Scruffypup saidTo the OP: I think you need to examine our options here. First of all, please name a president who's done more for gay rights. Secondly, who exactly is there to choose from that is more on our side than Obama? I would also remind you that politics is a very delicate game....if he were to come out and demand what you're suggesting, he would automatically lose thousands upon thousands of supporters, which would then open the gate for one of the nice Republicans to enter, and I'm sure you don't want that. Although I certainly don't agree with a lot of Obama's choices, I think he's played the balancing game quite well, and doing a lot for gay rights while doing so. Until there's a better option, I'd count my blessings.
I agree. And Sullivan's article in last week's Newsweek shows how Obama has accomplished a great deal by taking a long-term view, and working away quietly rahter than parading around with short term "solutions". I suspect that in his next term he will get a lot more done. Let's support him by electing a Democratic congress.
Some of you seem to have miss-read me here. My original point was that Obama’s speech went out of his way to call for giving special rights to illegal aliens (which would offend consevatives, and has no chance of being passed), while not also asking for the similar rights be given to gay citizens regarding immigration. Asking for equal rights (his speech was praised because it was said to be all about “fairness,” although the "fairness" did not apply to gays) would not cost him the election any more than asking for special treatment for illegal aliens. But he didn’t even ask. His speech is indicative of what policies are important to his administration, and gay rights is not one of them. He has shown his true colors on gay rights, yet again, by what he did not say.
I am not so naïve as to think that by Obama stating that he supported giving gays equal rights (in however a weak fashion he would have made that statement) that his support of equal rights for gays would mean that that would be accomplished in his next term. But I do not believe in supporting politically those who do not support us. I think it is foolish to support politically those who do not support your interests. I will support and donate to the democratic party – just not to the presidential campaign. If the democrats retain control of the senate (which they are most likely to do, and perhaps also gain a majority in the house), having a republican president would not mean the end of the republic. It would mean just another four years of stagnation, after which, considering the changing mood of the electorate, it would be even more likely to elect a real democratic president.
And as for White$Darks’s concern, “can we survive 4 years of Republican anti-gay Supreme court nominations?
Yes we can, as there won’t be changes in the political makeup of the court if Ginsburg resigns this year. (the only other possible resignation would be Scalia's, and it would be impossible for a republican to appoint a replacement any more conservative and anti-gay rights than Scalia already is.)