Header

Tweeting For Freedom: The Second Presidential Debate

In an attempt to recreate the fun-filled, adrenaline-packed atmosphere of having a debate-viewing party in your very own home, we–the a-team of the twitterverse–have decided to do our debate coverage in the form of tweets featuring Editor-in-chief Riese, Senior Editor Rachel, Contributing Editors Carmen, Vanessa and Fonseca, Community Managerette Lemon (whose “real” name ftr is Kate Bennert #TheMoreYouKnow) and Contributors Carly and Taylor. They are qualified for this job via their strong feelings about the candidates, marginally competent knowledge of the issues at hand, and propensity for being funny on twitter. This will be more fun to read if you’ve watched the debate, but if you haven’t, we’ve embedded it for you!

And so it begins. Our fearless leader sets the tone (Riese, not Barry, duh).

Carmen, per usual, is conducting her work life from a bar on her iPhone, and let’s be real we’re all super impressed by it. Also, for those just tuning in: Barack Obama and Mittens Romney are debating. Let’s move forward.

Wait but honestly how do they choose who gets to attend? Can we all attend next time? I want to attend.

Fair and reasonable questions. Not met with any fair and reasonable answers from the tiny humans on my teevee screen, of course, but hey, we’re trying here.

Hmmmm, what’s that? Mittens trying to confuse people so they don’t know what they’re actually voting for? SHOCKING! Mittens is honestly like that dude in college who tells you it’s fine that you’re gay, you can totally still be friends, he gets it, you’re cool, and then a week later you find out he’s told the entire football team that he’s gonna help you find god and exorcise your inner demons, because we are all His Children.

Real talk: I cackled loudly thanks to Carly’s tweets throughout the entire debate. Lemon can confirm these facts. (Remember, Lemon is Kate! You may see some tweets from @katebennert, but HEYO! That’s Lemon! Aren’t pseudonyms fun?) Okay but back to Carly’s accountant.

Ugh, back to being That Guy. Did this confuse you? I tuned out so I wasn’t confused, but it would be fine if you were confused. Romney relies on confusion because that’s legit the only way anyone with half a brain and 1/4 of a conscience could ever really vote for him, amirite?!

Look, Carly had a point. I don’t like numbers either. But I’m NOT RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT WITH AN ALLEGED TAX BREAK PLAN OF WHICH I REFUSE TO DIVULGE THE DETAILS.

Okay, now we’re getting to the Olympics trope. I’m surprised this hasn’t been more of A Thing. I guess #binders kinda took the cake…but this was weird and funny!

Should I bother? That kinda sums up my feelings with this debate in general. Did you watch? Did you miss it? I think it’s actually okay if you missed it. The whole thing is a farce. The people who care are the people who already know who they’re voting for. #LOSINGALLHOPE

As always, Riese is here to clear up any/all confusion.

OMG BFF!

NOPE, NOT TALKING ABOUT ANYTHING RELEVANT EVER! HAHAHAHAHA JOKES ON YOU, CITIZENS OF AMERICA!

And now we begin Carly’s flurry of enthusiasm toward Our Moderator Candy.

YES HE DID.

Getting a little overzealous but I ain’t even mad about it…

#HOPEFUL #SOHOPEFUL #HOPEANDCHANGE

#neverstopyelling (Side note, Lemon & I watched the debate on our couch in our pajamas. It’s fine, Carmen has enough zest for life for all of us!)

God I never thought I’d love a man’s smirk so much. Hey Barry, heyyyyy.

Carly’s enthusiasm is the best. #GETITGETIT

You guys, have we established that Carmen was in a bar? She watched the debate in a bar.

Trying really, really hard not to roll my eyes over her “I’m absolutely not a feminist” comments from today. Okay I’ll be honest with you, I’m failing. #EYEROLL

Shit, who let her out of the binder?!

You hush your mouth about Ann Romney, Carly!

Does he know how horrible he sounds? Does he know how out of touch he seems? It’s so confusing. Are you there, Romney? It’s me, truth and logic. WHY HAVE YOU ABANDONED ME FOR SO LONG?!

Spoiler alert: CHECK THE BINDERS!

BINDER! BINDER! BINDER! Did you watch the debate? Doesn’t matter if you didn’t! I bet you heard about BINDERS today. I bet you woke up and thought, “OMG THE QUEERS HAVE FINALLY TAKEN OVER THE WORLD, HALLELUJAH!” Not yet, young child. Soon. The Gay Baby Army is preparing. But not quite yet. Okay onward!

#binders

#bindersbindersbinders

#bindersbindersbindersbindersbinders

Hello are we all clear that Romney is a FOOL and he made a dumb comment about #BINDERS?!

Which is why they HAVE to leave work at five, no exceptions.

Women are basically just extensions of kids, obvi.

#Grrrr

GChatting For Freedom: The First Presidential Debate

In an attempt to recreate the fun-filled, adrenaline-packed atmosphere of having a debate-viewing party in your very own home (and/or this post), we have decided to do our debate coverage in the form of a gchat between Senior Editor Rachel and Community Managerette Lemon, who are qualified for this job via their strong feelings about the candidates and marginally competent knowledge of the issues at hand. Due to time constraints, the debates had to be watched after their original airing, but great care was taken to avoid Twitter (although avoidance of Big Bird references was impossible). This will be more fun to read if you’ve watched the debate, but if you haven’t, we’ve embedded it for you!

This debate, the first of three Presidential debates, focused on domestic issues, such as the economy and heatlhcare reform.

are you ready for this jelly

dotted-divider2

Rachel: LEMON ARE YOU THERE
LEMON CAN YOU HEAR ME (A LA TOMMY)

Lemon: Her her her
Here
Not her

Rachel: My glasses are broken and I have no computer charger but I have a giant glass of wine so I’m feeling pretty good.

Lemon: Perfect. I’m three beers in so waking up AGAIN.

Rachel: Also, this wine has turned fyi, but it’s not gonna stop ’em.

Lemon: There you go.

