Back in November, I wondered what would change with a Democratic Party in control of the Congress, and Bush in the White House. Well, haven’t had long to wait really, as Bush has used his VETO power lately, with more to come, and the Democrats are in worse shape with the people than Bush. Go figure

However, there are some bright spots. The repeal of DADT is before them, adding sexual orientation to Hate Crimes is before them (facing a Veto by the way) and now they have cut the Abstinence Only funding by about half. In doing so they also added those funds to the Ryan White funding, which is about AIDS Prevention & Treatment.

(Washington) A controversial federal program that stresses abstinence outside heterosexual marriage has been chopped by $28. million. (source)

While the Democrats appear to be no different than the Republicans on the other major issues, such as the War in Iraq, Immigration, Health, and Education, at least on this front they actually did do something right. I suppose when one does so much wrong, the few good things get lost in the shuffle. This is one of those things.

Now if they would only do what they promised on the other stuff, maybe America wouldn’t be heading so quickly into oblivion.

There are two legal challenges regarding the controversial ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell‘ policy of the US Military. The one that current Chairman of the Joint Chiefs absolutely supports, claiming it is immoral for Gays to be allowed to serve openly in the military. Course, it is not immoral, if they serve but lie as to their sexual orientation. Great code of Morals there General Pace. Thank God you are being turfed come Oct 1. (see comment ‘General Peter Pace USMC ret.‘)

What is interesting, is that one of these law cases, is from the Log Cabin Republicans. A bit of a strange one that, because how can a Gay person support the Republican Party as it stands now? I mean this is a party willing to sacrifice a minority’s civil rights, for getting elected. Whether you buy into the other stuff, should be secondary, when one’s rights are at stake.

(Los Angeles, California) A federal judge will hear oral arguments today in Los Angeles in a lawsuit brought by Log Cabin Republicans challenging the constitutionality of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” the ban on gays serving openly in the military. (see Story)

There is also a bill before Congress, attempting to repeal this law as well. So the race is on, which will get the job done first? Congress or the Courts? I’ll put my money on the courts as this bill seems to be languishing in Congress, and if its not passed this year, I rather doubt it’ll be passed come an election year. Could even be why it is stalled now, as the Democrats are no better at doing what is right, as the Republican were. I mean just look at their vapid support for Amnesty disguised as Immigration Reform. (see comment ‘Grand Compromise Dead?‘)

It shall be interesting to see what the Court Rules in both legal cases. At issue is the right of privacy, of which DADT violates. Least that is the argument, however I don’t think it is really a matter of privacy, but a matter of being denied a job, based on one’s sexual orientation. Just as a policeman can’t be denied duty simply because he’s gay, why should a soldier?

“The Court held Americans have a fundamental right to privacy and this includes the right of gay and lesbian Americans to engage in intimate relationships without government interference. Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell violates this fundamental right.” (see Story)

Change doesn’t happen overnight, but this Congress seems to think that it can sit on many of its bills, until after the cows come home. It doesn’t seem to realize it was elected on certain promises, one of which was the repeal of DADT, others were the minimum wage bill, opening up holds on bills, making pork easier to spot, and a host of other pieces of legislation. So far, they haven’t done much, despite the media hype to the contrary. DADT sits idle, as does the hate legislation titled Mathew Shepard.

And Congress wonders why its rating are lower than Bush?

Howard Dean stood with the two openly gay legislatures, proclaiming this Gay Pride month and heaping praise on the contributions the GLBT community has made. Hilary Clinton also released a press notice, mostly slamming Bush and we are all supposed to rush to the polls come Nov 2008 and vote Democrat, because gee, Howard Dean stood up and gave us praise.

Friday, to mark the beginning of LGBT pride month, Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean joined openly gay members of Congress Barney Frank (D-Mass.) and Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisc.) in issuing a Pride Proclamation – something President Bush has declined to do. (see Story)

Are politicians this stupid? To think that mere words are enough?

Pass the friggin Mathew Shepard Act, over ride Bush’s threatened VETO as well as pass the Employment Non Discrimination Act, and while you at it, Repeal DADT, then maybe the GLBT community should consider voting Democrat. As it stands now, today’s little coffee klutz was nothing but pimping for the cameras, to get some cheap publicity. If the Democrats are serious, how come they aren’t battering Bush for his threatened VETO?

