Prominent Liberal Lesbian Commentator: "Don't Bet On Barack"

Now that the reverie over the Democrats' backlash-induced victory has worn off, gay liberals who view gay equality under the law as a real issue, rather than a wedge issue to win victory for their party, have started getting troubled. The Pelosi announcement that the anti-gay military ban is staying, and that gay issues in general were off the table, gave many pause from across the political spectrum.

The latest concern for the left is the Reverend Irene Monroe, who writes in the Advocate that:

Obama delivered a visionary keynote speech at the Democratic National Convention in 2004, when he stated, “There’s not a liberal America and a conservative America. There’s the United States of America. There’s not a black America and white America and Latino America and Asian America. There’s the United States of America…. We worship an awesome God in the blue states, and we don’t like federal agents poking around our libraries in the red states. We coach Little League in the blue states and have gay friends in the red states,” made him America's great hope for a better future.

As a supposedly bipartisan politician who understands and reconciles opposing views, and a non-doctrinal Christian whose personal identity and life journey shaped his lens to include those on the margins, why then, I ask, is this presidential hopeful not united with lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer voters on the issue of marriage equality?

more . . .

I'd suggest that Mr. Obama's lack of support for the rights of gays is nothing new -- it's virtually required these days in order to be a "rising star" in the Democratic Party of 2006. In fact, it was also required to be a rising star in the Democratic Party of 1996, as Bill Clinton's strong endorsement of the DOMA indicates.

Here's Libertarian Party presidential candidate Michael Badnarik on gay marriage:

My position on the issue of gay marriage is simple. Individuals have rights. Gays are individuals. Case closed.

...

The first marriage licenses were issued by the government in an effort to prevent or regulate interracial marriage. Marriage licenses were generated due to racial bigotry, and this marriage amendment is based on sexual preference bigotry.

Short, sweet, to the point, and a position that virtually every gay person can support.

Some argue that a vote for a Libertarian presidential candidate is a "no hope" proposition, that we should support anti-gay Democrats in order to achieve "something tangible." Well, presently, the Democrats have already delivered something "tangible" -- nothing at all. And after hundreds of millions of dollars and gay votes expended since the early 1990s on Democrats, Democrats still have nothing to offer gay families.

I'd humbly suggest that we can -- and will -- do much better when we support the candidates and party that supports us with the same level of votes and campaign cash, to illustrate to the Obamas, Pelosis and Clintons that our votes and support need to be earned, not bullied out of gays presented with the Hobson's choice of an anti-gay Democrat or even more anti-gay Republican.