Rachel: Ok! Are you ready? How ready are you?

Lemon: Debates!

Rachel: Do we have any drinking game rules?

Lemon: When Lehrer grunts. When either candidate says “a woman came up to me.”

Rachel: Does Obama say “let me be clear?” I like it when he says “let me be clear.”

Lemon: Haha I am almost positive he does.

Rachel: Ok. Excellent. Also when Romney says either “killing jobs” or “creating jobs.”

Lemon: Both of those happen.

Rachel: Ok, great.

Lemon: Is it cheating to already know these things?

Rachel: Nope! Let’s do this.

Lemon: Alright.

Rachel: Pressing go NOW.

Lemon: And here we go!

Rachel: What is Jim Lehrer from? Like, how is he already a person? Is he just famous for being old?

Lemon: “PBS NewsHour”

Rachel: Oh ok.

Lemon: Which no one watches.

Rachel: I mean, clearly not Mitt Romney.

Lemon: Definitely not Mitt Romney.

Rachel: How are you feeling about Lehrer’s tie? Don’t know that I’m into it personally.

Lemon: It looks like spores. Or just a science experiment in general. Also he looks like a muppet.

Rachel: I like how the rule about no noise really sets the tone of this being essentially a school assembly. Oh wait JOBS. #jobs also YEAH MICHELLE

Lemon: “sweetie”

Rachel: Died
I’m dead
I mean would have preferred he called her “goddess on high” but whatever

Lemon: And now the economy..

Rachel: Side note, is that the constitution on the backdrop?

Lemon: Trying to discern that as well
I see “pursuit of” so yes?

Rachel: So far he seems to be making an effort to be very respectful of Romney

Lemon: And Lehrer
Romney also being very respectful

Rachel: Have we heard “economic patriotism” before? Did Obama just make that up?

Lemon: lol
That joke wasn’t even awkward

Rachel: Oh we have to drink now
because of the woman from Dayton, Ohio.

Lemon: Yup

Rachel: Is Romney answering this question at all? Seems like no.

Lemon: (know that I’m on Gatorade now)
NO

Rachel: (get that Gatorade girl)
Oh wait now he sort of is
Five part plan

Lemon: What was the question now?
I forgot

Rachel: How does “cracking down on China” create jobs? They’re talking about how they’d create jobs. I thought cracking down on China was about global economic concerns.

Lemon: “Champion small business” was his answer. Not right now it’s not (drink)

Rachel: (drink) Obama really pushing this bipartisan thing. So when obama talks about education, is he talking mostly about higher education/job training? Or also about routing more funding to secondary education? This is not clear to me.

Lemon: I think more the former at this moment. (Although in the past he has talked about the latter)

Rachel: Ok. Yeah, Romney’s military spending sounds wack, real talk.

Lemon: And here we go. “Middle income Americans.”

Rachel: Wait, is this a true fact, what he’s saying about not reducing the tax burden for wealthy Americans?
That seems incommensurate with everything else I know about his campaign.

Lemon: Right he doesn’t want to sell it that way.

Rachel: I don’t feel like that’s part of the Ryan budget.

Lemon: But Ryan and Mitt are known to not be consistent on that, right?

Rachel: Yeah. I think in the hour since this debate officially ended there have already been a number of
scathing fact-checking reports on this, also. Which I cannot wait to read.

Lemon: “I like coal.”

Rachel: Jesus, Romney, anyone who’s ever played SimCity knows coal is a terrible choice.

Lemon: hahaha. Cannot reduce the burden to high income Americans, but will to middle income Americans.

Rachel: Obama literally just tweeted this link: OFA.BO/MFE4E1 saying “Romney’s tax claims challenged by nonpartisan report.” So there’s that. Although I mean duh Obama tweeted it, so. I do think Obama’s making a good point re: loopholes. Like, what loopholes? Has any republican ever explained how this would work? Can we take a moment for how perfectly Obama’s tie matches the backdrop? Did an intern do that?

Lemon: Not to my knowledge.
Oh, I’m sure.
Rachel: Interns are America. Romney really protesting the tax break for the wealthy thing. He has at least inspired to me research that more thoroughly. Oh wait now he’s not talking about the wealthy, he’s talking about middle-income families? FLIP-FLOPPER

Lemon: Right but we also have to remember that his definition of middle income is up to $250,000

Rachel: That’s a lot.

Lemon: $200-250 K

Rachel: Isn’t the President’s income capped at like $200,000?

Lemon: It is.

Rachel: Well that’s a fun fact. (Ed. note: The President’s salary was upped from $200K t0 $400K in 2001)

i mean, middle income definitely can’t be higher than $300k. that would be crazy.

Lemon: “Lowered taxes for small business 18 times.” What does that mean?

Rachel: I don’t know? Maybe like 18 different sessions of Congress? I keep thinking about how this debate would seem to someone who has no political literacy, if it’s this confusing to us. It seems like it would be pretty inaccessible!

Lemon: Yes! I think more than other things this debates is just catch words. Poor Lehrer.

Rachel: And sort of like posturing in front of the camera? Real talk, Romney is doing a lot better than I thought he would. Do we drink for “I talked to a guy?”

Lemon: I think that debates are really more for social graces and body language. Yes.

Rachel: Do you remember that viral “omg shoes” video?

Lemon: God yes.

Rachel: I feel like an “omg jobs” supercut would be good.

Lemon: Yes yes!

EDIT: Look what Brianna made!

Rachel: Ok, can I be honest? are we even talking about real money when we say “5 trillion dollars?” That seems to me like imaginary unicorn money.

Lemon: Ha! I think yes and no. The national debt etc is in the trillions.

Rachel: I think when someone says “trillion” i just hear “infinity.”

Lemon: Which are the same thing if trillion exists for eternity.

Rachel: God, I just want someone to come rescue Lehrer. He’s like a Willow that needs a Buffy.

Lemon: How could you even do a “5 trillion $ tax cut”?

