Reader comments · Comment: Is Obama all talk and no action on gay issues? · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


Comment: Is Obama all talk and no action on gay issues?

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Brian Burton 5 Jun 2009, 7:13pm

    This reminds me of a woman friend who accomodated her Grandson when he stayed with her. If he wanted somthing he would say he wanted it ‘NOW NANNY’ Well, they cannot expect everything to be ‘NOW BARAK’ They’ll just have to be patient.

  2. Mihangel apYrs 5 Jun 2009, 7:41pm

    he can block any more dismissals under DADT: this is destroying people’s careers and lives. It is not unreasonable to expect quick response where it can be done by fiat THEN do it properly

  3. Jean-Paul 5 Jun 2009, 7:42pm

    V King Macdona:

    Thanks for your reportage.

    Personally, I am most impressed with Obama and the fact that he has proclaimed June Gay Pride Month. Also, just yesterday or the day before, we learned that Harvard University now has a professorship in Gay Studies.

    Positive things are happening all over the States, and you notice that we are being neglected because what…the world is in the middle of the worst economic crisis ever, perhaps…the polar caps are melting, perhaps…million of jobs are being lost, perhaps, etc.

    Do you know the difference between reporting news and sensationalism by any chance? Nice try, but no cigar.

  4. Jean-Paul, you’re in Canada, yes? Don’t you think your country is WAY ahead of the US? My girlfriend’s American and she’s told me some things that totally shocked me about the States – not just LGBT issues, racist things aswell (separate Proms for black students?? :o)
    Personally, I never believed Obama had any great inclination to do much for gay issues, but maybe I’m a cynic. I also appreciate that he may be nervous of doing anything that would be opposed by all the religious/traditionalist voters.

  5. Iris:

    Thanks for the feedback.

    Yes, I am in Canada, in Atlantic Canada, northern New Brunswick to be more precise. This is ‘the’ officially bilingual province of Canada. In 10 or so generations we have learned the fine art of getting along splendidly with each other. Social problems are a challenge, nothing more, nothing less; our democratic process in no better than anyone else’s but it’s no worse either. Our economy is a mess.

    You yourself, from the comments you have been making, have somehow cultivated the ability to write English without using crass expressions, and I have developed a lot of respect for you. Flattery? I don’t blame you for thinking that. We French…l’amour toujours and all that.

    Seriously, let’s call it as I intend it to be: setting an ambiance for a budding friendship and that does not mean that we can’t disagree, OK.

    From my own personal experience and from what I hear from friends across the country, Canadian Gay Liberation is way ahead of the USA and GB ‘on the books’. The laws are there, safely intact, and many Americans envy us.

    On a daily basis in small town, New Brunswick, where I’m neither in nor out – at my age, who cares – the homophobia is and always will be there. Learning how to live around it without having a nervous breakdown seems to be the challenge judging by the number of gays, young and old, who blow their brains out in their sheds or basements, as recently as last week.

    I like cynical people, I am comfortable with cynicism myself.

    Yes, of course I agree that it’s anybody’s guess how Obama’s presidency will evolve. Am I being naïve in believeing that positive thinking will somehow influence the course of things in favour of curing homophobia?

    Be honest with me, Iris, my skin in not made of onion paper, a side effect of bilingualism and biculturalism. If I can learn something from you, the very worse that can happen is that I will become a better person. My views are not entrenced.

    If it means anything to you, I am a Gemini. To me that simply means that curiosity is a virtue and that there’s no end to personal growth.

    To tell you the truth, I expect that when more of the most prestigious universities in the USA, like Harvard, will begin offering a degree in Gay Studies, Obama will receive the support he will need to face the opposition of ‘religious/traditionalist voters’.

    The important thing to understand about American elections is that Amaicans are notorious for staying home on election day. A 40% turnout is considered a success…40%! That can just as well be interpreted to mean that 60% of Americans are ordinary persons wrapped up in their own lives and believing in a ‘live and let live’ American way of thinking.

    Let’s say that in a century or so, when Gay Liberation is a worldwide phenomena, human beings will still need a scapegoat of some kind. It seems to be in our genes. In my humble opinion, this tremendous psychical energy could effectively be nurtured to target pollution and global warming.

    Am I babbling?

