Yes, to clarify...I don't literally mean that Barack Obama is gay :)  Just playing off of Toni Morrisson's line re Clinton. 

Lets hope that he isn't like former presidents and not follow through with what he said while he is campaigning. It seems as though he is headed in a good direction by appointing seven openly gay or lesbian officials to his transition team. 

I think it's important to be sensative to the rights that all humans need to survive, feel safe and be able to advance within their environment, community and nation.  Being gay and or lesbian is a choice such as being heterosexual is a choice of free will.  The understaning that being born with certian feelings and or urges to one sex or another does not remove that ideal that one chooses maintain or refrain from a specific lifestyle.  When considering Gay rights, I feel, (and this is only one person's opinion), that "Gay Marriage" is an oxymoron...I understand and will teach my children that marriage is a union between one man and one woman ordained and blessed by God.  So If one chooses to engage in a same sex long term relationship you must invent a new title for this type of union.  I do not agree with the act of homosexuality, however I love people and have often heard people same that my sexuality is not who I am it is just part of me.  So with that said, I have never had difficulty maintaining friendships and relationships with those individuals who choose to be and or are gay/lesbian.  God loves all people and wants people to be treated with respect, love and kindness.  It is the things that we do that he has a problem with.  No one is perfect and no one should point the finger.  We all live under free will.  I live according the Word of God and will not judge anyone for their lifestyle or choice but that does not mean I have to agree with one's lifestyle or choice.  Love people. Don't hate people, hate their actions and know how to discern the difference.  Obama has never claimed to be gay, so be careful because it's a sensitive subject and can lead to confusion. 

My Canadian spouse explains my America dilemma correctly.

He says that the Republicans wish us ill and do us great harm; while the Democrats wish us well but do us no overt harm and do us no good at all."

President Clinton - the penultimate pragmatist and triangulator - which is both a compliment and a diss - bowed to neolib and neocon pressures from both parties and passed DOMA and DADT.

In DADT, I am a retired chappie. When President Truman integrated the US Armed Forces in 1948, he did so by Executive Order. President Clinton did not integrate gays and lesbians by Executive Order. Instead, he let it "leak" that he would do it. The DADT legislation REMOVED the President's right to rescind this law without Congressional approval. DOMA followed easily.

Marriage is FIRST PRIORITY because couples - with or without families - is the basic unit of society.  Marriage is the civil right from which all others emanate.

Gentrified and calculating "activists" believe in incrementalism. The error in judgement, IMHO, is that those who oppose your very existence, will never allow the camel's nose in the tent.
Hate crime legislation is fine, and so is ENDA. Pass it by all means, but it is a "human rights banquet" with an invitation to eat dessert first.....and your sugar fix destroys your appetite for the main course...

The Liberals under Paul Martin in Canada were really Liberals in Name Only.....or centrist "Liberals". Canadian LGBT activists supported them into their last government in power.

Canada's largest Protestant denomination supported same-sex marriage.
They spoke to the Roman Catholics and the Fundamentalist Protestants....in bed together politically in an unholy and moreover, ironic alliance.

Our legal eagles spoke to their legal teams eager to end our civil rights and return us to criminal and sinful status quo ante.

The Canadian MP's who were longtime monogamously committed- were legally married in their  provinces prior to federal recognition.

Again, compare that former reality with a MA veteran congressman with partner of two decades, refusing to get married....and arguing for lesser rights for political purposes.

How many terms will it take, how many years will it take, for the United States of America to join Canada, Belgium, Netherlands, Spain, Norway, Sweden, Union of South Africa and Nepal...and pass total nationwide same-sex marriage rights?I am an American, and a patriotic Nam vet, but my child needs to grow up in a nation where their parents can live in their truth.

I do not believe that President-elect Obama is anything but a committed opposite-sex married man....and happily so, and a devoted husband and father.

I believe it was another Democrat.....a bachelor and the fifteenth president of the United States.....James Buchanan of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, who was the first gay president.

I loves me some Obama...

Mike -and others posting similar slights...

I read about Sinclair in June. He has a rap sheet a mile long. He has a history of sociopathic criminal activity of the felony variety. Right Wing haters were happy to give him a cosmetic makeover, and wardrobe to appear credible. These RW operatives then used the Press Club for that conference.

