Gays! Lesbians! What this means is, Obama NEVER will support homosexual equality

by CynthiaYockey on September 8, 2009

John Aravosis at Americablog summarizes Obama’s broken promises — aka lies — to the gay and lesbian community about supporting homosexual equality, repealing the Defense of Marriage Act and “don’t ask, don’t tell,” which would take half an hour tops for the Democratic-majority Congress to pass and messenger to Obama to sign. If, say, they really wanted to. Which they don’t. And never will:

But today [9/3/09] we have word from the Democrats that this year is a bad time to lift the ban on gays in the military, and next year won’t work because — as Joe and I predicted repeatedly — it’s a congressional election year, and keeping the Democrats’ civil rights promises may anger the religious right (duh), the Dems are now telling us. So the next two years won’t work for Don’t Ask Don’t Tell (and apparently any other gay rights promise). Of course, that means that the next year, 2011, won’t work either, because it is the beginnings of the presidential primaries, and the year after that won’t work, 2012, since it’s a presidential election year and a congressional election year.

That means that the President and the Congress might keep the civil rights promises to tens of millions of gay and lesbian Americans some time in 2013, assuming Obama wins re-election or another Democrat takes his place. That of course assume that we aren’t facing another economic crisis, or are fighting a war, or have the need to pass some other large piece of legislation — then the gays may have to wait until 2017, provided another Democrat wins the presidency, and the nation has no other important issues to address for a while.

Are there THAT many lesbians and gays who NEVER lied to get laid that they don’t realize what happened to them last November?

So, lesbians and gays, the more of you who realize the Left just wants you as slaves and ornaments and cash cows, the better, and sooner, rather than later. The Right respects individuality AND has this nice big tent just waiting for you to move in and make it FABULOUS.


Your first clue that Obama would never keep any promises to the gay and lesbian community was the revelation n March 2008 that he’d spent 20  years in Rev. Wright’s church — his first allegiance is to anti-gay black ministers and their congregations. Listen to Al Sharpton more carefully and you’ll see he’s disappearing all the colors of the Rainbow Coalition but his own. Read up a little on Black Liberation Theology.

Next in importance is Obama’s allegiance to Muslims and illegal immigrants, who bring the double whammy of being anti-gay and predominantly coming from cultures that regard women as property. There are more of them than there are of you, so your priorities always will be pushed to the indefinite future. That way Obama and the Democrats can continue to exploit you forever while deceiving you into believing you have nowhere else to go. Well, you do! Seriously, stop behaving like battered spouses — just drop off the key, Lee, and get yourself free.

Because your/our real problem is that in a democracy, these three constituencies that really matter to Obama all want us dead, never mind about blocking or rolling back our civil rights. If Obama gets his open-borders immigration “reform” bill passed, he will vastly increase the number of voters who want homosexuals dead and then he won’t need you any more and under the bus you will go.

In contrast, conservatism is your safe house and battered spouse shelter. Conservatives understand marriage and mostly want to know you’ll treat the institution well and not try to change their religions, which is fair enough. Conservatives also love service to our country in the military and they love the people who want to serve — mostly they want to know you’ll do right by the military, too. These are reasonable standards to meet. And they can be met in the near future — and when they are, I think it is conservatives who will fight for homosexual equality and pass the laws needed to make it happen. After all, it is Republican Colin Powell who is calling for an end to “don’t ask, don’t tell,” and Republican Dick Cheney who publicly supports homosexual marriage equality — which Obama even more publicly opposes.

Come to the conservative safe house. You don’t have to be battered and exploited any more.

Follow conservativelez on Twitter

Peter September 8, 2009 at 10:04 pm

Has a Democrat since Harry Truman told the truth about anything?

smitty September 8, 2009 at 10:50 pm

Did you get that VodkaPundit quip at the end of this week’s Hair of the Dog?
This weekend, BHO put a Van under the bus.
Integrity is not the man’s strong suit.

Red September 9, 2009 at 12:24 pm

The wheels of Obama’s bus go round and round to be sure. Republican Colin Powell isn’t so much Republican anymore. Especially since his endorsement of Obama. I think whatever credibility he had is long gone.
.-= Red´s last blog ..Bureaucracy? What Bureaucracy? =-.

Josh Davenport September 9, 2009 at 4:25 pm

What is the proper shape for the Republican platform on gay rights?

Being a small r republican myself, I like the federalism solution; leave it to the individual states.

Cynthia Yockey September 9, 2009 at 5:15 pm

Josh Davenport,

This may be the former liberal in me, but my perspective on the “federalism solution” of leaving an issue to the individual states is that the groups that espouse it have the real intention of divide-and-conquer rather than a love of the Constitution and reverence for the Founders’ intentions.

The proper Republican platform plank should be for equality for homosexuals — equality should be federal and not vary from state-to-state.


Josh Davenport September 9, 2009 at 7:58 pm

Thanks for the response, Cynthia.

Regarding “federalism” in general, it took me a long time to figure out how it works (in fact, it wasn’t until I read the federalist papers at the age of 35). I do agree with you that some of the “States Rights” stuff is attached to racism. However, those racists would be misguided.