Rachel: Also they’ve been going back and forth about the same alleged $5 trillion in tax money for the entire 23 minutes. Let it go, guys. Just breathe.
READY GO PART 2

Rachel: I feel like the deficit thing is going to get really ugly.

Lemon: How is Romney saying it’s a moral issue?

Rachel: Ugh ugh ugh. “taking care of it for future generations.” Because that’s something republicans seem clearly interested in, the next generation
based on their attitude towards education, healthcare, and our generation’s debt problems.

Lemon: Right. Oh boy.

Rachel: “I use [Obamacare] with all respect.” Also, he finally said Big Bird! Oh good. So glad.

Lemon: “When I walked in the oval office.” Obama really likes to remind people that he is Prez.

Rachel: Also, wait, does Romney understand what inflation is? “As much deficit as all prior presidents combined?” Yes, because a trillion dollars was like 75 cents in 1850.

Lemon: Hahaha “All prior presidents.” Good catch.

Rachel: Isn’t the Medicaid fraud that Obama is talking about what Ryan was lying about? Like he said that they burned X amount of money but they had in fact recouped it from Medicare/Medicaid?

Lemon: YES!

Rachel: Good move, Barry.

way to be

Lemon: They pulled out some number like 7 mil.

Rachel: Gross. I think the conversation about revenue/spending cuts is actually helpful to me, I hadn’t thought about it that concretely before. Although I’m not sure I’m really qualified to judge the differences in approach to that

Lemon: Nor am I. What are they talking about right now?

Rachel: Isn’t Simpson-Bowles also a Ryan lie? Like he said that Obama had ignored it but in fact the Democrats had tried to make it work, and Ryan himself had voted against it?

Lemon: Wait I don’t even know what that is

Rachel: Um like a budget plan I think? I may change my mind later. (Ed note: Simpson-Bowles is a proposed plan for spending cuts and tax changes proposed by the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform.) But I feel like what Romney just said about the economy growing more slowly now than it was 4 years ago isn’t true. Also he said “killing jobs,” so

Lemon: Drink. Yeah, I don’t see how it can be true, because the economy was way worse four years ago.

Rachel: Yeah, it wasn’t growing at all, and there are quantifiable signifiers of change now. Also I’m not sure that Romney’s “plan” is workable, where more revenue will magically come in via taxes once more people have jobs. Partially because you need that revenue ahead of time to help create jobs, if you aren’t going to increase the deficit. Also most of these are going to be minimum wage and/or part time jobs, they wont’ make a big difference on taxes. We have to drink again because Obama met a woman in Las Vegas

Lemon: 46 percent. I think his thing is that lower taxes will encourage people to participate in the economy right?

Rachel: I guess? Stimulus?

Lemon: Buy shit and invest

Rachel: But I know that if I had more money right now it would go to paying off all my debt. Which so many of us have, older people too.

Lemon: Exactly which is there because of the stuff that isn’t subsidized

Rachel: I think they’re talking about energy now? I know nothing about this. Ok real talk tho: Romney ships SO MANY JOBS overseas. Just sayin’

Lemon: What?? “We can care for our poor so much better without having the federal gov’t tell us how to care for our poor.”

Rachel: Ugh.

Lemon: Part 3?

Rachel: Yeah.

Next: Social security, healthcare, and “the role of government!”

Cheater’s Guide to Obama vs. Romney on the Big Four “Gay Issues”

Over on their DC Decoder page, the Christian Science Monitor published a helpful guide on where both President Obama and Mittsy stand on what they at their newspaper call “gay issues” but what I like to call “issues that concern a group of U.S. citizens who are also humans.” The guide focuses on four issues that have become hot button for the LGBTQ community: marriage, adoption, HIV and AIDS research and anti-discrimination legislation. So yes, gay issues, I suppose so.

Most of the platform decoding by the Christian Science Monitor for these particular four issues is super accurate, but I feel like a few things may have been left out– The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act as an example of anti-discrimination laws, for example, or Mittsy’s hypocrisy in stating that he’s for HIV and AIDS research, funding and medicine while at the same time wanting to defund Planned Parenthood, an organization that provides screenings and HIV education. The Christian Science Monitor does not endorse any political candidates and tries to report right down the middle, stating only things politicians have said themselves or things their representatives have said, which may explain why some of these questions and parallels remained unaddressed. So I, a person who is not afraid to admit a liberal bias, I have made a handy downloadable PDF taking a closer look at these four issues. The table is inspired by the Christian Science Monitor’s guide.

Now, by no means am I endorsing the idea that these are the only four “gay issues” out there. My gay self is also really concerned about things like the economy and the worth of my college degree, the caliber of my education and the education of others now and in the future, poverty and the extreme socio-economic wealth gaps in our society, the role of government in promoting and funding scientific exploration. Hell, I am just as interested in Presidential beer as the next non-homo (they released that recipe, by the way.) And also, the branding of HIV/AIDS research funding as a gay issue has a lot to do with our history as a community, but perhaps isn’t the most accurate way to bill such a concern today, as there are so many other populations affected. But I feel like The Christian Science Monitor might have knighted these issues “the gay issues” because these are the line-in-the-sand issues. The issues where, if on the wrong side of them, actually signify a direct attack on the gay community.

Yes, it is pretty shitty if none of us can get jobs that aren’t inside malls. But that’s shitty for everyone equally with no implied bias or hatred against LGBT folks specifically (maybe against people who aren’t in the top one percent of the wealth strata, and it may come down heavier on women, but still.) But if someone is, say, against gay marriage, that is direct assault on our standing as citizens. Or if they think two women can’t raise a well-adjusted child together, that’s a distinct herald of homophobia or of a strong prejudice against women. The issues that divide – are you for my existence as an equal part of this country, or against it? Yes, I take issue with these being labeled “the gay issues,” because it implies that no one else should care about them. Everyone should care about these four particular issues! However, I can usually tell if a person thinks I’m less than by their stance on these, the Fab Four. And guess which candidate comes out looking worse? I’ll give you three guesses, and the first two don’t count. Enjoy your handy downloadable table and feel free to suggest more “gay issues”.