We have an investigative press that turned every page for an iota of truth and found none. These are the same folks trying to intimate that he was born abroad and not a natural born citizen.
Homophobia, bigotry and racism take many forms and use many canvasses to paint their house of horrors.

With respect, Mr. Quinn...I re-read your post and again revisited such issues as George HW Bush and teenage male prostitutes in the White House and Jeff Gannon and George W. Bush or was it Karl Rove? Then, I read your last and revealing sentence concerning Mr. Obama....and the lack of " respect" he gives a man who is - until otherwise proven - slandering him.

Excuse me, but (ahem!) I think that you have finished your Kool-aid and finished the jug.

The image that the president-elect projects, and quite convincingly, is that of a heterosexual who loves his wife and children deeply. He has views that - as I have said often and written more frequently - fall short of civil marriage and his rhetoric will fall short of his accomplishments where my needs as a family man, albeit same-sex with child - needs "change."

I suspect that during a time when he was dealing with minority biracial status - that he admits to drug use. I have no problem with some teenage activities openly revealed. I have trouble with the time frame and that of a married man and state legislator engaged in this.

Listen, I have no illusion about the MSM. But I have no truck with either the neolib or the neocon press and their "journalists."
There is the belief that he is not a citizen and a lawyer with deep right wing friends' pockets are going to the SCOTUS. IF anyone could have proven Sinclair right, they would have had instant fame and a Pulitzer to boot ! It has been " out there" for over a year, and came to fruition in June of 2008.

Given the choice between Mr. Obama and Mr. McCain was NOT who would provide me with civil rights, but who would do no overt harm, while doing no good with either choice.

We will be given Matthew Shepard because it is sexier and easier than ENDA. He will NOT touch DADT which now requires Congressional approval and not a simple Executive Order. Clinton saw to that ! Forget DOMA repeal, and while he will fight an FMA and tolerate civil marriage state statutes, he will do nothing on the federal rights front.

The triangulation in California was when he stated he was opposed to Proposition 8  BUT he told Saddleback Church TIME covered theocon preacher that marriage was " between one man and one woman."  The two-sided message gave Yes on 8 voters the ability to vote for him and vote against us. Good political theatre.

Dear Karen Avant,

You appear to be a right-wing troll so I am probably wasting my time typing this. I don't care; after reading your hatefilled post I had to say something.

I disagree with you on the definition of marrige, but I respect your right to hold a differing opinion. There is a difference between Religious and Civil marriage and no reason homosexuals can't get married in front of a judge. If a church desides to perform homosexual marriages, that should be their right. When gay marriage is legal, churches would also be alowed to refuse to marry same-sex couples much like they can turn away devorcees.

However, when you said, "All Gays and Lesbians should have NO rights!" I was disgusted by the mere thought that any American could say that about any group. Had you merely said that they do not deserve the right to marry I would disagree but move along, but no rights? That is the worst thing you can wish on somebody.

The title of your article is extremely offensive.  What did you expect to gain from such a statement. The President-Elect is not gay and just as Mr. Clinton was not the first Black President.  You didn't want people to be confused.  It seems the only person confused is you!  Why try to make a name for yourself at the expense of others. 

Rubbish . . . Obama cares no more for gay rights than he does for women's rights. He's a narsicistic, egocentric, misognyistic,
homophobic fraud. All he cares about is himself.

Although Michael Jones Esq. needs no defense from me, and seemingly not offering any, it was the noted black author Miss Morrison, who dubbed William Jefferson Clinton, the "first black president of the USA."

Taking literary license, Michael mirrored that view to Barack Obama and our Gay Civil Rights Movement. Frankly, R Joyner, I am surprised that this information is new to anyone. I believe you, since no one would have responded with those words "extremely offensive".

There is, of course, my view that both Bill and Barack are very adept politicians. They are expert at both their craft and their knowledge of both political science and the major issues. Both men are neo-liberals, and govern in such a way that enables both neo-liberals and neo-conservatives to feel appeased in compromise legislation. I believe that both men are not liberals.
Both men view that base of the Democratic Party as challenging and best kept subdued and preferably quiet.

I have stated beforehand that Democrats (neolibs) do us no apparent or overt harm, but do us little good.....at least not since DOMA and DADT and telling the Religious Right that he believes in heterosexual marriage only, but simultaneously has no objection to civil marriage or union statutes in states and is opposed to amending the US Constitution.......

Barack Obama therefore had the black and white theocrats vote for him, if so inclined, as well as those who felt he was also NO ON 8. As president-elect, he has stated that DADT may be shelved " for the time being." Who says that he does not listen to Clintonian advice?

I believe that the " first gay President" will sign Matthew Shepard into law. That one, as previously stated by me, is " sexy"  and has less objections to many as ENDA with the transsexual issue.
He will not support legislation to repeal DOMA or DADT, and forget anything important like federal legislation to provide civil laws and tax codes exactly like married persons, despite what states may or may not provide in terms of marriage or other civil constructs.

He will ask neo-lib Democratic leaders in Congress to assure the neocon Republican leaders that the gay agenda will not stray beyond one or two showcase bills to appease us - and especially incrementalist compromisory shills like the Human Rights Campaign, who will never see another red dime from me in two lifetimes, but who's angry? LOL...

married 5 years, partnered for 32 years, and one child.

The title of the article is all symbolism, and i think the writer was confuse in his inception. However, Barack like Gavin Newsom the mayor of San Francisco are both family men who are strong advocate of Gay rights and understand with clear eye the plights of Gays in America. Nevertheless, to tie their political views to their sexual orientation is outright disrespectful.

 Van King....this is not dialogue, this is a homophobic and bigoted and hateful diatribe....and offensive to us in the extreme.

  I have reported you and hope that you are banned from this site. There is room for opposing discourse, but not the hatred that you spew.

We, in our family, associate ourselves completely with your remarks, Abdul. Salam.

Everyone relax.  I got the title of the article: Bill Clinton did a lot for the black community, and HOPEFULLY Obama will do the same for the gay community.  The author didn't call Obama gay or hint at any of that.  I hesitate to say this because of the upcry that will ensue...which is the excact opposite of what i want to have happen.. but even if Obama obama was gay...which i still can't figure out  unless you're noticing how a lot of guys are taken back by his good looks too...that doesn't mean he'll be a bad president.  I hate to burst your bubble, but most of the world has come to understand that sexual orientation really doesn't affect anything...just like blacks don't pose a threat.  "You better start swimming or you'll sink like a stone."

and by the way... i had to register on this site to post a comment...so for the people who registered simply to complain about it, you're kind of an idiot.  i thought you were supposed to never surrender to the enemies?  hahaha can't wait until 1/29/09, it'll be a breath of fresh air!

David Quinn, you're right on!  I thought of writing what you did, but you did it better than I could have!  Obama is indeed a puppet, like all the rest of them, and the "election" was pure theater, just as all of them have been.  Obama is probably bisexual, as is Bush Jr. and his father.  However, Bush Sr. is also a notorious pedophile.  There is no evidence, that I'm aware of, that Bush Jr. or Obama have indulged in that.  There is evidence that suggests a great many U.S. presidents had extramarital affairs, even while living at the White House, and that several presidents were probably bisexual.  George Washington, for instance, reportedly had an affair with the young, handsome, 24-year old Marquis de Lafeyette during the Revolutionary War.  The Marquis apparently became much more attractive to the future president after the young officer became a Freemason.  (Washington was a Grand Master Freemason.)  Most U.S. presidents have been high-ranking Freemasons.  I think at least one president was almost certainly gay:  James Buchanaan.  His gay lover even moved into the White House with him!  That Buchanaan was gay was strongly suggested by a recent network television documentary.  I believe it was "The Presidents" documentary.

All this is really of little concern to me.  What DOES concern me, is, as you have suggested, that our presidents are merely front men for the true wielders of power:  the international financial interests and our national tycoons.  This assures that nothing ever changes fundamentally in this country, and that the wealthy elite, who have always ruled this country, continue to do so at the expense of the people.  Now, apparently, this elite is ready to dispense with even the pretense of popular government and is instituting (has instituted!) an iron dictatorship.  The "bailouts" are evidence, to me, of this.  The wealthy elite based in Wall Street elite is now in the process of gaining control of ALL the property of ALL the citizens in this country at bargain-basement prices.  They have wrecked our economy and are debasing our currency, and, consequently, all other currencies that are dollar-based, such as those of Mexico and Canada, in favor of regional currencies like the Euro.  I'm quite sure that after the U.S. population has been reduced to utter poverty the cry will go up:  "We must have a new currency!"  Lo and behold, the Amero, the planned replacement of the U.S. Dollar, the Canadian Dollar and the Peso, will be thrust forward, and the three governments merged under a European Union-style Parliament.  Along the way, martial law will have been declared under some pretext or other, and what is left of the Constitution will be disposed of, permanently.  Dissidents and malcontents will then be "disappeared," and the Global Plantation will unfold:  a few fabulously rich feudal lords served by a vast population of starving, destitute peasants grateful for a crust of bread and a bit of cheese.  And why not?  This is what Americans have enforced on people across the world for generations, ever since we began extending our Empire after the Spanish American War.  It is only just, or, as some would say, karmic, that the same should be done to us!

And what will happen when the People speak out against gay marriage and vote as they did in the California elections? Take it to court to override the mandate? Block legislation that supports voters' choices? Please remember that regardless of what Barbara Walters said on Thurday (ABC), O did not come home with a "landslide." There are still landslides that he should be aware may block his path...

Shadow 2- In elementary school, I presume that you learned about the Legislative and Executive and Judicial branches of US government. I also presume that you learned that they were co-equal branches of government.

I further assume that you were awake when they taught you that the role of the Judicial Branch was to affirm the rights of minority populations against oppressive majorities who could LEGISLATE INEQUALITY from their shear numbers.

Again, the popular vote was 52%, more than the man whose popularity is at 21% and you assumedly voted for in either 2000, oh yes, he had a lower popular vote total than Gore, and was selected by SCOTUS. In 2004, he won by less than 50%.

Obama SWEPT the electoral college vote. He won all the Blue States and won significant Red States.

Obama is a neoliberal, a first cousin of your guys, the neocons.
He will probably provide us with a modicum of the civil and human rights that as citizens of this country, we are guaranteed under the US Constitution.

You know, the internet provides citizens of foreign lands, who have matured beyond oppressive fascist theocratic thinking, and want to understand why, why, why in the 21st century that there are few rights for minorities in the United States, all they have to do is read your post, and wonder no more.

As I finished reading the new Quinn and the Buels response, the words of Barry Goldwater came to mind about the defense of liberty and extremism in the defense of it....and wondered where vice or virtue plays in this thread's many filaments.Let us begin with Mr. Quinn's assumptions or as he framed his sentences, Mr. Quinn exposits that stories have been written that says that:1) George HW Bush is a paedophile, or the word that eludes me for post-pubescent children or teens, and that all the stories about WH boy prostitutes is absolutely "true"2) George W. Bush is gay or bisexual.3) Barack Obama is gay or bisexual.

There is the exposition that the United States, and indeed the world, is governed by international elites and exclusive organizations who have shill politicians and media moguls to enable them to further both impoverish and enslave the masses.

There is the exposition that the Corporate-controlled "Democrats and Republicans" orchestrate political theatre every four years. This year, they orchestrated McCain  vs.  Obama. It was supposed to be McCain v Clinton....but when she began to lose, they approached Obama and told him what it would take for him to win.

Ergo, as the syllogism concludes......the American people were played and duped and Obama will now read the script and deliver the rhetoric that completes the agenda that George W. Bush began, only with more drama and panache.

If I attributed some of these to Mr. Quinn and not Mr. Buel's reprise, then I regret not giving the right person credit.

Well, I deal in facts, not conjecture. I have read, thanks to the internet, every conceivable piece of scandal associated with my political " friends or foes". My tendency in reading salacious scandal is to defend my friends, and quietly and passively consent to my foe's foibles, or despicably, the worst.

I read mystery novels. I also am a Yalie, and know all about Skull& Bones and know that the Walker and Bush families are legacy members. I know about Bildeburger and all such international world dominancy agendae lobbed upon groups that exist while claiming more altruistic raisons d'etres.

In conclusion, as a gay man, I believe that Obama is a neoliberal and that he knows where the power lies in this nation. He will tweek the edges of center left, as the neocons do center right when they are in power.

When the Corporate elites see a political, economic and culturally acceptable path to our rights, we will receive them. The right politician (pun certainly intended) will make the case and it will happen easily.