If they truly value our votes, as a community, then why are they making more trade deals, pushing phony immigration reform, and basically putting gay rights on a back burner?

Where is Bill Richardson, John Edwards, Barok Obama in these publicity stills? How about Nancy Pelosi? Didn’t see Murtha or Harry Reid either. Want to be taken seriously, put the big guns in the pictures, make the speeches with conviction and don’t hide behind nampy pampy press releases. If Hilary Clinton truly believes that a Democrat in the White House, such as herself, will benefit GLBT civil rights, where the hell was she for EIGHT YEARS AS FIRST LADY?

Lighting Bill’s cigars for Monica?

Over in Tennessee, a student is suspended for taking part in the Day of Silence protest, a national protest where Gay Students & Supporters, remain silent to protest the conditions of bullying and hate in many public schools. (see Day of Silence website)

(Jonesborough, Tennessee) A high school principal who suspended a student for participating in The National Day of Silence broke the law the American Civil Liberties Union said today in a letter demanding he apologize to the student and pledge not to punish students who take part in similar actions in the future. (see Story)

What I find strange, is there was so much opposition from Religious Right Groups about it, and even some School Boards, because they continue to ignore that Bullying Exists. They make these protests into legal challenges, that take away from the real reason of why these protests exist. Whether it is the formation of GSA’s (Gay Straight Alliances, see website) or Day of Silence protests, the Religious Right has been on the offensive.

GSA’s and the Day of Silence exist not to promote homosexuality, but to simply put an end to the Hate and Bullying that exists. It is like the peace movement of the Sixties, that drew attention to the war in Viet Nam. One that students across America helped end, by their protests. However, should schools be the battleground for such things?

While there aren’t riots today, or demonstrations that even come close to those of the Sixties, I wonder if we have lost our zest for battling for the underdog? I mean the entire Sixties was about that. The Civil Rights movement as an example. It was white kids and religious leaders who took to the campuses, to the streets, to battle the Racism against blacks, that helped lead and shape society today.

The Anti War movement in the latter part of the Sixties, cut Johnson’s Presidential hopes out from under him, and it ended the war. It also ended Selective Service, and whether or not that was a good thing, darned if I know. Today there aren’t those kind of marches, those passionate demonstrations that were the Sixties, and I wonder, Why?

When school administrators suspend kids for protesting, aren’t they in effect trying to dampen the passion one feels for righting a wrong? And it is selective as well. I mean where are these administrators when the Religious Right march or protest with their Rallies for Jesus? Looking at how apathetic society is today, I wonder if perhaps this is a result of the influence of administrators who dampen protests on campus?

Gas is going up, yet most say they are still going driving. A day to protest the high prices, was, from I see, a flop. No one cared enough to get off their asses, and do something. And I wonder, is this from the parents, or from the lack of education? Does anyone really care about how kids marching and carrying signs helped change the world’s perception of discrimination?

Look at the recent Immigration marches. They were poorly attended, and even the protests against the WTO have dwindled to back page news. There just isn’t the activism there used to be, and I don’t know if that is a good thing or not. It should start in schools, with the kids, and yet it seems like we have lost that drive for social justice. Instead the bullying increases, school shootings are on the rise, and we sit back, and do nothing.

Well I know, it is a long way to go, before November 2008 and already the campaigns are beginning. Some claim that a candidate will need $100 million to run for President with no guarantees of winning. Like I can think of a lot better things to do with that kind of change, can’t you?

So far, seems that there are really four real candidates. McCain, Guilliano, Clinton, and Obama. Assuming they raise that kind of cash and spend it, that’s nearly half a billion dollars to lay claim to the title of President, and to accomplish what?

I mean sure it is early on, but be nice to get some specifics about what it is these candidates would do that the others wouldn’t. I mean don’t they all want to make government more accountable? But how is my question.

Obama is the darling it seems of them all right now. Yet in his brief stints he impresses not by what he says, but how he says it. He is good at the politician’s no speak in which he answers you but doesn’t. Unless of course it is about equality for homosexuals. There he stands tall and clearly states NO for marriage, but Eh, Okay for Civil Unions.

Obama did outline an energy plan – a reduction in emissions, cap-and-trade plans for polluting industries, and development of biofuels including ethanol. He also repeated his stance on gay marriage – that civil unions are fine, but marriage is a religious bond. (story)

If marriage is, as he says, a religious bond, then why does the state have any say in it? And what happened to separation of Church and State? What about those who aren’t religious or don’t believe in GOD? Does current laws preclude them from marriage benefits? After all it is a religious bond, according to Senator Obama.