Can’t download that handy downloadable table because you’re on your work computer/ your conservative brother’s computer/ the slowest internet connection known to queerdom? Here’s a snap shot of it followed by a text-only version!

A Picture of the Handy Downloadable Table, inspired by the Christian Science Monitor.

President Obama

via blog.operationhope.org

Marriage

For an inclusive view of marriage that includes all couples and all families, a view included in the Democratic Party platform. Has stopped defending DOMA.

Adoption

Believes all qualified caregivers should be permitted to adopt regardless of sexual orientation, race, religion or marital status.

Funding for HIV/AIDS Research

Lifted a ban on HIV-positive travelers, thus allowing the International AIDS Conference to take place in the US, implemented the first US National AIDS Strategy, continued funding for PREPFAR to combat HIV and AIDS in developing countries

Anti-Discrimination Legislation

Expanded federal hate-crime law to include crimes motivated by gender, sexual orientation, or gender identity. Launched Stopbullying.gov, supports the inclusion of LGBT community in the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. Five words: Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.

Mittsy

via dailycaller.com

Marriage

Against inclusive marriage; signed a National Organization for Marriage pledge supporting a national definition of marriage as one man, one woman. Also is not in favor of civil unions.

Also also. National Organization for Marriage is a hate group.

Adoption

Supports states right to choose, which means states can choose to ignore other states’ rules  on adoption. Also believes well-adjusted children have two parents of opposite genders and that no other type of family will produce well-adjusted children, even when we know that’s not the case.

Funding for HIV/AIDS Research

Says he’s tough on HIV and AIDS and believes in funding for research, medicine and education, but has said repeatedly he would defund Planned Parenthood, which provides HIV screening and education.

Anti-Discrimination Legislation

Promised to support the Employment Non-Discrimination Act in 1996, then flipped on it ten years later. Also, was unclear if he would have signed the Ledbetter Act into law. His party wouldn’t have, that’s for sure. Lilly Ledbetter says so herself.

Ad Hawk Tells You Who Paid for That Political Ad, Makes You An Extra Informed Voter

featured image via venturebeat.com

Ali’s Team Pick:

Ad Hawk is an app that will listen to a political ad on the radio, on TV, even on YouTube and it will identify the ad and tell you who paid to make it happen. It’s like Shazam for politics. And what with the Citizens United Supreme Court decision that lets corporations (and whoever, really) spend unlimited amounts of money in campaign donations for just such media blitzes, this app is pretty necessary to be an informed voter this election season. That thing is telling Hispanic voters that Romney is on their side? Well, who paid for it? And why are they lying?

I tried it out, and while it didn’t get every ad I searched on YouTube, it got most of them. And there are great visuals at the bottom for how much the responsible super pac has spent in either the Republican or Democrat direction, and also in the negative ads versus positive ad direction.

Ready for exactly how much your vote is worth? The answer is often more than six figures. via mashable.com

Made by the Sunlight Foundation, a non-partisan non-profit organization dedicated to making government more transparent and therefore more accountable, this app is free. Free, I tell you! And they also make these other great apps: Real Time Congress, which brings you live updates from the House and Senate floor, and Open States, which tells you what bills they’re voting on in your state capitol.

Petition the White House for Beer

Ali’s Team Pick:

Hey President Obama, we’ve seen the beer you’ve been drinking on the campaign trail. And we want to know what it tastes like. What’s that, you say? It’s a special home brew? It’s only brewed at the White House? Well, Mr. President, you know who else loves politics and home brewed beer? Queer ladies. And apparently lots of other people too.

Really, I want all beer. But especially presidential beer. via artbracket.com

Over at We The People, the White House’s platform for U.S. Citizens to directly petition the federal government, there are calls for the president to release the recipe for the Honey Ale that he brews at the White House. And I think, being a democracy, we should totally have access to this beer recipe. Because isn’t that what democracy is all about? The equal access to Presidential home brew recipes? Now, We The People doesn’t guarantee the White House will give petitioners what they ask for, they just guarantee that if a petition meets the petition threshold (the number of signatures the White House is asking for) they’ll issue an official response. However, if you’re a big political nerd on twitter and you do things like, oh, follow the Press Secretary, you’ll have noticed this:

!!! via Twitter

SCHNELL, QUEERS! SCHNELL! Head over to We The People and sign that petition if you happen to reside in the US!  It has until September 17th to make it to 25,000 signatures and I want to brew Presidential Beer! And while you’re at it, exercise your right to petition your government by signing other petitions or making a few of your own.

My girlfriend and I congratulate you on exercising your right to petition the White House for a beer recipe. Mazel tov.

VAG: Your Advanced Guide to Voting the Hell Out of 2012

We covered Voting 101 with our first installment of Voting: an Autostraddle Guide (which has been christened VAG.) But the world of US voting is ever-changing and, frankly, fairly complicated. Here’s a few more resources and fun facts about voting in the US Presidential Election. Remember, vote with your VAG. You’ll be glad you did.

via mysticsaint.info

Where Does Your Vote Count the Most?

Let’s have a crash course in swing states and the Electoral College, which is like actually Voting 601. Basically, not all states are created equal. The United States has chosen half-way between having only Congress vote for President (read: easy to do, but not very democratic) and election by popular vote (read: really a bummer to count.) The product is the Electoral College, a process by which we aren’t really electing the President, we’re electing the electors of the President. I know it sounds a little like Googling Google to Google, but go with me here:

There are 538 total electors in the Electoral College, and a candidate needs a majority of 270 to become President. The amount of electors in your state is based on Congressional delegation: you get two electors per Senator, and one for every Congressman. And because that is based on population, more densely populated states are worth more. Think of this like a carnival game: Obama throws a dart and gets New York, worth 31 points. Romney throws a dart and hits Virginia (which I really hope doesn’t happen – I’ll tell you why in a minute.) BAM! Worth 13 points. This means that candidates have to be strategic about where they’re campaigning, because when you convince a majority in the state you get the whole kit and caboodle (with the exception of Maine and Nebraska, the rogues who can split their Electoral Votes.) Winning New York could be a lot more important than, say, winning Utah (5 electoral votes) depending on your strategy.