To obtain or live in my complete truth before I pass on (1946), and despite an aging mother (1914), we as a family will probably remain more than our summer months and holidays in Canada. I have the virtue of hope intact......as a clergyman, the virtue of hope, more than faith and love, although necessary, sustains me.

Our President-elect is a constitutional lawyer by academic training.  Gay rights is the final project of the French Enlightenment!

Emancipation of women and negoesnaturally preceded the obvious emancipation of gays.

It is simple stupidity not to permit gay rights, be these marriage rights, insurance rights, civil rights, mortgage rights, etc.  How ignorant have our citizens become?

The gay community are fools if they do not insist on these fundamental rights of common humanity.  It is merely the fools in our religious system and our military system that promotes hatred.  Both of these entities are concerned with death culture!  One would suspect these idiots to be opposed to gay rights emancipation.

Is it not about time to end a 40 century curse?


John E.D.P. Malin & James F.D.P. Malin
Informatica Corporation
Cecilia, Louisiana 70521
Contact Info: InformaticaMalin@gmail.com

--

Forgive the few grammatical blemishes in the above posting.

The phrase 'emanicpation of women and negroes naturally...' should be obvious.

Others are agreement errors that do not intrude upon the sense.

J.E.D.P. Malin

I am sick of you ignoraing my marijuana law reform emails. Why is alcohol and tobacco allowed to kill peole. When marijuana a substance which's toxicology is 10,000 times less , cannot kill you , prevents certain types of cancer and brain tumors and has a very long list of medicinal benefits is kept illegal? Ill tell you why Obama because your being lobbied by the pharmacuitical industry or alcohol industry or tobacco industry. I am going to file investigation of lobbying in washington. Stop throwing 980,000 people in jail a year and spending trillions of dollar's like we have since prohibition began in the 1930's on a basis of racism and special interest greed. To this day it remain's illegal but with over five-hundred time's the amount of people who smoke it than when it began. It is time for a change in this law. If your going to give gay people their rights then you most certainly should give responsible cannabis user's theirs.

.

i think in order to be considered the "first gay president", Obama would have to actually support gay marraige... rather than throwing gays under the bus in order to get elected.
separate but equal dosn't count.

Larry Sinclair was proven to have been paid by Ron Paul to make those claims. They aren't true. 

http://www.clevelandleader.com/node/4799

Larry Sinclair was proven to have been paid by Ron Paul to make those claims. They aren't true. 

http://www.clevelandleader.com/node/4799

Sounds like Raymond Sawyer is not very happy with me, and apparently, my education. Since you directed the comment directly to me, I feel that I would like to respond.

Yes, I was awake during my education, and appreciate that when I went through school, I was taught all these things you mention, unlike the "modern" schools that do not consider constitutional education an important part of the curriculum. (I had to pass an exam in Illinois on the US Constitution and Government in order to graduate from High School)

And what is the "oppressive majority" that you speak about? Is that different than a "majority" as I know it? Sounds like it is a majority whose issues you do not agree with. As far as I know, this is still a Republic and the majority is the majority.

And I do not understand the comparison of the popular vote with  the popularity contest of the current President. Why don't we compare the election of the Congress with their popularity -- last time I looked, it was hovering around the single digits.

And yes, he did win signigicant Red States -- but if you look at the county-by-county results, it is mostly Red with the urban areas showing Blue.

And by-the-way, what is a Neoliberal? as opposed to a regular liberal (or are they Paleoliberals). How would you classify the selections O made for his cabinet: neo or paleo? Wasn't the star of The Matix named Neo?

OK, so maybe I am a "oppressive facist theocratic thinker," but I don't think so. Parse the phrase and look at what I have said: Are my comments a) oppressive, b)facist, c)theocratic, d)all of the above or e)none of the above? If so, I would appreciate you showing me where.

Just to clarify things, I have a love of the country and a respect for our institutions. I may disagree on some issues of President-Elect Obama, but these are based on ideolgy and public policy, not on a personal attack, and I do not intend to encourage animosity or malice towards towards PE Obama nor to bolster personal, ad hominem attacks so often used in public discourse -- as you seem to have done with me.

