Whatever, Whiteboy

You did not address my inquiry. And you owe me an apology for your stupidity.

Your inaccurate name calling means you go first.  I don’t tolerate this treatment from what my mother’s family used to call “white devils” and I sure as hell won’t take it from anyone else, white, black, red, yellow, brown, or albino(Just so the handful of albinos out there don’t feel left out.)

Then why do you become such a nay-sayer of what people say about the subject if you aren’t concerned about it personally?

Me = like to talk & analyze

You?

Just because some ‘religious people’ might be offended by the tactics we use is no reason not to use the same tactics that were used on those who opposed interracial marriage and other civil rights for African-Americans based on their religious beliefs.

But you’re not using the same tactics...what you’re doing is not only ineffective - it’s sad.

Oh, did we hurt your widdle feelings?  Let’s everyone say “AWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW!”

Nope - but it sounds like your feeling are hurt. :(

Of course not, responding would require thinking, and this thread demonstrates how well you do at that activity.

Wrong again. It’s not humanly possible to keep up with your Troll Accusation Onslaught.

Your inaccurate name calling means you go first.  I don’t tolerate this treatment from what my mother’s family used to call “white devils” and I sure as hell won’t take it from anyone else, white, black, red, yellow, brown, or albino(Just so the handful of albinos out there don’t feel left out.)

blah blah blah. This is the Internet. Grow some skin FFS.

“How dare you say that mob rule or mob opinion is justified in this troll trial but not for the gay marriage question?

Hypocrite much? “
first off, that IS NOT WHAT I SAID. i said that after a while, people START REACTING TO THE PATTERM OF BEHAVIOR THAT IS DISPLAYED. that was NEITHER a statement about mob rule nor a justification for such - it was a fucking EXPLINATION of WHY people are REACTING to you as they are now. not a justification, or an excuse, or whatever the hell else you might think it is - just a basic fucking OBSERVATION
second:

“Rebecca, Denelian, & Dark Avenger consistently turn the conversation away from the topic and make it about me (or whoever their target happens to be) and their speculations as to whether I am a troll (or whether their target is a troll). “

i, myself, me, I HAVE NEVER ONCE CALLED YOU A TROLL. i have, a couple of times, said to you that THE WAY YOU WERE WRITING AND YOUR CHOICE OF STYLE IS MEAN, and i have a couple of times said THAT YOUR NAME CALLING IS UNCOOL. and then, JUST TODAY, i pointed out that your writing and style and word choices and name calling REMIND PEOPLE OF OTHER POSTERS WHO WERE ACTUAL TROLLS. and i said this to, again, try to EXPLAIN to you why people are reacting as they do.

before this last bit that you wrote? i had no problem with, and was merely made uncomfortable by the WAY that you said some things.
now, i am really fucking pissed. AT YOU. for WHAT YOU SAID. because that? 100% untrue. i have NEVER called you a troll. until TODAY, i never even said to you “you SOUND kind of like a troll”. and most of the fucking time, when i DID comment on/about/to you, I DEFENDED YOU.

this is really goddamned hurtful and upsetting. and i predict, based upon your how you have been escalating this entire thread, that you will now A) totally ignore everything else i said, B) not appologize in any fucking way, and then C) insult and mock me for being upset.

Mods - could we get a banhammer in here, please?

To the owners / moderators:

1) I have been reading Pandagon for years now....since before Amanda took over the site. Remember “Get Your War On”? I was here for that. SO I am NOT a troll.

2) If you look @ how this thread degenerated - you’ll see the same attack pattern that you saw in earlier threads. These folks take the discussion towards Who is the troll? with a consistency which is hard to ignore.

God forbid people have different opinions & different writing styles.

Denelian,

I’m going to be dead serious for a moment:

I have no intention of mocking you, but please know that I am VERY VERYpissed off @ you for the part you played in what hapened in this thread....especially considering the emails you sent me....you know - the ones where you state that it’s pretty obvious I am not a troll.

My problem is trust - I have way too fucking much of it for my own good.

1) I have been reading Pandagon for years now....since before Amanda took over the site. Remember “Get Your War On”? I was here for that. SO I am NOT a troll.

Of course not, trolls don’t tell other commentators how much of an expert they are on ‘black folks’, not to tell ‘certain folks’ something, etc.That you’ve been around for a while and are perhaps scared shitless that you’ll be banned is most risible, but irrelevant, as the question is your behavior, not how long you’ve been hanging around the place.

2) If you look @ how this thread degenerated - you’ll see the same attack pattern that you saw in earlier threads. These folks take the discussion towards Who is the troll? with a consistency which is hard to ignore.

Dark Avenger are you planning on confronting a religious person with those words? I would love to hear what takes place afterward.

I replied in what I thought was a courteous manner,

Yes, I’m not afraid of confronting someone with words that were written by another religious person,. words which I think is more in tune with what the founder of Christianity intended for people to live by, judging by the non-Pauline Scriptures.

to which you made the reply:

Whatever, Whiteboy.

You did not address my inquiry. And you owe me an apology for your stupidity.

Nope, not trollish at all.

God forbid people have different opinions & different writing styles.

Dragging a commentators race/ethnicity/gender/etc. isn’t either of those qualities, God forbid that you figure that out someday.

BTW, I’m not in favor of banning you, seeing you squirm and lose any dignity you had claim to is enough for me. 

You’re still comparing being Black to being gay and it still ain’t working with Black people. And by the way - that picture collage is over the fracking top.

What you fail to comprehend is that, when it comes to most Black people in the USA, you have three major mindsets to contend with:

1) I am all for equal rights for gays, but I believe marriage = 1 man + 1 woman for religious reasons...so I can’t help you.

2) According to the bible, gays are an abomination, and I believe marriage = 1 man + 1 woman...so I wont help you.

3) I don’t care about gay rights. I have other things to worry about....so I’m busy helping myself.

This was your first post in this thread, Not-Uhura. You claim to be the sole authority on black people despite having been called out multiple times in other threads by other black people, whose comments you don’t bother reading. You utterly disclaim the opinions you posted by saying they’re OBVIOUSLY meant as a summary of the black community’s views and of course you support equal rights, while a simple search will find that you yourself oppose same-sex marriage and ignore every bit of this “attempting to change people’s minds” you so laud. You pretend to lead the discussion after absolutely derailing it while failing to offer any constructive suggestions. ("Be strategic and work on changing the legislation” without thinking about anyone else’s opinion? The nature of legislation is that it’s decided by bodies of people, whether legislatures or populations. It’s either change opinions or go through the courts. Try actually thinking before you post.) When called on your comments, you proceed to make racist comments about people with a better track record than yourself and accuse them of derailing.

How dare you say that mob rule or mob opinion is justified in this troll trial but not for the gay marriage question?

Hypocrite much?

Marriage is a civil right. Coming into someone’s house, setting up a tent in their living room, and insulting their guests is not a civil right, and neither is the equivalent on the Internet.

that was rather my POINT, Uhura.
i did not call you a troll. ever. but i did tell you WHY other people were reacting as if you were. i was trying to tell you, as nicely as possible, that in this particular thread, you started off with a very hard stance (and i was confused and appaled, which is why i didn’t say ANYTHING to you until you said it wasn’t what *you* thought, but that you were parroting others - because that first post? i didn’t see anything in your first post here that let people know it wasn’t *your* thoughts. i thought they were, at first)
believing that gay people shouldn’t marry doesn’t make you a troll. it does mean that i wonder why someone is *here*, but not automatic trolling (in my book. not that we play by my book here)

but me laying out what the specific things people were reacting to, how and why, trying to get you to be a bit less inflammatory, means that i am calling you a troll? THAT is where i got upset. instead of thinking (as i thought you would) something like “Denelian is trying to help me.” you went straight to “Denelian always calls me a troll on every thread i am ever on, to the point of derailing every thread i am on.”
which is untrue, both in the specifics of *this* thread, and the generality of the board.

step back and YOU read what happened here. try and pretend as if you know NONE of the people here at all, including yourself.

you see a post from a person, saying that All Black People are going to hate and resent All Gay People, no matter what. then you see a lot of people upset that the person said that. then you see that person say what is essentially “come on, you know i don’t believe that, i was just saying what other people thought” - when there was NO WAY for anyone else to know that at all.
then you see a third person make a statement to that person, suggesting that perhaps that first person is coming on a little strong and upsetting people more than s/he knew, or meant, to.
this is ignored.
you see the fight continue.
then you see the third person repeat his/her first observtion, with more words, and specific ideas. not as an attack, but again trying to get first person to be less inflamatory. why third person bothers is a bit of a mystery.
and then you see first person attacking third person for trying to help.

could i have phrased what i said more nicely? i don’t know. because what i said, even in the one you responded to, was pretty damned mild. and you ignored the one that was even nicer.
you apparently decided, based soley on the fact that i think you have been overly aggressive and inflammatory on *this specific thread*, that i somehow (when even *I* wasn’t looking) ATTACK and STALK and INSULT you across every thread you participate in.

my “part” that i “played” in this thread was the part of me saying “Uhura, i don’t think you are a troll. but other people do. you don’t seem to understand why they think that or what is happening to cause them to think that. but a large part of why some other people are calling you a troll is because of the writing style you use, you choice of words, and how agressive/inflammatory you are. and the fact that you are very aggressive in pretty much every thread, and never appologize when you upset people, even when they tell you specifically what upset them - you always say that it is *their* fault for not understanding you. after a while of being treated like that, people are not even going to try and understand what is behind your words; they are just going to take them at face value. and really, why should they try? when you just insult them for not understanding? maybe you could try a little harder to be understood. instead of just throwing inflammatory things out, you could explain what you mean by them, specifically, IN THE POST WHERE YOU SAY THEM”

that was the part i “played”. and, ok, fuck me for not thinking you were a troll, fuck me for thinking you don’t understand why other people react as if you are, and fuck me for trying to help you understand that and fix it, at least a little.

lesson learned.

You know what Denelian, more seriousness:

I’ll read that one more time when I’m not pissed anymore...perhaps sometime tomorrow. I’m sure that as far as you & I are concerned - this is a misunderstanding. And, I’m feeling like I should not have lumped you in with Rebecca & Dark Avenger. I apologize for that.

thank you.

i was not trying to make you feel “dogpiled” (is that the word we are using?). ganged up on? i was trying to help. i am sorry it wasn’t helpful.

Right now, I’m playing “My heart weeps for you” on the worlds’ smallest violin, Uhura.

thank you.

i was not trying to make you feel “dogpiled” (is that the word we are using?). ganged up on? i was trying to help. i am sorry it wasn’t helpful.

Now, I understand your intentions.

thank you for that, too, Uhura. and, again, i am sorry if i made you feel as if i were also attacking you.