You can really predict which way certain states are going to go. For instance, New York is almost definitely going to “go blue” and deliver their 31 electoral votes to Camp Obama. They usually do, and by a pretty large margin. But some states are a little bit harder to call; either they have historically gone to either side by a pretty small margin, with one candidate just squeaking ahead of the other, or they’re polling at fairly neck-and-neck numbers. Since these states, like Tila Tequila, could swing either way, they’re called “Swing States.” And depending on the candidates’ strategy and the amount of Electoral Votes each state has, they could be very important.

To get this man elected, know where your vote counts the most. via swampland.time.com

But how can you know where your vote will count most? Even though New York has 31 Electoral Votes, why is it your vote could count more in Virginia? A commenter on the first installment of VAG left this gem of a resource: Countmore.org lets you know, based on number of electoral votes and whether or not your state is a swing state, where your vote would count the most. And for some of us, this isn’t a theoretical game. UNIVERSITY STUDENTS! LISTEN UP! You have the unique ability to potentially chose between two states this November. You can register in the state where you go to school, or you can register back home. Use this website to figure out where your vote will count more.

Who Exactly Is Affected By Recently Passed Voter Laws?

Questions came up in the comments on the last VAG about voter ID laws and how they disenfranchise voters. Whether it’s because voters can’t take off work to walk a bajillion miles (because they don’t have a car) to the place where they can get their ID or because the particular required form of ID is cost prohibitive, voter ID laws can really be a poll tax in disguise. Poll taxes are illegal in the US because that’s a dick move and super classist. And even if you, personally, can get the required ID, a lot of mustache-twirling policy makers are betting on you not knowing you need one. The Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law, a non-partisan law center, let’s us know how many of us may need something different at the polling place this year that we didn’t need last time around with this horrifying map:

See? All the red states should check to make sure. via The Brennan Center.

The Brennan Center also has a complete, up-to-date list of the voter legislation introduced and passed since 2011. If your state is red in the above map, check the list.

Have a Smart Phone?  Register to Vote!

via Huffington Post

In an interesting twist, there are now more places you can register to vote! A Virgin America flight to D.C. is now one of those places, and you can register from your phone.  Simply scan the QR Code from the “Make a Difference” menu on the in-flight screen, and your vote can make a difference in November. While it might seem like a scam to get customers to buy in-flight WiFi, the voting registration is actually still available when you touch down at your destination, making it just plain (or plane, har har) awesome. Virgin America launched this feature in partnership with Rock the Vote and in celebration of their new San Francisco to D.C. non-stop service.

Not flying? No problem! Rock The Vote has a new mobile app that will let you fill out a voter registration form on your phone, send it to yourself, print it out, and send it to your state’s election office. Which makes them badass, in my opinion. Thank you, Rock the Vote. You have just made this so much easier. And it’s in direct response to the new voter ID craze that’s sweeping the nation. “We thought, OK, you want to make it harder for people to register? Well, we’ll take this effort to the sky,” said Amanda MacNaughton, co-founder of PromoJam (the Rock the Vote partner responsible for the QR code, the mobile website and these effing amazing QR tee shirts,) “We’ll create voter registration on the phone and take it to young people on the device where they use it the most.”

In conclusion, register to vote you excellent queer people! Vote with your VAG and may all your electoral dreams come true.

via Rock the Vote

Voting: an Autostraddle Guide (a.k.a. VAG)

Voting should be easy, but it doesn’t always feel that way — sometimes the political process can be overwhelming and you may even wonder if your vote counts at all. To add to all that, some rich white guys are trying to make it harder to vote so that only they can take part in elections. I call shennanigans on them and say let’s queer the polling places! In that spirit here’s your comprehensive guide to voting in the upcoming 2012 Presidential Election.

Vote because she tells you to! via nadinethornhill.wordpress.com

The Basics.

When is the presidential election?

It’s on Tuesday, November 6th 2012. Polling hours are different everywhere, but that’s the day. Because I grew up in a public-service oriented household where we celebrated our right to vote by partying like it was 1999 every single year, I’ve already requested off the entire day. And you know what? I’ll def be requesting off the next day too because I’m going to be hung over regardless of which candidate wins. If I don’t spend the night of the 6th drunk off of sheer gay joy, it’ll be shame and terror that does me in.

Am I eligible to vote?

To vote, you have to be at least 18 years old and a U.S. citizen. Some states will let you register to vote when you’re 17 years of age if you’re going to turn 18 before the election actually happens. Each state also has its own residency requirement to register to vote.

How do I register to vote?

Answering this question on a Federal level is a little tricky, because each state actually controls its own voting laws. I’ve included a list of how to find out what your state’s requirements are a little later on, but there are some things that apply to every state. The National Mail Voter Registration Form allows you to register to vote by mail in every state except for New Hampshire, North Dakota and Wyoming. U.S. Territories do not accept this form, but I’ve included information on their election offices below so you can ask them how they’d like you to register. Filling out this form is easier than filling out your OKCupid profile.