Dear Mr. S. 2,

In this Republic, the reason for checks and balances in our system of government was to assure that minorities as a class would not suffer oppression, that is, separate and or unequal treatment under law, from a majority exercising legislative actions. This is why, Mr 2, we have three co-equal branches.
The term " judicial activism " used by right wingers, actually and accurately defines the role of the Courts in our country.

The Judicial branch recognizes that literalism or contextualism has currency in both theology and law. A conservative is defined by those who share my views as the "worshipper of dead radicals."

Mr 2 - I re-read the comment that prompted my reply. You felt that votes to deny minority rights were valid, because " in a Republic, the majority rules ". You feel that the Courts have no right to remove a "mandate".Ironically, both President-elect Obama ( whom I presume you did not vote for) had 52% of the popular vote and a plurality of the electoral college. Prop Hate had 52% of the vote.Let me repeat your diss " en passant" about Obama not winning a landslide with his victory........Touche Mister Two.....LOL

Mr Sawyer:

Since you are mixing chess with fencing, let me step in with a prise de fer. Would you mind sharing with me the source (chapter, line, verse and ISBN) of your definition of a conservative. It has to be one of the most unique I have read is quite some time.

By the "Prop Hate," I would assume you mean the vote in California concerning gay marriage. I had no idea that this was a "hate vote," but rather one showing how those who voted feel on a certain issue. Now if the Judicial system feels or it can be convinced that it is such a hate vote, then it is in their power to speak out on the issue. Do you really believe that those who voted have some kind of hatred? -- or is that in the eyes of the beholder.

I will let this serve as my Ballestra Lunge for now and bow out of this discussion. Always enjoy the conversation, and remember, I love this country as much as you. See you around the site.

S 2

Mr. Shadow Two:

It is relatively a simple exercise to synthesize your above reply as just another example of verbal violence and homophobia. Since you feel human rights can be described as foil fencing, then your iron fist within a silk glove is apt.

" To those who belief in our civil rights, Shadow Man, no explanation is necessary, to those who oppress us, none will suffice."


More, it is the belief that heterosexism and dominionism and theocratic beliefs trump the separation of church and state.

As a Christian clergyman, I have heard hate spewed from Religious Rightists who claim not only the moral high ground but the ONLY moral ground. We, liberal clergy and Christian denominations worldwide, with one voice utter one word: HERESY.

This is a legal matter. The Judicial Branches of government, state and federal, will stand as a co-equal branch of government, and declare the Constitution to be theologically neutral where you and I are concerned. This has been declared a question of denying one class basic rights given to a majority intent on oppressing the minorities. In our country, this is nothing new....but we may get to see change. That is my prayer, and my secular civil right....Mr. "Shadow Two"

erratum.....paragraph 2, should read...."to those who believe..."

My dear friends,

This thread will attract the homophobes because they fear that President Obama will use the "bully pulpit" to rally those who will join our families and friends in providing us more and more equality of justice under law. We then will eventually become the second nation in North America......and one of now nearly a dozen and to a lesser degree more, nations in the rest of the world who have matured beyond our right wing oppression.

The NYT printed and accepted a paid advertisement from the PR firm used by the LDS Church for Proposition H8. In case you thought that the victims of that referendum were the gay and lesbian same-sex couples and their children.....think again.....it is the old canard of the right wing oppressor screaming victimhood.

Those among you who would like to write the NYT and the PR firm and join millions who are doing so, you can go to www.hrc.org and highlight the appropriate link.

You can then peruse the www.lambdalegal.org site which will also provide you with the www.aclu.org sites that are also joining the CA Supreme Court challenge.

There is legal precedent for overturning the legally inappropriate use of the CA referendum to injure one special class of person while retaining rights for the majority class.

Of course, the forces of reactionary thought and action, then as now, are engaged. In confronting them - for they are playing with our human and civil rights based on their theological beliefs -our strongest weapon is the simple truth of our stories....for they are in fact, our lives and those of our children.

My dear friends,

I have just been reminded that the National Center for Lesbian Rights or www.nclrights.org is also a principal in the lawsuit against Proposition H8.

Remember, reactionary right wing forces are nothing new in the USA.....we have had them fighting against the rights of Native Americans and African Americans....and remember we LGBT folks are very often members of other minority groups as well...sometimes oppressed "four ways to Sunday." (pun intended.)

