The Gay Agenda video blog: Sorting out the Obama critics

Is anybody here... ere... ere...

Echo... echo... echo...

 

I'm not sure if it's my computer, but everything is working correctly. :\

By the way, Jon is a MAJOR cutie.

Jen, you have a great new teammate -- the two of you really complement each other once you get going. This could be the gay political answer to the best years of Siskel & Ebert, a real interchange of ideas and perspectives.

I'm glad you introduced yourselves, Jen -- as a longtime Chicagoan and longtime reader of your column, I've been a fan of yours for some time. Now, in this new format, I look forward to this vlog in addition to your weekly newspaper columns. And, as you said, Jon, this is a transformative moment in American history. Having Barack and Michelle in the White House is going to change our country profoundly in so many ways and will do a lot to repair the damage done to our reputation as a global partner.

I'm not sure where I found the website, but the "smear" website that the Obama campaign has set up to debunk the rumors and innuendoes that you were talking about in this vlog -- that website will prove to be an important tool in terms of getting through to the truth so that Obama can put the smears to rest and spend his time talking about and refining his positions and issues that are important to this country.

Again, Jen and Jon, congratulations on your first vlog as partners. Keep up the great work.

Very interesting.  I agree with you completely.  I will certainly vote for Obama because to do anything else would be untenable, but I do have issues with him (as I did with Hillary).  Democrats--while they are better than Republicans almost every time--do have a history of throwing gays and lesbians under the bus in order to get elected.  Obama has been good with his speeches against homophobia but he's still opposed to gay marriage.  But, many of the smears, including many of those that came from the Clinton camp have been absurd--and yet people cling to them.

You raise a very interesting point about Democrats keeping the gay issue at arms length (especially regarding marriage) in order to get elected.  I've thought a lot about that issue, and I've decided that's OK with me.  The reason is simple:  coming out unequivocally in favor of gay marriage would make it extremely difficult if not impossible to get elected today.  If a republican is elected we get the following:  conservate judges less amenable to gay issues (the Supreme Court could be tilted for literally decades); more war in Iraq; possible war in Iran; lesser health care coverage; more prominence for right wingers and evangelicals; more likelihood that conservatives would be swept into office with the president; more reliance on fossil fuels and less of a push for alternative fuels; far less environmental activism; etc.  I'll take a little waffling on gay marriage to avoid all of those consequences, especially when the president doesn't decide the issue anyway.

I think Hillary is likely fully in favor of gay marriage deep down, and Obama probably is as well.  But they've made the hard-headed calculation that they can't get elected if they become overtly pro-marriage.

BTW, I've been saying for years that gay marriage is totally inevitable, simply because there's no rational argument against it.  When all that stands in the way of something is prejudice, then the outcome is certain.  The upcoming generation will embrace it in the future, and we'll look back at this issue like we now look back at women's suffrage.