"But electoral support does not mean surrendering the right to critique and hold the candidates or the Democratic Party accountable. Indeed, it is the obligation of citizenship to call out disparities between avowed principles and actions that conflict with those principles."

I think this is a really important point, applicable to every area of the candidates' platforms.

Obama has repeatedly insisted that he'll welcome oversight and criticism, and I think it's the other half of our duty as citizens to provide it.

I fear that if he gets elected and doesn't do much of what he promises, his supporters will be disappointed but largely silent since they'll think, "Well, it's better than the REPUBLICANS" and won't want to voice their criticisms for fear of fueling the GOP fire.

Yeah, I gotta read this whole thing, but...

I remember (and still think I have one) the "Obama Pride" stickers from Pride here in NY and just feeling dirty touching it. And that was before the Biden/Palin "debate" love-fest over how much they agree that gays shouldn't be able to get married...

I mean, yeah, sure, there's bad and worse and queer folks are gonna vote bad (in terms of our best interests)... but that doesn't make it any better...

I mean, my concern is not just that Obama might not "do much of what he promises," but that his promises aren't that hot to start with... I mean, it's tons better than the McCain platform, but this isn't exactly my idea of a great perspective for a progressive president:

I'm a Christian. And so, although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition, and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman

puckalish, I think there are so many reasons to be unenthusiastic about Obama and you've pinpointed one of them. Not that he's a religious Christian - I genuinely do not give a crap about that - but that he thinks that his religious beliefs should have the force of federal law behind them.

I'm still baffled by the McClurkin thing. And what baffles me about it is that he apparently didn't have some advisor near him with GLBT clue telling him that it would be incredibly tone-deaf and alienating to the GLBT community to have that guy appearing at Obama rallies. It suggests to me that he kind of forgot about us as members of the Democratic coalition. Either that or he didn't care.

No way on earth I'm going to vote for McCain but geeze I am not thrilled with Obama.

The sucky thing is that Obama and Biden have a lot to lose by supporting the LGBTQ community more, and not a lot to gain.

I tell myself: well, this is the side likely to act more liberal than the election-year line.

"I mean, my concern is not just that Obama might not "do much of what he promises," but that his promises aren't that hot to start with..."

I totally agree - just got distracted by my enthusiasm and forgot to address the issue at hand.

I, too, was disgusted that Obama wouldn't speak more about his support for gay rights, and in fact almost sounded like a Republican in his faint advocacy.

One thing I'll say, though, in favor of his LGBTQ position is the fact that in at least two separate occasions that I'm aware of, he spoke about homophobia and gay rights to audiences that weren't receptive. On MLK Day and a few weeks later in Beaumont, Texas, he took his black, evangelical audience specifically to task for its failure to embrace homosexuals. I thought that was a nice start, that he was willing to speak about it when it wasn't politically expedient for him to do so.

Don't get me wrong - there's a difference between shunning homophobia and embracing gay civil rights, but I was still encouraged by the gesture.

Great Article, how can Obama oppose making amendments to define marriage between a man and a woman, but not support "gay marriage"? It is completely contradictory. I am not voting for Obama because of this issue. This is not "change we can believe in" as his slogan says. This is only more of the same. I am not willing to vote for someone who does not support equality. I am not willing to vote for someone who bases decsions on political gain, instead civil justice. I will be voting for Nader or McKinney in 2008, I wish I could vote for Obama...

Welcome to the joys of the two party system. Candidates really have little choice but to take the more 'moderate' stance (I realize it's ridiculous to call the denial of rights a moderate stance). Obama has secured the vote of the left, now he needs those who waver somewhere in the middle. The unfortunate truth is that the majority does not support gay marriage. Even in a relatively liberal state like Oregon, we passed a constitutional amendment to prohibit same-sex marriage (fortunately civil unions are legal, although not enough). Sure, he may lose a few people on the liberal end of the spectrum to pick up those in the middle. But the majority of people will not abstain (or vote third party) because they'd rather have SOME of their views represented than risk McCain in office. I'd rather have a president who supports civil unions but not full marriage than a president who thinks being gay is an abomination.

This is the nature of the election process. There are obviously exceptions. Republicans shifted from financial conservative issues to religious issues in 2000 and 2004 to tap into the pool of non-voting, 'traditional values' types. The problem for liberals is that I'm not sure there is an analogous group to go after to tip the scales. So they have to soften their more controversial views and go for the middle. I'd like to say that candidates should be willing to stand their ground on supposedly controversial issues but the truth is THEY WON'T GET ELECTED. Hopefully once in office Obama will take a stronger stance in support of gay rights than he does while pandering to those in the middle.

Thanks for posting this. Obama has been good at making us think he supports the queer community, but if you actually look at what he says, he cares very little. It's aggravating.

"Republicans shifted from financial conservative issues to religious issues in 2000 and 2004 to tap into the pool of non-voting, 'traditional values' types. The problem for liberals is that I'm not sure there is an analogous group to go after to tip the scales."

The thing is, the Religious Right has positioned itself as the "majority," to the point where everyone believes it is and is therefore terrified of offending it. What seems more likely (to me, not at all a political analyst of any type) is that there are a ton of people who simply haven't thought through or been presented with the implications of legally forcing theology on others. Politicians, like advertisers, are notorious for assuming people are stupider than they actually are. I wonder how many supporters of Props 8 and 4 and the like would actually change their minds if they were reached by a persuasive educational campaign that treated them like thinking adults.

I think the original No on Prop 8 commercial was a good start for that: it presented the issue as something that the people either on the fence or who hadn't thought deeply about the issue could relate to. But lately with all of this "Gay marriage could be taught in schools!" I haven't seen anybody stand up and go, "Um, guys, does any one of you remember ever being formally taught about *any* sort of marriage in public school?" Because I think the answer would be an overwhelming NO. As my husband the high school teacher said, "It's not in any standard I've ever heard of." In fact, if it were a standard, there might be a better understanding that in fact marriage is a civil issue, that a religious ceremony has no legal weight, and that you're not, for any legal purpose, married until you have a piece of paper from the county, which, strictly speaking, isn't allowed to make the distinction between gay and straight. So far I haven't seen anything presenting those basic facts in the most public No on Prop 8 efforts.

The point is, there are a lot of people who are hard-line, ultra-conservative Christian that the gay rights and pro-choice camps are never going to reach. But I think there are a whole lot more Christians and otherwise religious people who aren't so hard-line, but who vote that way because nobody's ever told them there's a different way to be Christian (or otherwise religious). I was one. Maybe what we need is a bigger effort to reach those people, instead of the usual knee-jerk liberal response to write them off as unreachable because they're ignorant, brainwashed peons.

I’d never say that Obama is beyond criticism. Politics will always be in politics. Can’t get away from that no matter who’s elected. But to even remotely imply that Republicans, by comparison, are anything but uncaring, homophobic scumbags is insane, in my opinion.

I’ve been voting for about 36 years and the Republican candidates have been holier-than-thou, slimy underwear skid marks each and every time. In fact, they’ve gotten worse---WAY WORSE! So don’t hold yer breath for positive change in the Republican Party. It ain’t gonna happen.

Ya see, Obama’s got something the Republicans don’t have---a fucking brain! That gives him the ability to listen and learn.

I, too, am pretty grossed out by the Obama/Biden abandonment of GLBT issues and concerns. However, I think it's more about the politics of being elected playing out here. I think they realize that the entire country will not elected a presidential team with gay marriage as an issue. Hell, that was one of the main reasons Bush got reelected.

I'm not saying it's right. But I think there's real possibility for their tunes to change a bit once they're elected.