Remember also, the right wing have been defeated many times before....it is when the oppressed stand up, along with their family, friends and allies they did not know they had, and say- NO MORE, NEVER AGAIN !!!

Well I wouldn't exactly call Obama our first gay president him being straight and all,we'll have our first gay president when a gay person gets elected but I will say he's the best man we could hope for to run this country,our best hope for putting the United States back on track ,he may not be able to fix the problems all at once but I have confidence that at the very least he will give us a better future than we are facing today,and likewise he is the best man to help create positive change for Gay people

To President Obama I would say I believe in you and I have faith that you will help repair the damage that has been done,it may not be easy it may not come soon but you are the right man at the right time to  help this country rise back up ,I dont envy the task in front of you,but you will wind up bing one of this country's greatest presidents of that I am sure

I believe it is unfair to declare someone who hasn't come out of the closet as the first gay president.

When we actually have our first gay president it will be someone who is not embarrassed to be himself and will proudly stand up and say, yes I am gay, deal with it.

Ms. Toni Morrison, noted AA writer, was responsible for naming Bill Clinton as " the first black president."

No, the reality is that the first AA president will be the 44th -and 43rd man to assume the office of president....Barack Hussein Obama II. He will use his full name when taking the oath of office.

Another Democratic president who served as our 15th president from 1857 to 1861 was a "bachelor". The early 19th century did not have psychosexual orientational awareness. One day, his own reality will not be a slanderous comment, but a source of pride for gay American citizens.

There is one cardinal virtue that I ascribe to the Obama agenda. That particular virtue is HOPE. 

For instance, I HOPE that he uses the bully pulpit to advocate that states grant equal rights and privileges...whether they give us marriage or not. I WANT MARRIAGE, but we can advocate for it as against civil unions when, and this is the next hopeful piece....repeal of DOMA and DADT.

Call it civil marriage on the state level, and let every state legislate and we have the right to adjudicate in state courts, and provide us with federal rights of marriage without calling it anything that will do harm to the oppressed minority.

Then, I can feel comfortable in calling a man who does not want the dignity of marriage for my family by the honorary title of " first gay president." The jury is still deliberating.

Today's announcement of Rick Warren as the California pastor who will be delivering the invocation at the inauguration has all but destroyed this dream of "America's first gay president."  Rick Warren gained status as a moderate and possible progressive man of faith based on his work in the civil rights movement (the African-American civil rights movement ... certainly not the gay civil rights movement).  However, Warren's most recent pontifications about America's people has led him to compare homosexuality to pedophilia and beastiality.  He has described himself as differing from James Dobson in tone only.  And as a pastor in California he served as a outspoken proponent of Propostion 8, which wrote discrimination and hatred into California's constitution.
I fully understand that Obama and Warren are friends and that on the ideas of equality and justice they clearly have very differing view points.  I also know that Obama did not officially invite Warren, but I wonder if Obama and Warren would be friends if Warren wanted to revoke marriage rights of a different group.  It strikes me as amazing that even the most progressive and thoughtful people can still manage to see homosexuality as a choice or something that has little to do with who a person is.  It would seem that gays and lesbians of this country are little more than a theoretical group that will always vote for the Democrat...a guaranteed group of constituents who are quickly marginalized.
President-elect Obama will not be my first gay president, and if he continues to give bigotry a national platform, I seriously doubt that he will hold that prestigious title to any member of the LGBT community.

Clayton -

A lot of us are aware of this, and were keeping our "powder dry" until Michael dedicated an entire thread to this issue. There is no doubt that this decision has far more import than when losing candidate Obama decided to invite McClurkin "the ex-gay AA singer" at one of his rallies.

There is no doubt that Warren and Obama used each other for their own purposes. Warren had Obama the Nominee in his Church before his double whammy, a cover on TIME magazine.
He had the opportunity to put Obama on record for their shared heterosexist view of civil marriage to be used in a YES on PROP 8 video. Meanwhile, the LGBT community is fighting for NO on 8, and the "down low Obama" then sends the message he supports NO on 8 - an important piece that Obama did not say at Saddleback.

As a liberal clergyman, and a gay man with spouse and child, a same-sex family, I would never call him " the first gay president", but rather the SECOND DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENT TO BETRAY THE GAY AND LESBIAN COMMUNITY. That " distinction " he is beginning to fit in spades !!!

Clayton -

A lot of us are aware of this, and were keeping our "powder dry" until Michael dedicated an entire thread to this issue. There is no doubt that this decision has far more import than when losing candidate Obama decided to invite McClurkin "the ex-gay AA singer" at one of his rallies.

There is no doubt that Warren and Obama used each other for their own purposes. Warren had Obama the Nominee in his Church before his double whammy, a cover on TIME magazine.
He had the opportunity to put Obama on record for their shared heterosexist view of civil marriage to be used in a YES on PROP 8 video. Meanwhile, the LGBT community is fighting for NO on 8, and the "down low Obama" then sends the message he supports NO on 8 - an important piece that Obama did not say at Saddleback.

As a liberal clergyman, and a gay man with spouse and child, a same-sex family, I would never call him " the first gay president", but rather the SECOND DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENT TO BETRAY THE GAY AND LESBIAN COMMUNITY. That " distinction " he is beginning to fit in spades !!!

It's GLBT, not LGBT. Don't fall victim to the Lesbian Agenda. 

Obama is possibly bisexual enough to embrace Rick Warren but that's as close as we get;you can keep him we don't want it.
 I will not remain calm as my relationship is equated with incest, paedophilia and bestiality. I have a family too Barack; Try explaining your elevation of hate to my family and your two girls.  You're no more than the latest politician in black face.

Mr Sawyer, I was about to leave a reply the other day, but then I heard that Mr Warren will be speaking in Washington, and thought you might have been busy digesting this. From your comments, you don't seemed pleased at all. I was curious, however, what you meant when you say: "That 'distinction' he is beginning to fit in spades !!!" ??

And for Mr Coker, you say " I also know that Obama did not officially invite Warren." What do you know that the rest of us don't?

Charity, be kind

Nobody here is questioning Boraks gayness, we are asking whether he is gay enough.

Ms. Blake -

First of all, even a casual reading of this article would have informed you that the moderator was drawing an anology between Toni Morrison's description of Bill Clinton for his AA advocacy, and therefore Obama for his "LGBT advocacy."

It is disheartening to read your homophobia, written with bile and arrogance, not to mention ignorance of facts...legal, spiritual, psychosexual to mention just a few. " Panties all wadded up??" My 6 going on 7 year old son would tell you that is " so second grade!!"

You are right about this blog, however. Both straight and gay persons who blog here are informed and aware of our human and civil rights struggle devoid of bigotry, racism, or homophobia.

My mother, who is 94 years old, always told me :" Thoughts are things."  Spiritual violence on the keyboard is just that. There are people whom you hurt with the hate you spew.
 
Our Lord told us to love your neighbour as yourself and to not bear false witness. I will pray that you begin to observe these commandments. Hint: they are not "suggestions."

In thirty-five years of Christian ministry in a denomination who have gay bishops, and who affirm monogamous same-sex couples like we have, the proof that Christianity does not speak with your Right Wing voice should be evident.

You will also read here that this issue is secular and legal. It speaks to the rights of all minorities to enjoy, as a class, all the privileges, rights and responsibilities that devolve upon the majority. That is the US Constitution.

We are not a theocracy, and if you read the entire thread, rather than just " drive by" as did Avant and King, then maybe you might learn a lesson or two.

It is prayerfully to be hoped.

Approving gay rights,  is't the best way to express our uniqueness even may looking it from evolution,  apes, dog, goat, horse etc are not praticing gay living or maybe evolution will finaly bring them to this point one day??

how possibly we can turn nature upside down...i guess human reproductive organs doesn't matter at all??

Gays have the same rights as any American, and Americans have more rights than anyone in the world.

People promoting gay rights don't really want gay rights, they want to destroy our rights. Our rights to worship freely, our rights to support our family, our rights to endorse morality.

People promoting gay rights are only using it as an excuse to destroy our individual rights.  When they destroy God and they destroy the individual, the wish to replace them with the all powerful government.

Do they have any idea how all powerful governments treat minority groups like gays?

Gays have more rights in America than anywhere in the world. You might not want to screw with that, a Godless government  will be far less forgiving.

Hello Robinson, Nobody can destroy God rather God giveth us lifes and take it whenever He likes. Rememnber all things shall pass away but His words will remain the same.