You can also register to vote in person at the following locations:

  • State or local voter registration offices
  • State or local election offices
  • The DMV
  • Public assistance agencies
  • Armed services recruitment centers
  • Some state-funded programs that serve the handi-capable community
Some states also allow you to register online, which I think we all know is preferable because the world barely exists outside the internet.
Each state has its own registration deadline, which you can find on the National Mail Voter Form or by contacting your state election office. One thing is for certain: regardless of your state, you want to contact your election office at least 7 weeks prior to an election to make sure you are registered to vote and to ask what to do if you are not. 7 weeks means by September 25th, y’all. I’m personally challenging you to get it done before the end of August. If you’re going to A-Camp, have this done before A-Camp.
What should I bring with me to the polling place?
It’s really up to your state, but everyone should go equipped with a current, valid photo ID such as a state-issued driver’s license or a passport and a current utility bill, bank statement, paycheck, or other government document that shows your current address. Please be aware that many states have passed new ID laws this year in order to make it harder for you to vote!  Please research these laws in your state, which may require you to have a specific type of ID to vote that you don’t already have or that you didn’t need to bring with you before. If you are registering for the first time, you will need to show your ID and your utility bill/bank statement/pay check. If you are voting by mail, you may have to provide copies of the above documents when you mail your form in.
Where the f*ck do I vote?
Everyone is assigned a polling place based on the home address you list in your voter registration, so this is a super individual question. You must must must check with your state or local election office to figure this out, but your polling place should be fairly close to you because that’s how elections roll. Some states also have this sort of drop box that you drive by and pop your ballot into. It’s called a ballot drop site.

What if I can’t make it to the polling place on election day?

Some states allow early voting, all states allow absentee voting.  Keep reading to get on that train.

Look at all these queer votes we could cast! via neodemos.com

The Twists

What is voting absentee and how do I do it?

Absentee voting is this great thing where, if you can’t make it to your polling place on election day, you can just mail your ballot in and be done with it. The thing is, each state has its own rules for who can do this and what situations qualify for absentee voting. But every state does it. Some states have rules that restrict absentee voting to those who are ill or totally absent from the state on that day, others allow anyone to cast an absentee ballot. Every state also has a different deadline for absentee voting, quelle surprise. You can definitely, no matter what, vote absentee if you are a uniformed soldier and you are deployed, you are temporarily living overseas, or you are old or disabled and cannot easily make it to your polling place.

Can I vote early?

Voting early is done in person at a polling place or a ballot drop site. You cast your vote like normal, you just do it before election day. Hence the “early” part of early voting. Each state has rules and regulations for early voting and dates and times may even vary between counties and districts. Don’t worry, the big long list of state election offices is coming soon. You can unleash all these questions on them.

But all these rules are different state to state…how do I know what to do where I live?

Here it is! Here’s the list I promised you!  It’s long, but it’s alphabetical.  Find your state to get more specific instructions on how to vote!

For the Extremely Civically Minded

How do I volunteer at my local polling place?

Did you know this is a thing you can do? Poll workers set up voting equipment, verify registrations, and teach people about how to use the voting equipment. At the end of the day, poll workers close up shop, prepare elections materials to get shipped out to the voting office and submit their polling place results. Typically you have to be a registered voter to work at a polling place, but some states allow you to work when you’re in high school, and some states even pay you! Find out more at your state or local election office.

Where can I have an socio-political, slightly existential conversation about voting?

In the comments, natch.

Why should I vote?

I grew up in a fairly politically active household. My parents both had careers in civil service and they were both public sector employees for their entire work lives. My mother cried when I first pulled the lever to vote for the first time, and said that she felt she’d succeeded as a parent because she raised a Democrat. When I expressed a desire to get out of jury duty, my father wouldn’t speak to me because he thought I was shirking my duty as a citizen. It seems like a lot of effort, this whole voting thing. You have to fill out forms, make sure you have ID, go a place you may not normally go on a day you may be busy. But your country is home to your community, and we all need each other to keep making this place livable for queers and to push for our rights and our needs as human beings. By helping officials get elected we are ensuring that someone will be there to fight for us, to enact policy that moves us toward a more inclusive world. And people are trying to make it harder for you to vote this year! Why? Because your vote is powerful and dangerous; they are doing that on purpose. Will we let them? Hell no. Your vote matters. You should cast it.

via hipiseverything.wordpress.com

The GOP Just Isn’t Ready For Out Gay Latino Politicians

In the past few months, at least two Latina politicians, Mary Gonzalez and JoCasta Zamarripa, have come out as queer. And they’re not alone — there are a number of openly gay or queer Latino candidates running for key positions, like Jacob Candelaria, who is set to become a state senator of New Mexico and is openly gay. Candelaria points out that in New Mexico more people support gay marriage than oppose it, and says that “The fact that an openly gay candidate can win by such a large margin speaks to the notion that New Mexico voters vote based on the character of the person and their values, not their sexual orientation.”

jacob candelaria

Aside from representation for both ethnic and sexual minorities in the American legislature and visibility for the community which experiences an intersection of multiple identities, the fact that this many Latino politicians feel comfortable being out and are still being elected to office may affect how the next few years plays out for both the Republican and Democratic parties. Appealing to Latino/a voters has been described as a “great challenge” for the GOP, with Latino/a voters becoming more heavily Democrat while becoming a larger and larger percentage of the voting public at the same time. The GOP’s stance on issues like immigration reform hasn’t helped them win over Latino/a voters, and as with many of their voters, the GOP has hoped that religious rhetoric would win over a demographic statistically likely to have ties to the church, and sweep under the rug the fact that their actual policies are harmful to the group at hand.

It’s not uncommon for people of color to be unfairly painted as anti-gay; for instance, when black and African-American voters were blamed for the passage of Prop 8 in California, although that myth was quickly debunked and attributed to flawed exit polling. For a mainstream culture that struggles to understand the concept of a diverse and complex ethnic community at all, the fact that a racial or ethnic demographic could hold a multiplicity of views on same-sex relations – or even identify as queer or the family of queer people themselves! – can be hard to process. And for the GOP, who struggles to understand that not everyone thinks “family values” means hurting other families so that you can reassure yourself that yours is the best and most normal, the fact that a voting demographic could be strongly tied to the church and identify family values as being important without wanting to deprive others of their right to happiness and security.

Right now, Latino/a voters strongly back Obama, and GOP needs to figure out a way to make itself appealing to Latino/a voters in the coming years if they want to compete with the Democrats in this arena. The Republicans have vowed to step up their game when it comes to courting the voting bloc, but among the many other missteps Republicans have made in this area in both the short and long term, the provenance of politicians like Mary Gonzalez and Jacob Candelaria may mean that this is just one way that the GOP’s virulently anti-gay stance may backfire on them. It’s just one indication that Latino/a voters, like most Americans, are happy to elect LGBT officials to office if that’s what’s best for their district, and not particularly interested in electing bigots. And if the GOP is determined to continue being bigots, they should be ready to deal with the consequences.