If you’ll permit, I’ll take you on a little mind trip to show you why:

Lets start with the standard and reasonable power analysis of the civil war. A northern industrial power head dominates a southern agricultural/slavery power head. There are a thousand nuances, but that’s the heart of the matter.

The primary question in the above analysis is: Why was the north able to industrialize, while the south wasn’t?

There are two important answers, bound closely.

First, a society that finds a way to maximize the liberty of its own members will also tend to maximize its wealth creation. So the north, being slave free, was at an anthropological advantage, so to speak.

Second – and I urge you to study this point until you have completely absorbed it – During the constitutional convention, it was the SLAVE HOLDING states that wanted their slaves to count as a whole person, and it was the Free States that wanted slaves to count as only 3/5 of a person for voting purposes.

Why? Why? Why? Why?

Because it weakened the slave holding states!

The PRIMARY driver of the eradication of slavery in the US was Structural. The economic and political power disparity between the slave holding states and the free states was DRIVEN by the 3/5th compromise. And it was generally understood by the framers that the result would eventually be bloodshed – and the eradication of slavery. They said as much (though I can’t find the quote).

This same mechanism is behind the generalized concept of federalism. If the states compete with each other, they are structurally driven towards Liberty. Unfortunately, the effect is current weakened, but thats another issue.

Applying conservative principals to the issue of homosexual marriage is a separate issue which I will discuss if you would like to spend the time.


Josh Davenport

Cynthia Yockey September 10, 2009 at 12:31 am

Josh Davenport,

The “states’ rights” scam has many applications. It was used to defeat the Equal Rights Amendment. It was and is used in the debate over the right to choose abortion. It is just starting to be used in the debate over end-of-life care. And if conservatives so revere states’ rights on marriage, why did they insist on a federal Defense of Marriage Act? I want my federal Homosexual Equality Act.


Attmay September 9, 2009 at 11:58 pm

The late, great William F. Buckley, Jr. purged anti-semites from National Review, knowing they would be a blight on the conservative movement.

It is time for us to do the same with the homophobes on the right. They need to be sent to the same fringes that the Jew-haters currently occupy. They can’t have my party, and they can have my rights when they pry them from my cold, dead hands.

Graumagus September 10, 2009 at 1:06 am

Lots of things I’d like to comment on but this:

“Are there THAT many lesbians and gays who NEVER lied to get laid that they don’t realize what happened to them last November?”

…Has me laughing too hard to concentrate 🙂
.-= Graumagus´s last blog ..Best kid’s show ever =-.

Josh Davenport September 10, 2009 at 11:27 am

Thanks for the reply, Cynthia.

1) Do you agree with my analysis on the 3/5ths compromise?

2) Claiming “State’s Rights” is a scam without telling me why is not the most robust response. I gave an example of why its not. My example refutes (perhaps not clearly enough) your examples:

A) Regarding abortion. There is a thread of liberal thought that says that moving abortion off the democratic table by advancing it to the SCOTUS has been detrimental to american liberty. There are many conservatives that don’t think it should be essentially absolute. In fact, a significant majority of americans don’t think it should absolute. By advocating for the control of this issue to the SCOTUS, you enable power to advance other issues beyond representative oversight by the same method. More importantly, as long as a single state in the union has unfettered abortion rules, then abortion can always be legally obtained in the US. It is merely tensioned against. Federalism is very good at creating tensions against or for something without making something globally legal or illegal. Its within that tensioned space that a societies culture can find a reasonable balance.

B) I didn’t support the defense of marriage act, but this is a great example of why federalism works. The short answer is that the conservative movement deigned protection of the unborn above federalist principles. More importantly, Republicans in general do not really care about federalism (small r republicans do), because the Republicans are a political party. Political parties are just vessels – whores – for a majority coalition of interests.

I think the question really should be: When the Republicans advanced DOMA, why didn’t the left lead with a states rights argument against it? And the answer is because the left is primarily about centralizing power. The political discourse on the left has generated a set of “truths” which are NOT TRUE (the right has its own examples of this). The demonization of States Rights is one of them. It is the 10th amendment, and its there for a reason: Prevent an all powerful centralizing State.

Cynthia Yockey September 10, 2009 at 1:13 pm

Josh Davenport,

I have approved your comment so your voice can be heard. I do not have time to research and consider and write a thorough reply. But I continue to consider the “states’ rights” argument a scam for its practical result in fragmenting opposition or support for a particular cause into the state’s legislatures, most of whom are comprised of part-time politicians — and some states’ legislatures don’t even meet every year. So it really is a divide and delay tactic, regardless of what high values can be assigned to it.

The Left does not really support homosexual equality because anti-gay blacks, Catholic Latin immigrants (legal and illegal) and Muslims are the majority on the Left and they oppose it. The Democrats say they blame the religious right for not being able to pass laws guaranteeing homosexual equality that they promised to pass and which they have the majorities to do easily. That’s a lie. The real reason is the anti-gay religious Left. See my recent post, “Gays! Lesbians! What this means is, Obama NEVER will support homosexual equality.”

I’m not going to be able to write essays in response to you because I have to maintain control over my schedule.