  6. I’m ambivalent about Obama when it comes to his commitment to gay equality. There’s a whole theory that’s been explored in the New York Times that Obama is throwing the gays under the bus as a distraction to the right wingers so that he can advance a more progressive policy on things like a national health service and abortion rights. While the Christians are distracted by the sinning queers, they’ll take their eye off women’s rights and the control a lot of Christian charities have over other people’s health (via the charitable hospitals). Obama may have welcomed LGBT month in America, but so did Bill Clinton back in 2000. It’s not new or original. Obama tends to talk the talk, but he’s not yet prepared to do anything realistic when it comes to proving his manifesto claim to be ‘a fierce advocate of gay and lesbian rights’. On something like Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell he’s claiming that there need to be masses of inv4estigations and committees and reports and whatever to find out what the military believe before he’ll do anything, well he’s being disingenous. Harry Truman removed racial segregation in the army simply by ordering it. It was a massive, major, incredibly big thing in American society – far bigger than the gay thing – but Truman just said it was a bad thing and stopped it because he could because he was President. Obama could stop DADT tomorrow really easily and with very little opposition because most Americans (about 60 per cent) think it’s a crap policy. But he’s not done it and he refuses to comment on it. In the meantime, the US army is still dishonorably discharging Arab linguists in the army because they’re gay. Call me stupid, but when America is having a war with Arab countries, there’s something stupid about getting rid off the experts in the field. And even if he doesn’t want to fight the fight about DADT, he could still put a hold on the discharges until there had been some kind of investigation. But he’s not doing any of that.
    He’s also not doing anything to talk about ending discrimination against gay men and women so that they lose their jobs or housing simply because they’re gay.
    I like Obama on a lot of levels but he’s really no ally to the gays. When he was starting out on his political career he was happily taking money from gay groups by advocating advocating absolute equality for gays. And it’s a serious argument that Obama would never have got to the position of even attempting to be president if the gays hadn’t supported him in the first place.
    But now he’s President he doesn’t seem to want to acknowledge his roots.
    I fully understand that he doesn’t have to do everything all at once and it’s only a couple of months into his presidency, but the man really could have done one hell of a lot more than he has done for the gays and lesbians of America who didn’t just vote for him, but also paid millions to put him in that situation.

  7. Jean-Paul 6 Jun 2009, 2:12am


    Am I to understand that we have the pleasure of having a New Yorker on board?

    Your comment is most appreciated because you are obviously in touch with the American way, just lke Iris is with the UK mentality, and I, with the Canadian. It’s a challenge for one culture to understand another by reading about it, you know what I mean.

    Anyway, I was not familiar with the New York Times’ spin on Obama’s tactics. I frequently visit ‘www dot gaywisdom dot org’ in NYC, but their vision of Gay America seldom dips into politics per se.

    Nothing you say would prompt me to call you stupid, Darrien. In fact, when all is said and done, we agree on a very basic level where christian fundamentalists = homophobia, and they can be a powerful reactionary force around which Obama has to dance. I have heard it said, though, that they are a bit of a paper moon.

    As I said, my hope for the future of Gay America is in University Gay Studies. For example, my life, my entire world view, was refreshed, transformed when I read and re-read Louis Crompton’s ‘Homosexuality and Civilization’.

    Crompton is professor of English, Emeritus, at the University of Nebraska, he is the Winner of the Bonnie and Vern L. Bullough Award, and he is sponsored by the Foundation for the Scientific Study of Sexuality. Edmund White himself commented on Crompton’s work as:

    ‘Brilliantly researched. Crompton, drawing on his immense erudition, contrasts Christianity and its barbaric cruelty towards same-sex love with more benign traditions in Moorish Spain… (He) also discusses the cult of romantic homosexuality in traditional Japan, where relationships of immense loyalty and idealism sprang up between the samurai and their pages.’

    Louis Cromptom is no Mickey Mouse, although his reputation will spread around the world like all Disney characters do so rapidly.
    Also, he reads as easily as drinking a cool glass of water.

    I don’t claim to know more than you about the daily realities of being gay in the States, I think your comments are most informative, and I wouldn’t be surprised if you have already modified my way of thinking. My hope, however, remains intact.

    Finally, we cannot afford to lose sight of the big picture, the planet, which is the only space ship we have, is dancing as fast as it can, and needs our help.

    Otherwise, like RobN pointed out lately, we can envision standing in a nuclear wasteland saying: ‘Well, at least we now have our rights.’

    Am I babbling?

  8. Pumpkin Pie 6 Jun 2009, 9:49am

    Otherwise, like RobN pointed out lately, we can envision standing in a nuclear wasteland saying: ‘Well, at least we now have our rights.’

    How does giving us our rights prevent governments from tackling issues such as the economy and climate change? It’s not an either/or situation – I want somebody to clean up this mess we’re in and I want equal rights NOW. There is nothing difficult about this combination of demands. In fact, gay marriages would bring a shedload of money into the economy, so the people who are denying us our rights are the ones selfishly holding the country back, not us. Saying “the economy is more important” is just a cheap diversionary tactic.

  9. Thank you for the long reply, Jean-Paul (and, no, you weren’t babbling :D ). I think we discussed a while ago how certain parts of modern-thinking countries could still be quite backward (I don’t mean that in a perjorative sense). It was on the hand-holding story comments, I think. So I suppose I was generalising.

    I can’t remember what the turn-out was for the last General Election in the UK, but I don’t think it was high – apathy rules, it seems. Talking to my girlfriend, what scares me most about the US is the prevalence of religion in so many spheres. That’s not having a go at anyone’s god, it’s just that I find it hard to understand how organised religion took such a big hold in the US. What struck me about the difference between UK and US elections was the need for US presidential candidates to say how much they believed in God; whereas, in the UK, although Blair was/is religious, he was careful not to “do God”, as his spokesman put it, because he felt it would alienate the majority of voters. I get the impression the opposite’s true in some parts of the US.

    If so many Americans genuinely believe that God thinks being gay is somehow wrong, it’ll take a lot to change that. I wonder whether Obama’s religious himself or just scared of losing votes. You could probably answer that better than me.

    All the best,

  10. Pumpkin Pie:

    Picky, picky. Allright, I know what you’re saying and I’ll grant you that. A gay site may not be the place to talk about climate change and things like that, but we don’t want to live in a ghetto, do we?

    On the other hand, will you grant me that obtaining our gay rights is one thing, but legislating against homophobia is another?

    Homophobia is a mental illness and it can be as subtle as a poisoned grape, or somebody tail-gating you on a lonely stretch of highway at night and flashing his headlights.

    It can be as subtle as having your older brother showing you his adorable little daughter and saying: ‘Too bad you can’t make one of these, eh JP!’

    A good kick in the arse does not cure homophobia, but I did manage to put a fair size nail under one of his car tires and the poor guy had a slow leak all the way home. I’m so bad.

    Well, he broke enough of my toys in his time.

  11. Iris:

    You are one of the nicest ladies…

    We all generalize; it’s a good a way as any to start a conversation or a debate. No harm done.

    A friend of mine (straight as the day is long, I don’t know why he’s been hanging around me for the last 30 years) spends more time reading about American politics than anything else. He would be a pistol-toting Republican, and he does think of himself as the fourth person of the Trinity. I told him so to his face, so I’m not talking about him behind his back.

    My point is that I’m not that much into politics. At university when I had a choice between political science and French Literature (in English), I chose Flaubert’s ‘Madame Bovary’, and I’m glad I did.

    But Bernard, my buddy, tells me all about the pilgrims landing at Plymouth Rock and bringing the good news to the heathens and stamping their coins with things like ‘In God We Trust’ and so on.

    We agree on one thing: the only religion in the States that has an independent newspaper is the RCC. The National Catholic Reporter (it has a website) calls a spade a spade, names names and places and all kinds of contradictory blunders made by the American episcopacy as well as by the Vatican. Gasp!.

    I think the Methodists also have a way to criticize themselves.

    As for the fundamentalists and the more zealous denominations who subjugate ‘their’ women, I can’t argue with you about that, except to say that women still don’t know how smart they are and how much good they could do in the world if they organized and put an end to this craziness. I always say that women can see in the dark in the sense that they can see the harm being done to their children, and they just take deep breaths and hope for the best (Now I’m generalizing). The day will come when women will transform the world, take my word for it.

    To get back to Obama, his wife is turning out to be quite a personality. I would be curious to follow her around for a few days. She strikes me as an enlightened American black woman and that, to me, means that she is the very definition of ‘guts’ and charm.

    Neither one of us can second guess Obama’s personal stance on religion. He seems to put a lot of emphasis on physical exercise, and that will give a man or a woman that extra bit of self-confidence and stamina. I think he is sincere about protecting gay rights and he has a sense of timing that escapes us.

    Anyway, he’s been in the White House for such a short period of time. I personally hope he will find time to legislate in our favour before he himself loses the favour of those who put him into office, as very often happens.

    Look at what happened to poor Madame Bovary!!! Spent all her husband’s money looking for love in all the wrong places. Is that a fair comparison? I told you politics is all Greek to me.

    Warm regards,

  12. I want him to hurry up and remove DOMA. The sooner he does that, the soon my wife and I may return back to my US home. I had to leave my own country because federal law does not recognize my wife for immigration. I’m not the only one in this situation and all of us sit and wait until he removes it. And yet the UAFA is stalled in Congress because Christian morons are saying it “devalues marriage”. Let’s see, relatives can sponsor family members…sister..brothers…uncles etc. So immigration laws do not only apply to married couples, yet they bring THAT up. Face it they want to exile every gay couple they can.

  13. Bill Perdue 6 Jun 2009, 6:36pm

    During the campaign supporters of Obama, Hillary Clinton and McCain all claimed that their candidates’ opposition to our agenda was political expediency. We were told that they’re politicians pretending to be bigots but that deep down they support us. That was, of course, a lie. Certainly Obama and especially Hillary Clinton are deeply involved in cultism and seem to accept superstitious thinking as a guide to action.

    In any case their motives are unimportant. The functional definition of a bigot is someone who works to deny us our rights, including the right to marry. Obama, Clinton and McCain fit the bill.

    It also applies to those like Obama, McCain and Clinton who actively court the bigot vote. Obama in particular hinged his campaign on pandering to such an extent that he could teach Republican Karl Rove, who captured the christer bigot vote for Bush, a thing or two.

    Obama’s Minister of Pandering (Religious Outreach), ordained pentecostal minister Josh Dubois, organized a series of revival style rallies featuring ex-gay scum like the Rev. Donnie McClurkin. Dubois went on to organize christer cultists into a powerful nationwide network of supporters groups. That in turn insured a large audience for his message that bigotry is OK when Obama said ‘gawd’s in the mix” and torpedoed our chances for same sex marriage in California.

    After the election we found Obama in a political love fest with southern baptist bigot preacher Warren at the Inaugural and then saw him appoint bigots to his board of spirit advisors. He even has a prayer writer to back up his speech writers! Now that same Josh Dubois has the assignment of lining up support from greedy pastors and priests with ‘faith based’ bribes from federal agencies.

    There is a clear pattern here and it’s a pattern of bigotry. Actually, if Obama’s anti-GLBT actions are based on political expediency they’re all the more revolting and treacherous for that.

    Now we’re seeing Obama’s increasing chilly hostility to repealing DOMA and DADT and enacting the rest of our agenda. He and the Democrats as a whole, with the gleeful support of Republicans, are bent on postponing our agenda until the next election cycle when they’ll dump it like they did in 2007 to pander to bigots.

  14. Robert, ex-pat Brit 7 Jun 2009, 1:56pm

    Jean-Paul, as a transplanted Brit living in New York….Canada is indeed ahead of the U.S. and G.B. but….G.B. at least has some semblance of equality at the national level, its civil partnerships, though I’m not defending them, do provide most of the rights and benefits of marriage without the name. In the U.S. we have no national hate crime laws as Canada and the UK do, and only six states allow full marriage at the state level, no federal rights are conferred numbering 1049 and the rest are state rights bringing the total number of rights of full marriage to 1324. Both Canada and the UK allow its gay citizens to serve openly in the military and gay couples are allowed to adopt children, among many other things that straights enjoy and take for granted. The UK is not so far behind as some think but has a little more to go, far less than the U.S has to. Just a bit of clarification there for you. Also, UK gay couples can bring in their foeign partners. We have no such right in the U.S. though legislation is now pending, one of the less threatening to Obama’s agenda. It will be interesting to see if it passes.

    Getting back to the matter at hand, Obama will probably not deliver on much for the LGBT community. God is in the mix in almost everything associated with our rights. He’d rather not offend them but would be willing to throw us under the bus. Our rights have NEVER been a priority of the Democratic party, we are the last group of people society can hate and discriminate against and….get away with it. That’s why Proposition 8 in California reared its ugly head and won. God is definitely in the mix in American politics and no American running for political high office can get elected unless he or she declares a religious belief system, usually in god, unlike Canada and the U.K.

  15. Some very good, interesting, even nice comments here. I, for one, wish he’d get on with things. The Americans who will get upset, loud, and go activist over it will be around regardless of whatever percentage of the population sympathizes with gay matters. My guess is the place he would most stand to be hurt would be by our senators and representatives, in as much as they’d be both pressured by their constituents (where the same were anti-gay) to make trouble for Obama and his administration; and in the longer term, as positions come up for re-election the anti-gay sector would put a lot of money toward getting people who sympathized with them into office. Look at what happened in California with gay marriage. The money that went into getting Prop 8 passed was substantial. In any case, I wish he’d do the right thing and do what he said or implied he’d do.

  16. Jean-Paul 7 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

    Robert, ex-pat Brit:

    You live in NYC?! Now you’re signature makes sense!

    You, like Richard, an American, who wrote his comment after yours, are in the thick of it. You in particular are in a better position than either Iris or I to have a good idea of the state of gay liberation in our three countries.

    You have a tremendous insight into American politics and I am not in a position to say anything but express my gratitude for your input.

    I would be interested to know more about your attitude towards the news that Harvard now has a chair in Gay Studies, that Louis Crompton has published an exceptional 600 page book thoroughly researched and illustrated, and for that matter, that Alfred Kinsey published his groundbreaking Report as far back as 1948.

    There is in fact a great deal happening on the intellectual and cultural levels of Gay Liberation in America, and ideas do propel us, don’t they?

    Iris said something very important in her post 9: ‘If so many Americans genuinely believe that God thinks being gay is somehow wrong, it’ll take a lot to change that.’ She could just as easily have been talking about any or every country.

    Can we agree that thinking that gay is somehow wrong equals being homophobic? Can we agree that homophobia has its roots in the Abrahamic religions?

    Another question, how will legislating in favour of gay rights uproot the homophobia that gays will have to face once we are free and legally equal? Homophobia is alive in Canada.

    My point being that we could be looking at ways to help those suffering from this most subtle and sanctimonious mental illness. When we see a man lying on the side of the road with a bleeding nose, do we confront him by accusing him of having a bleeding nose?

    There’s a is a way. For example, in 1992-93, Bruce Hilton published a book entitled ‘ Can Homophobia Be Cured? Wrestling with Questions That Challehge the Church’. This man has credentials: he is director of the National Center for Bioethics, writes a nationally syndicated column, ‘Bioethics’, which reaches millions of people every week, and has also published other books dealing with Life & Death issues.

    His book on homophobia is barely 100 pages long, reads like a high school paper, and approaches the subject through the eyes of the victims of homophobia. It may not have all the answers, but I believe that setting up educational programs to cure homophobia must go hand in hand with our fight for our rights.

    Standing up to a homophobe and talking reason with him/her is an excellent practice for those who can deconstruct religious myths using scientific proof. However, if the homophobe is an fanatic, he will just keep coming back for more because he has a sense of mission and cannot see the that he is motivated by hatred instead of love.

    We would be talking about something like a 12-step program that begins when the homophobe can admit he/she is suffering from homophobia; the same idea as AA. It’s a mental illness; it can be described, diagnosed and treated without a person’s lose of his/her faith in a personnal deity. I do not have it all down pat.

    Finally, you now see the difference between a humanitarian and a politician. Any approach is a good approach if it works. That’s American pragmatism for you! As I say, my hope is still intact, and my hope for America is in Obama for the moment. Call me crazy.

  17. but we gays and lesbians have failed to explain homosexuality to the world. they still think it’s a life style or a choice or a sin. Where on earth do we think we are going? We pretend to be treated like normal people, but we aren’t considered normal becose we don’t teach people the truth.

  18. Jean-Paul 7 Jun 2009, 9:52pm


    Touché ! And especially no truth in the UK’s faith school.

  19. Simon Murphy 8 Jun 2009, 10:50am

    If people feel that Obama has failed their cause or lied to them in the promises he made when elected, then they need to inform him in no uncertain terms that they will not support his re-election efforts.

  20. Obama is and was all soundbites.

    The attraction to him is because he is ‘black’ (the fact that his mother is white and is actually the one who raised him doesn’t matter apparently).

    The second attraction is because he has no policies. No clear cut, ‘this is what I’ll do’ policies. All style and no substance.

    Obama says ‘change’ and ‘hope’. Well OK, but since you have no policies, ‘change’ what? ‘Hope’ for what? We don’t know because he doesn’t specify, that’s the trick…….’hope’ and ‘change’ mean what YOU want them to mean, hence you find him attractive. It’s a very clever political trick but once you’re awoken to it, you see.

    ‘President. Change’ was voted in solely because of his ethnic background, John McCain’s age, Sarah Palin’s stupidity and a cowardly smear campaign against Hillary Clinton.

    ‘President.Change’ is also backed by the same rich political Zionist controllers who have been in the Whitehouse since the 70’s, namely Zbigniew Brzezinski, (Bilderberg Group and man responsible for arming the Taliban against the Soviets, and from re-naming Iran a ‘terrosrist state’ after it refused to be a ‘client state’ any longer) Rahm Emmanuel (who’s father was part of the terrorist cell Irgun which bombed Israel into existence at the cost of over 90 lives, many British) etc, etc, the list goes on.

    I’m saying this as a supporter of Israel’s right to exist, and as someone who despises Iran’s extremism. BUT when you look into these situations the world of American politics, is very, very dark.

    So expect no REAL ‘change’ from Bush’s policies. Obama has already pledged the withdrawal of some troops from Iraq, only to place them in Afghanistan.

    He’s a fraud building a ‘cult of personality’ around himself to disguise the fact that he has, and will, do nothing.

  21. Simon Murphy:

    That’s what I call strategy. Good thinking, especially when practically everybody is now online.

    Pester the be-jesus out of him. And the UN too. There’s nothing funny about executing gays in Iraq. Sometimes I wish I could break the world into a million pieces and put it back together the way I would like it. SCREAM!

  22. Jean-Paul 8 Jun 2009, 1:10pm


    Every word you say makes sense; I won’t argue with you. You appear to have done your homework and I like to see LGBT’s thinking about world issues, e.g. Israel.

    ‘But’, why do I feel that all hope is stiffled in your interpretation. I know politics stink when you look under the rocks.

    We could all read about the rise of the ancient Roman Empire and see the very same instances of political corruption. Nothing new about corruption.

    I did read Governor Andrew Greely’s complicated autobiography, and I have him reading his book on CD’s, and the insight into the stench of American politics has real rotting meat and bones on it.

    I don’t want to live without hope. I gotta have some kind of hope, an idea that carries me forward, a dream. If not Obama, then who? John McCain who used to drop napalm bombs in Viet Nam and yell YAHOO when he saw entire villages and its population of innocent men, women and children in flames? F*cking cowboy!

    It was said that Pierre Eliot Trudeau was a cult personality too, and I think he was the last good thing that happened in Canadian politics. Now, we have a coalition government on a perpetual merry-go-round: one guy says ‘jump’ and the other says ‘jump higher’. A cardboard parliament just because the Liberals don’t have leadership qualities at the moment. Where’s the hope for Canada?

    Now with the BNP’s success, what lies ahead for the UK? I did notice a considerable gain for the UKIP. Is that a sign of hope?

    The future may not be in politics at all, but in Education, who knows?

    I’m just babbling now.

    Sorry, but the problem I have with your perception, and I do appreciate your insights, is that it destroys without suggesting a better or an alternate situation. It leaves us center stage with no lines, spotlights on us and we don’t have a director telling us which way to move. Know what I mean, or is that too wishy-washy?

  23. Jean-Paul 8 Jun 2009, 1:11pm


    I’m trying to get in touch with you in the members’ Forum!

  24. Lezabella 8 Jun 2009, 3:41pm

    Merci pour votre réponse mon ami, c’etait très bien et perspicace.

    (Imagine that with a Quebec accent and without the numerous syntaxical errors :) )

    Well it is very depressing, someone like Obama, billed as a ‘messiah’ who will save the world, is already looking like a dud. To people like me who know who his backers are, it’s no surprise. But to everyone else it’s a major downer.

    The alternative is to stop companies like Halliburton funding politics. Stop the Rothschilds and their banking chums from funding politics.

    Stop these secretive (but all poweful) organisations like The Bilderberg Group, Trilateral Commission and Council On Foreign Relations from having secretive meetings wherein the policies of North America and Europe are effectively thought up and decided upon. (previous attendees and memebrs of these groups include, Queen Beatrix of The Netherlands, King Juan Carlos of Spain, Prime Minister Gordon Brown and Tony Blair, Hillary and Bill Clinton, Rupert Murdoch, Prince Charles, the directors of companies like Coce-Cola, Citigroup, HSBC and McDonalds) I mean the list goes on. Virtually every PM of Britain and every President of the U.S.A have been a member of atleast one. The last President of the U.S.A to not be involved with these 3 groups in some way was John. F. Kennedy. The one before him to not be involved with these all powerful organisations (before they had these names) was Abraham Lincoln. Look what happened to them!

    Obama’s backers are the founding names of some of these groups, so it’s no surprise that he is turning out to be extremely quiet over Israel, gay rights etc.

    Not only that, but Bilderberg member Gordon Brown never looked so happy as when the British banks went tits up, why I hear you ask? Because now the Government legally owns the majority of the banks, and hence they’ll do what he (and his backers) want.

    It’s all inter-linked, and I’m sorry to say, but it’s all Western. These groups despise Russia and China because they refuse to play. When footage of ‘Russian’ soldiers steam-rolling into Georgian villages was shown on Sky, the BBC and all over the Western world last year, did you know thatin the vast majority of the footage they were actually Georgian soldiers in their own territory??? But Georgia’s PM is a US pawn too.

    It goes on, and on, and on. Google some of the stuff I’ve said about Bilderberg etc and you’ll see.

    So yeah I sound like a bit of a doom merchant. But unfortunately big money, and big business run the Western world. And I don’t need Michael Moore to tell me that even if he is correct!

  25. Lezabella 8 Jun 2009, 4:49pm


    Again sorry for the major downer, but Obama is not the new, shiny, well intentioned man we all wish he was. He’s a pawn.

    Oh and by the way regarding Canada; these groups have already decided upon a ‘North American Union’ consisting of The U.S.A, Canada and Mexico. Much like the European Union. They already have a plan to devalue the dollar to the extent that it’s worthless, and will then bring in a single currency (sound familiar?) called the ‘Amero’.

    If you had told Europeans 50 years ago that they would have a single currency I doubt they would have believed it either.

    I hope I answered your questions, and again sorry for it not being good news.

    However I love an intelligent conversation, and I, like you, care about the world and it’s happenings a lot, not just when it affects gays.

  26. Monkeychops 9 Jun 2009, 6:12pm

    No man is infallible, Obama included. So let’s be fair to the guy, he has only been in power a few months and has inherited the huge social and economic mess created by the previous administration. We are not the only social group he has to consider – huge numbers don’t even have health insurance! There were also a few hiccups in the process of forming his government, delaying his first political decisions. Despite obvious opposition, he has made moves to improve abortion rights, clear up the Guantanamo situation and declare June LGBT Pride month. Not to mention getting stuck into resolving the financial crisis – not only a problem for US citizens (including gay ones), but for those across the whole world. That’s a good start as far as I am concerned. Let’s be logical, you cannot solve everything at once, so what should your priority be? Enable people to pay their debts, keep a roof over their heads and eat? Or getting down to the minute details of gay rights (which, I might add, will not be on the minds of his opponents, making them more resistant to cooperating)? Ideally both would be good, but it’s not feasible. Therefore, I’d like the money – my life is more than just being gay, I have bills to pay, a stomach to feed and wouldn’t mind going on holiday from time to time.

    Moreover, if you have been paying attention, his very election has pushed several states in the last few months to legalise gay marriage. Things are happening.

    Or would you rather have Bush back?


  28. Monkeychops – Ofcourse no one wants Bush back, but if you read my comments (they are long because it was encessary to explain); you’ll see that Obama is backed by the same financiers and political tsars as Bush was.

    There will be no major differences, the U.S’s stance on Iran, Afhanistan, Israel, China and Russia will remain the same.

  29. Monkeychops 10 Jun 2009, 3:55pm

    Lezabella – It just seems that you’ve made up your mind already, that nothing will ever change. So why bother even coming on here to discuss it? Obama has already shown leadership on issues that are heavily opposed by the Christian right-wing (backed by said financiers no doubt), influential Republicans (ditto) etc etc. And during the worst financial crisis in decades when every minority is taking a pounding as majorities seeks scapegoats. Give the guy half a chance and maybe he’ll deal with those hindrances in time – you can’t rush negotiations with these powerful groups, it necessitates gentle political trade-offs, which, for all you know, he may well be on to. It’s the same with every contentious issue, it takes time, well-thought out tactics and bargaining. Of course, we all know that equal rights are not something that we should ever have to fight for, it should be a given. But life’s not fair and will seem unfairer still if you approach a problem with a view that it can’t be solved.

    Having looked on various comments pages here and despite people being very informed about the subjects they are commenting on, there is an overwhelming air of negativity and self-victimising. Not to mention the continual reinforcing of the very stereotypes that, paradoxically, gay people say they hate being labeled with by the straight community (celebrity-obsessed, superficial, promiscuous, ditsy, over-dramatic, over-sensitive, camp, bitchy etc). One would believe that the entire world is against us and we are ALL suffering discrimination at an appalling level day in day out. It’s as if people are trying to out-do each other with tales of woe to attract pity. In Western Europe, we are not subjected to the prejudices of our African or Asian counterparts, so why must people keep harping on as if we were? It needs to be kept in context and with a whiff of reality. It’s almost as though gay people do not want the situation to get better as they’ll have no-one to blame for their problems any more. We must stop living in the past and clinging to the challenges faced by our predecessors for some pathetic attempt to get attention. It’s just embarrassing and makes our cause seem all the less credible.

    If people just thought for a minute about how much the straight community has actually helped us in our fight for equality also, then maybe they would see that things are not so bad. After all, only a tiny percentage of MPs that voted through laws to protect us were actually gay. Even that much-detested Margaret Thatcher actually fought for the decriminalisation of homosexuality at one point at a time when it was pretty taboo. On the flip-side of the coin, not all our gay campaigners make good leaders – advocating cruising, cottaging and drug-taking as part of “gay culture” (whatever that is supposed to be) and screaming blue murder at dog walkers for homophobia when they are simply sick of seeing two men at it in a dusky park. It’s just asking for resentment by being so outwardly anti-social (and yes, shagging in public areas is anti-social – from anyone). There’s a lot of foot-shooting going on and this is why guys like me don’t feel part of the gay world, simply because we don’t share the same self-loathing, defensiveness and need to isolate ourselves. Of course, we just get the usual diatribe of being “self-hating” and having “issues”. Maybe it’s just because we have more self-respect than lots of other gays and don’t feel the need to make an exhibition of ourselves. That’s what insecure people do. I’ve never had a shred of shame about being attracted to my own gender, but I am embarrassed by the uncivilized behaviour of the “community” I am associated with (through no choice of my own, I might add). Perhaps I am fortunate that I have always had supportive family and friends, but then I am not the only one. Maybe it’s also because I made a choice to integrate into the wider world as I actually have more to talk about than just my “difference”. The only way we will win the respect of our societies is by acting in a civilized and respectable way. Right now, gay lifestyle lacks respectable behaviour – and, no, that doesn’t mean we should all be celibate and become invisible. But we do need to clean up our act if people are to see that we are worthy human beings. The gay scene is undoubtedly one of the most discriminating, ageist and egocentric communities that exists – the world over, yet hypocritically shouts that it is the most hard-done by. No-one is going to warm to that.

    I for one am positive about the future, but I also live to enjoy today with all the benefits that people like us never had 30 years ago. I know my gay history, I know my rights and what it took to get them. But that doesn’t mean I have to live like they did – isn’t that what the fighting has been all about?

    In a roundabout way, give Obama a chance – if he’d had as much self-pity and little determination as the people on this forum then he would be hiding in some blacks-only bar, sniffing lines for escapement and slighting everyone around him because of deep-rooted bitterness. He is a strong man, that’s why he’s there and I have much admiration for him.

  30. MonkeyChops-

    “In a roundabout way, give Obama a chance – if he’d had as much self-pity and little determination as the people on this forum then he would be hiding in some blacks-only bar, sniffing lines for escapement and slighting everyone around him because of deep-rooted bitterness. He is a strong man, that’s why he’s there and I have much admiration for him.”

    I cannot and will not give him a ‘chance’ or the benefit of the doubt because I know (and have pointed out) that he is backed by the same big business, Zionist, right-wing ‘men in suits’ that Bush was.

    Obama is a puppet for these people. So even if, on a personal level, he wanted to make changes he cannot.

    Contrary to your belief about me: gay rights in the U.S is not my main concern. I would like it ofcourse, but I would sooner Obama sorted out relations with Iran, Russia and China, and then get our troops the hell out of Iraq and Afghanistan.

    But Obama won’t/can’t. As I’ve said, Obama is a typical Orwellian cult of personality figure. He comes across as a ‘strong man’ and a nice guy, but his actual policies are unrelated and completely different from that for the simple fact that he isn’t the one who makes them. Even in Obama’s speeches (that he doesn’t write) he does that dramatic actor thing of pausing and looking down before delivering a crucial line; much like Tony Blair only slightly more slick. It’s all in the media training!

    When a Presisdent is chosen who isn’t managed and appointed by the elite (Bilderberg Group, Council On Foreign Relations, Rahm Emmanuel, Zbiginiew Brzezinski) , then I’ll have hope and give a chance to them. But as I said, the last two who were not chosen by these people were Abraham Lincoln and JFK, both of whom were sadly murdered in ‘assasinations’ *cough, cough*.

    I admit it’s a horribly negative view to take, but I feel it’s better to be informed about these things than live in hope only to be let down.

  31. Monkeychops 11 Jun 2009, 1:43pm

    Lezabella – Good to see you are so well-informed on these issues. I still think you should have more hope. More people just need to stand up against it – people on the street, within these industries and government bods who can say “no”. And, before you tell me it’s impossible, then I’m sure French peasants would have said the same about toppling the monarchy. If you feel so strongly that there is no hope, then see what you can do to overcome it. This is an area I am not overly familiar with and thus I cannot really suggest any solutions. All governments are controlled by businesses – and in the US Zionists are also a hugely influential factor – but humans are not infallible. The crumble under pressure at every level. We can, and have many times, changed things. These groups were just as influential 20 years ago and see how far we have come? Not sure if I’ve done a good job of convincing you, but I think I have convinced myself a bit more :)

  32. Is Obama all talk and no action on gay issues?


    If he won’t act now with a thumping majority, and the popular vote, he sure isn’t going to do anything four years from now.

    Sometimes Social change NEEDS great leadership, and much as I like him, Obama has failed on gay rights. He will not ever again have such a strong mandate for social change.

    It’s NOW or NEVER.

  33. Monkeychops 17 Jun 2009, 1:14pm

    But how can you say he’s failed when he’s barely started? Or does failing simply mean he hasn’t made every single area of US law equal to gay people? Will he succeed ONLY if he does the opposite of that? I don’t believe it’s now or never for a second, the guy has made a few good moves already and under difficult circumstances. Maybe he’s being wise – making all those changes so quickly could make it worse for us by seeing a huge backlash that subquently gets him ousted at the next election. And then we get our rights revoked. If it’s done moderately, it could mean he stays popular enough to get elected for a second term and then brings even more change – not just to us, but various groups. We’re not his only priority and we’re not the only group asking the world of him. He’s not infallible, he’s human, but by and large, I think he’s on the right track. Let’s see what happens in another six months.

  34. Mihangel apYrs 19 Jun 2009, 7:33am

    we can say he’s failING because of how quickly he’s resiling on all the impotant issues (DOMA, DADT, equality of benefits).

    The majority of gay people don’t WANT gestures (June is Gay Pride month or whatever), they want real improvements in equality – the sort that have to be pushed through, the sort that cost money, the sort that need political courage.

    If he doesn’t do it now, at the beginning of his tenure when he’s rifding the popularity wave and has support, he won’t do it in the run up to the next election campaign (less then two and a half years to go I imagine), and he’s noit guaranteed a second term (certainly some of his supporters may stay at home if he chooses to ignore their aspirations)

  35. Simon Murphy 22 Jun 2009, 3:24pm

    #33:Monkeychops: You ask: “Or does failing simply mean he hasn’t made every single area of US law equal to gay people? @

    No he has failed because despite his pledge to abolish the ‘abhorrent law’ – the Defence of Marriage Act, Obama is now fighting to keep the law. The disgusingly homophobic language he used to defend it said that gay marriage should not be legalised as this may leave the door open for incest and paedophilia.

    That’s language even more sickeningly homophobic than George W Bush used.

    Obama is not to be trusted. He is just another 2 faced, opportunistic b@stard who will betray his promises the moment it is convenient for him.

  36. Monkeychops 25 Jun 2009, 12:18pm

    Simon – Well go and live on Mars then. Seems like you’ll never be happy with anyone leading anything. Or just run for PM yourself – if you think you can do better. I personally have not heard that kind of language comng from Obama, where are you sourcing that from?

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.