Democratic Party Ties the Knot with Gay Marriage for 2012 Election

When President Obama announced his personal support for marriage equality, it was far from a legislative or policy-based action. The President’s personal sentiments on a matter don’t necessarily equate to any sort of realized difference for queer people, and there was some debate over whether it even helped his numbers at the poll at all. But now it seems like there may be a more concrete result of Obama’s declaration; it’s been announced that the Democratic Party will officially make support for same-sex marriage one of the “planks” for their 2012 party platform.

What does that mean? Whereas we’ve always been generally pleased as a community when an individual politician or legislator supported same-sex marriage, the entire Democratic Party now endorses marriage equality. Specifically, “language in the platform approved on Sunday not only backs marriage equality, but also rejects DOMA and has positive language with regard to the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. The exact wording of the language wasn’t immediately available.” While that statement hits some key points, namely “rejection of DOMA” and “positive language” for ENDA, it’s still noticeably vague. For instance, it’s unclear whether “rejection” is the same thing as a “call for repeal,” or what exactly “positive language” entails, and whether that “positive language” is in description of a version of ENDA that includes protections against discrimination based on gender identity and presentation.

If the details of the proposed “plank” are vague, it might be because the platform is still being drafted, and there are still plenty of decisions left to be made regarding language. A platform committee will review this draft in Detroit in two weeks, and then convention delegates in Charlotte still need to provide their final approval. The information now available about the platform was passed along by a DNC staffer who would only speak anonymously, but Barney Frank, who sits on the committee but is planning on retirement, was able to confirm that the 15-person panel unanimously voted in favor of including marriage equality in the platform. Frank also opined that media attention on the new platform was “misguided,” and that even more important was the fact that “by every action that should be taken, the Democrats in Washington have repudiated DOMA,” whereas “almost every House Republican had voted to reaffirm it.”

While a unanimous vote is certainly affirming, especially after “some LGBT sources” told the Huffington Post that they were receiving “pushback” on the issue from party officials as late as March, it isn’t necessarily a sea change. Politico reports that a “draft plank” available in February read:

“We support the full inclusion of all families in the life of our nation, with equal respect, responsibilities, and protections under the law, including the freedom to marry. Government has no business putting barriers in the path of people seeking to care for their family members, particularly in challenging economic times. We support the Respect for Marriage Act and the overturning of the federal so-called Defense of Marriage Act, and oppose discriminatory constitutional amendments and other attempts to deny the freedom to marry to loving and committed same-sex couples.”

As of yet, it’s unclear how different the updated, post-Obama-announcement version will look — it seems that adding language about ENDA may be one of the more important updates. It’s certainly conceivable that, as Frank suggests, the series of witnesses ranging from Marc Solomon, the national campaign director of Freedom to Marry, to Army Chief Warrant Officer Charlie Morgan, a lesbian New Hampshire guardsman with stage-four incurable breast cancer, and the subsequent announcement of a platform change are largely symbolic.

If that’s the case, then we’re left to wonder what this move will actually mean. As has regrettably been the case for some time now, this election offers the possibility of queer people becoming a wedge issue, or pawns in a “culture war,” with voters falling to one side or the other based on how uncomfortable a gay kiss on Modern Family would make them. But it’s possible that the voting public, conservatives especially, are changing and growing. And while the Republican party is by no means a champion for the queer community, it is true that their polling numbers on the specific issue of gay marriage are becoming much more reasonable, with the majority of individual Republicans now supporting “legal recognition for gay couples” (although that doesn’t necessarily mean marriage). The fact that the vote on this issue in the DNC was unanimous may mean that they’re now confident that more voters than not will fall on our side of the wedge issue – or, more optimistically, that our families and our community can no longer be used by politicians as a wedge issue at all.

Why Claiming Republicans Are “Hardly Anti-Gay” Makes Hardly Any Sense

LA Times writer David Lampo makes the accurate observation that “it’s an axiom of modern American politics that most Republicans are reflexively — even stridently — anti-gay.” This is, fairly inarguably, correct. There are some complicating factors to that assertion — for instance, that the younger demographic within the GOP may have significantly different views than the people currently in office, or that plenty of Republicans, like Colin Powell, have successfully “evolved” on some issues like same-sex marriage. After all, it’s become apparent that the upper echelon of the GOP is so anti-gay that they can’t deal with a gay person even when he’s a member of their own party.  So why, then, does Lampo’s article argue that the GOP is “hardly” anti-gay?

husband arguably runs an ex-gay clinic

Lampo has identified four “myths” that he thinks have got the general public misled about what Republicans really think about gay people, or as he puts it, lead us to “[overlook] pockets of tolerance among its rank and file.” In summation, his debunking of these “myths” are: 66% of Republicans support workplace policies that ban discrimination against gays and lesbians, 64% of Republicans support allowing openly gay servicemembers in the military, 41% of Christian conservatives, a majority of Republicans, and even 53% of Tea Partiers support “legal recognition for gay couples” (although in most cases that doesn’t mean marriage).

These are all good things! Very few people would argue that opposing discrimination, and supporting marriage equality and workplace equality in the military are bad things. However, to take those statements and leap to the conclusion that the Republican party is therefore not anti-gay is just incorrect and logically unsound. It’s probably true, honestly, that there are “pockets of tolerance” that are ashamed of the antics of people like Santorum and Romney. But what Lampo is essentially trying to do here is conflate support for marriage equality and a few other big-ballot and highly publicized issues, like DADT, with support for the queer community. While marriage equality is a very important and very personal issue for a lot of queer families, the fact of the matter is that for queer people, much like for straight people, all the days preceding and following a wedding day are important too. And that’s where the Republican party really hurts the gay community, “tolerance” or no.