And then too, let us not forget it was also against the various religions for interracial marriage back when his parents got married. But that is different isn’t it? I mean, after all, he is proof positive that no harm came from the mixing of races, so obvious the Church was wrong then, just as they are wrong today.

I suppose when you win your rights, its okay to relegate others to second class position or to ignore their needs as well. Civil Unions are a cop out. They are a fob to ease the conscience of those so called fair minded liberals that they are doing the right thing, when in their heart, they know they aren’t. If something is the same as another, why call it something else unless you have plans to remove and/or alter the benefits to the one, leaving the other intact.

Senator Obama should be ashamed of himself for supporting the narrow view that marriage is a religious bond. Only GOD can say whether it is sanctioned by him, not the Pope, not his buddy the Reverend Rick Warren. He should know his own Black History and the sop that white America threw at African Americans, with the old chestnut of Equal but Separate. He should look up the so called black only schools that were supposed to be on the same standard as white only schools and then he should look around to see how well that worked.

You can turn all the phrases you want. You can provide oratory that sends chills up and down spines, but it won’t do you any good if you can’t see beyond the bullshit from special interest groups, such as the Church.

There are many pressing issues facing the next President. One is naturally the war in Iraq and again I find it hard to fathom the rhetoric by Obama and the others. Both he and Senator Clinton support an end to American Involvement there by 2008, and they call that a plan. Okay, it is a goal to achieve, not a plan. The real question isn’t to just state the obvious, but on how they plan to get there, and what they plan to do afterwards.

Perhaps the one good thing here is that there is so much time before America has to choose. Only problem I see is, will they demand answers or accept the fancy rhetoric in live in the glory of what is no longer?

Equality isn’t an easy task to achieve, but when you already are determined to deny it to one small segment, what else are you prepared to give away? Senator Obama has no stated plan on how to deal with the troubling aspects of the Patriot Acts, nor does he have a stated plan on Health Care, or Education, or Immigration, or Iraq. Only on energy and on denial of equality for homosexuals.

Does that sound like shades of Abe Lincoln and John F Kennedy to you? 

Well as the polls suggested, America has switched the house to Democrats and more than likely the Senate as well. However, I wonder if anything has really changed in the Land of the Free, Home of the Brave? I mean bans on same sex marraige passed, and the new Democrat Winners mostly call themselves Conservative Democrats, so like, where is all this supposed change going to come from?

Proposed amendments to ban same-sex marriage were on the ballot in eight states. The measures were approved in six states and leading in the other two. (full story)

Lot of talk about how much more Gay Friendly democrats are, but let’s be honest here. Eight measures on the ballot to deny Gays Equal Rights and 6 pass and the other 2 more than likely will also pass. So tell me, what has changed?

It is the people who need to make the changes, and until the leaders actually come out and stand up to defend our rights, nothing is going to change. In fact, if the measure in Virginia passes, Gay Rights have taken a major step backwards, never mind holding its own. So what has changed?

Then there is Colorado and you have to ask yourself, what is it about us that has so many democratic loving people unwilling to grant us the same rights? I mean when democrat candidates embrace the same crap of elitism and racism that the Republicans have been pushing, all in the name of getting elected, does it really change anything?

In Colorado a proposed amendment to ban same-sex marriage is likely to succeed.  A move to allow civil unions in the state, however, is facing tough opposition in early returns (full story)

I suppose what has me perplexed, is what is a Democrat and what is a Republican? Are there really any differences or is this really just about who can score the most money before the next go round? Like what issues were discussed?

War in Iraq but what were the solutions brought forth by either party? I mean the Republicans with their stay the course, but what alternatives are there other than cutting and running? Do the Democrats want to win and if so, how? Where is Polosi on that one?

I just don’t get it. Liebermen wins as an independent but has stated he’ll caucus with the Dems no matter what the Republicans offer. Now I dont know, but if his own party that selected him to run for VP and then 2 years later dumps him, I sure as hell wouldn’t want to sit with those who helped oust me. Makes no sense unless its about the money?

So the Democrat Party won, will anything change in regards to the War on Terror? The War on Drugs? Illegal Immigration? War on the Middle Class? Spending?  Anything???