Josh Davenport September 10, 2009 at 7:21 pm

Have fun in Washington and thank you for the time you spent to responding to my posts.


Josh Davenport

Rosita the Prole September 10, 2009 at 11:53 pm

Love this post! Loved it! Keep talking, please!

So, lesbians and gays, the more of you who realize the Left just wants you as slaves and ornaments and cash cows, the better, and sooner, rather than later. The Right respects individuality AND has this nice big tent just waiting for you to move in and make it FABULOUS.

Eh heh heh heh heh heh.

Camille Paglia is sounding a lot like… ME these days, and I’m a registered Republican so…
Have you seen her latest article?
.-= Rosita the Prole´s last blog ..Another birther controversy. Separated at birth: Obama and Fred Astaire? =-.

Lanny September 11, 2009 at 11:51 am

Stupid question from a straightie: Why not just do what Truman did in 1948? Simply allow LGBT soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen to serve openly with honor? As the C-in-C, he simply orders the armed forces to do this? Try this before the fun and games of Health Care Reform.

Cynthia Yockey September 11, 2009 at 3:19 pm


Truman allowed lesbians and gays to serve in 1948 on the basis of an executive order? I’ll have to look that up. I do not know all the details of how “don’t ask, don’t tell” (DADT) can be repealed or countermanded. The last time I read about it at AmericaBLOG they said that the Obama administration was claiming that it was powerless to change the policy because it was in the hands of the Democrat-majority Congress. With Obama AWOL on the issue, the Democrats in Congress know they don’t have to do anything. So Obama and the Democrats are trying to sell gays and lesbians on the lie that it is the religious Right that is responsible for the Democrats’ inaction. THIS. IS. CRAZY!!! It is the religious Left that is the real reason that Democrats will never do anything practical like repeal DADT or the Defense of Marriage Act. The religious Left is comprised of anti-gay Black Liberation Theology ministers and their followers, predominantly Catholic illegal and legal immigrants from Central and South America and Muslims. There is absolutely no hope that they ever will support homosexual equality and Obama cast his lot with them at an early age. This is why Obama sat in Rev. Wright’s church for 20 years. This is why Obama campaigned with an ex-gay in South Carolina. This is why Obama has NEVER marched in a Gay Pride parade.

The Democrats have more power now than they’ve had since the first two years of Clinton’s presidency. They can do whatever they want. If they REALLY were willing to keep their promises of equality for homosexuals, NOW is the best time ever. In addition, Obama and the Democratic Congress are determined to weaken the military and reduce its funding, so with those assaults and two wars to fight, military leaders have WAY bigger problems than hanging onto their right to witchhunt gays and lesbians and throw them out of the armed services. I doubt they would put up much of a fight, especially with someone of Gen. Colin Powell’s stature speaking in favor of repealing DADT.

Frankly, it looks to me like DADT has to be more divisive to unit cohesion than its repeal because claims that a fellow servicemember is gay or lesbian are used to blackmail or manipulate or rape (prove you’re not a lesbian!), even if the claim is bogus, and when it is legitimate, prosecuting the individual on the basis of a being crime — being gay or lesbian — instead of a crime of action is prejudice and a form of totalitarianism, pure and simple. How can the repeal of DADT possibly be worse than the divisions and losses due to DADT?

With these arguments in favor of the repeal of DADT and the perfect combination of conditions to repeal it, if gays and lesbians don’t start getting wise to the fact that Democrats are playing them, I don’t know what will. However, I’m going to try to find out. And I am definitely going to work to let gays and lesbians know that our needs for respect for liberty, individualism and the self-reliance, creativity and the entrepreneurship so characteristic of our community are best met by ditching the Democrats and joining conservatism and the Republican party.


Lanny September 14, 2009 at 10:46 am

Cynthia, thanks for the education. I was trying (badly) to compare Truman’s desegregation of the Armed Forces to Obama’s lack of backbone in removing DADT.

One more question, why is there so much opposition to Gay Rights from the Black Religious Left? As a black man (conservative and proud), I am deeply ashamed that some of the folks who we asked to march with us in the 50’s and 60’s are the same ones that we’re wagging our brown fingers at and telling them that they’re condemned because of who they are. Ain’t that what those Klan boys used to do to us?

Cynthia Yockey September 14, 2009 at 12:10 pm


The common theme in opposition to abortion rights, equality for women AND equality for homosexuals is the desire to force followers/citizens to make many babies as possible to serve their leaders’ greed and lust for power because the easiest convert is a child raised to believe whatever it is told. And in a democracy, numbers are power. So it is worthwhile to scrutinize the true motives of ALL the organizations opposed to homosexual equality to see if what they are really doing is building their own power — because that is exactly what they are doing.

I appreciate your support. In one of the gay rights marches on Washington Margaret and I sat only about 100 feet from Jesse Jackson as he proclaimed his solidarity with us and touted his Rainbow Coalition where he would support our cause if we would support his. Where is he now? With Al Sharpton, disappearing all the other colors but his own from that rainbow, along with women and people with disabilities. I am very wary of their vision for the future.


Comments on this entry are closed.

{ 2 trackbacks }

Previous post:

Next post: