Reader comments · Obama challenged over lack of contact with gay press · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


Obama challenged over lack of contact with gay press

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. I would encourage you to delve a bit deeper into this story, especially the realization that Mr. Segal, the author and publisher of the gay rag, is a Clinton donor. See here for more details: Also, I have posted my correspondence with Mr. Segal here:

  2. ROGER- KISSIMMEE FL 7 Apr 2008, 4:49pm

    The editor of this paper is a HUGE Hillary Clinton Fan. He has donated over $1,000 to her campaign and is dismayed with the progress of his candidate. Truly this is nonsense. In addition, what this paper failed to highlight is her Husband during his 1996 re-election campaign, threw the gays under the bus, by signing Dont Ask Dont Tell, and the Defense of Marriage Act.

  3. not an Obamabot 7 Apr 2008, 5:36pm

    I would like to know why Obama proudly touts in his speeches the fact that his mixed-raced parents used this land of opportunity to get married when quite a few states still didn’t allow interracial marriage.Then he feels perfectly justified in disallowing gay couples the same opportunity. No, “separate but equal” is fine for us he says, yet he has no actuall action plan for even getting that done during his term.When I posed this question to his camp, I got a canned answer, got signed up for his newsletter, AND they asked me for a donation.”Not a typical politician”, my ass.

  4. To “Not an Obamabot”, I guess you’re intent on copying and pasting your comment everywhere around the blogosphere today without considering our responses to you. I don’t get what exactly your umbrage is here: “Then he feels perfectly justified in disallowing gay couples the same opportunity.” Obama supports the repeal of DOMA and supports a federal civil union recognition law.Once DOMA is repealed, gay marriage/civil unions/domestic partnership is a STATE ISSUE. The Federal government doesn’t marry anyone. Obama supports Federal recognition of a state-granted gay marriage/etc. and supports reciprocity between states recognizing gay marries/etc. granted in other states.What more do you want?Hillary Clinton does NOT support repealing DOMA. Period.

  5. I wish you LGBT folks would stop worring about Mr. Obama he is for your cause also, the freedom to live as you please with your own lifes !!!!Obama 08

  6. PHILLYDAN 7 Apr 2008, 7:23pm

    Mark Segal is a self-important blow-tard. He would like to think that he is a thought leader for the gay community, and rather is just focused on his own self-serving ends. It is no surprise that he supports Sen Clinton. She epitomizes the failed good-old-boy politics that he and Gov Rendell are so enamored by. He is irrelevant, and in no way speaks for the gay community of Philadelphia. Most of us ignore him. And, by the way, the PGN is a free throw-away paper.

  7. Don’t you Americans have your own sites to discuss Obama and Clinton? I mean, seriously, there MUST be some other site where they care about your political comments….

  8. not an Obamabot 7 Apr 2008, 7:45pm

    I find it funny when people such as “KCG” accuse others of what they themselves are doing, namely, he/she is littering everything everywhere with pro-Obama support wherever the slightest slight is perceived. No, the prior post was my one and only, besides this response.I also can’t stand it when bloggers lie – namely the “Hillary Clinton does NOT support repealing DOMA. Period.” comment. The “section” of DOMA she will not want to repeal is the individual states’ need recognize a marriage between persons of the same sex, from another state. Mainly to hold off the Republican hound dogs who would use a total DOMA repeal to push for another try at a national constitutional marriage amendment during the next Presidential election cycle. Because really, neither Obama nor Clinton will get this done their first term anyway, we are not that important to them. He can say he supports civil unions all he wants. Until he has a plan and it will actually take place during his term, it’s just empty words. Besides that, go ahead and go out on the street and ask a black person if it would be o.k. with them if we create a separate-but-equal union category for them instead of marriage. Go ahead and go to New Jersey and ask any number of civilly-registered gay couples if they’ve already run into trouble because their union isn’t “marriage”. Go ahead and ask Obama why it was o.k. for him to marry his wife but he doesn’t “support” that idea for me. And he doesn’t. Go back and watch your tapes. What more do I want? Really? You have the balls to ask me that question?No, I am not pro-Hillary. Yes, I am thoroughly disgusted by the blind faith and do-no-wrong attitude Obamabots put in their candidate. Oh, if he manages to get to office, he is going to be hounded by me and the likes of me from day one to the last day to hold him accountable. The higher you put your guy on a pedestal, the harder he will fall.

  9. To Not an Obamabot:I encourage you to challenge Senator Obama as stridently as you want. However, you continue to repost your facile assumption that somehow a call for a US constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage is somehow a plausible proposition with which to threaten Obama.The reason why HRC is pushing this line, which you so readily accept, is to continue the mendacious “apology” Bill Clinton gave to the gay community for his signing of DOMA. He basically said, oh, I really like to support you guys but look, the Republicans would have gotten a constitutional amendmnent so isn’t this better than nothing?No, Bill, it’s not. Bill signed DOMA in order to boost his political capital — nothing more. He ran ads in the South that trumpeted his signing of DOMA to prove hjis good ol’ boy cred.The only reason why the Republicans brought up the amendment was to drum up redneck votes. None of them seriously thought such a stupid amendment (like the flag burning amendment) would actually pass. It’s a purely political tool and you are playing right into their hands by accepting the viability of such an amendment and repeating the same old B.S. of the 90’s.

  10. not an Obamabot 7 Apr 2008, 8:35pm

    KCG isn’t paying attention. Either that, or he’s playing the evasive game. You said Clinton didn’t support repealing DOMA. Period.Outright Lie (to drum up support for your candidate)If you need to resort to lies to boost a candidate, please, look for another candidate.Also it seems that you do not want to address that your candidate does not support gay marriage, (incidentally some Dems did, but they were never viable – I would think that a black civil rights lawyer would be more open towards that – assumption wrong!) – so, please go stick your head in the sand in someone else’s neighborhood.

  11. To Not an Obamabot:Sorry if I confused you but, as we’ve been discussing on Queerty, I acknowledge that Senator Clinton supports the repeal of only Section 3 of DOMA, the section dealing with prohibiting the federal government from recognizing any kind of gay union. Obama supports full repeal of the entire law. Sorry if that was confusing to you or anyone here.For someone who so enthusiastically runs around accusing people of “playing the evasi[on] game”, you’d think you’d be keen to address the point in my last message, i.e., that the whole gay marriage ban amendment is a crock of BS. I know you tried to address this on Queerty and gave up but thought you’d like the opportunity here.As to my alleged “evasi[on] game”, I already addressed your point on Queerty. My apologies for the repeat but here it is:”Obama has indeed stated that he does not currently support the phrase “gay marriage” due to the fact that the phrase is a non-starter with the opposition. He prefers an incremental approach that will get gays and lesbians exactly the same rights as married heterosexual couples as quickly as possible. This is the same stance as Hillary Clinton on this issue.”This is my defense of his stance on the issue. I personally agree with him. There are far too many people being denied rights available to straight married couples to delay the passage of significant legislation to grant rights to gay couples to quibble over verbiage. I personally do not care for the label of “marriage” because, in my mind, there is too much religious baggage and, as a proud atheist, I don’t want the implication that my union need be blessed by some religious prelate.

  12. By the way, I didn’t even notice this first line in the article: “One of America’s most respected gay publications”. This is BS. The Philly Gay News is a bar rag!

  13. BORING….

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.