For instance, while the mainstream media tends to frame the conversation about sex education in terms of teen pregnancy, comprehensive sexual education is a huge factor in deciding whether queer kids grow up safe and healthy. When Republican legislators oppose curriculum that would educate children about their own bodies and how to take care of themselves, even straight teens can succumb to self-loathing for entirely normal feelings, and find themselves in behaviors that hurt themselves and their partners. Especially if a queer kid has an unsupportive home life, a school life that deliberately erases their existence is unconscionable. But regardless of how they vote on DADT, this is what Republican lawmakers are supporting every time they vote for abstinence-only education, or for “leaving those things up to the parents.” And when the Republican party attacks institutions like Planned Parenthood, they’re not just hurting straight women or women who need abortions, they’re hurting the queer community, too. Places like Planned Parenthood are sometimes the only reliable and non-discriminatory places queers can turn for care and for sexual health, and if Republicans don’t care about that, they don’t care about queer people.

very anti-gay

Similarly, while healthcare reform and access to affordable care are important for everyone, they’re especially urgent for a population (like the gay community!) who are extra susceptible to anxiety, depression, substance abuse and a host of other mental health problems. (Their vulnerability is at least partly because of  the stigma and daily hardships that gay people face, which is also arguably the fault of the Republican party among many other groups, so there’s that.) Especially considering the unemployment and workplace discrimination that many groups in the queer community face, particularly trans* people, being able to access healthcare even if you don’t have insurance through your employer or the ability to afford private insurance (and if you can’t be put on your partner’s insurance plan because of DOMA) is critically important. All of the goodwill and gay “tolerance” in the world won’t help someone get care they need to stay healthy or stay alive.

In some ways, those issues just make the point that what’s bad for America in general is especially bad for queer people — after all, that’s sort of what being marginalized means. But there are specific issues besides same-sex marriage that affect the queer and trans* community, and on the whole, the Republican party has either ignored or actively worsened them. Take homelessness, which disproportionately affects queer youth and trans* people. Young queer people who are kicked out of their homes or need to leave their homes because they aren’t safe really only have a deeply flawed and under-resourced foster care system to turn to, and which often doesn’t have specific tools or training to support queer or trans kids. Outside of the foster care system, many of the only options for shelters or housing are faith-based organizations, which often turn away gay kids or force trans* people to present as a gender they don’t identify as or else lose their housing. If the Republican party really wants to prove it’s “hardly anti-gay,” it could pay attention to the problems that are life-and-death issues for members of our community — or even call for LGBTQ families to be considered as adoptive or foster families and give millions of dollars to a pilot program working to combat queer teen homelessness, like the Obama administration did.

three different republican presidential hopefuls signed the pledge in question

When you look at the full picture, Lampo isn’t wrong, at least not totally. His numbers are correct, and he’s right that there are probably plenty of people who would be shocked to find out that 66% of Republicans support workplace policies protecting gays and lesbians from discrimination (probably plenty of Republicans would be surprised, also). But he’s wrong if he thinks that means the party can earn a pass from the gay community, or that once we’re allowed to go to City Hall the state can sit back and think it’s done right by us for the rest of time. The Democratic party has been by no means a perfect ally either, but as long as the Republican party is still spit-taking over words like “bisexual” and “transgender” and jumping at the chance to hurt women just for one more chance to throw gays under the bus, “hardly anti-gay” is a claim you might want to wait on making.

The SCOTUS Health Care Ruling: What Does It Mean?

In a highly anticipated decision, today the Supreme Court ruled that a key portion of the Affordable Care Act (“Obamacare”), which requires citizens to carry health insurance or else pay a penalty, is in fact constitutional. A 5-4 vote, in which the usually fairly conservative Chief Justice Roberts joined his more liberal colleagues in upholding the ACA, says that it’s legal for the government to mandate that citizens must get health insurance by 2014 or else pay a tax. The court essentially ruled that the penalty in question doesn’t function differently than other taxes on US citizens, and is therefore constitutional. As Roberts wrote in his decision, “because the Constitution permits such a tax, it is not our role to forbid it, or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness.” Justices Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Kennedy were dissenting, and said they would have struck down the entire law.

The court didn’t find the entire law constitutional, and struck down part of the law dealing with Medicaid. The court ruled that an expansion of Medicaid can’t be made mandatory for states because it threatened states’ funding, and that the federal government can’t put sanctions on states’ current Medicaid funding if they choose not to participate in the expansion. And while Roberts did surprise and disappoint conservative supporters by siding with the more liberal half of the court, he didn’t necessarily throw in his lot with them philosophically. He still agrees with the conservative viewpoint that the federal government can’t force people to carry health insurance, but his argument is that the government isn’t forcing anyone to do anything, and is instead just choosing to tax those who don’t.

Nancy pelosi and john boehner after the announcement. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)

As is to be expected, Democrats are in general very pleased about this decision, and Republicans less so.  Mitt Romney declared that “What the court did not do I will do on my first day as president… ObamaCare was bad policy yesterday. It’s bad policy today.” How Mitt Romney will manage to reverse a Supreme Court decision on his first or any day as President is unclear, but the sentiment stands. The GOP is expected to “try to dismantle the law “piece by piece” in the words of Rep. Lynn Woolsey. But in the meantime, it could mean a huge difference in the lives of those with chronic illness.

The expansion of Medicaid means that some people who didn’t previously qualify may now benefit from it, and tax subsidies can provide a big help to those who are now uninsured, thereby making insurance much more affordable. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that 17 million more Americans will now be eligible for Medicaid by 2016, and an estimated 20 million will be able to afford their own through exchanges. Insurers are guaranteed to provide coverage to people with preexisting conditions. People who don’t have access to an employer-provided health plan can shop for insurance at state “exchanges.” If someone’s insurance premiums would equal 8% of their income or more even after subsidies and employer contributions, they are exempt from buying insurance but also exempt from the tax penalty for not buying it.

One question that remains is what will happen to insurance rates if it becomes a product that everyone is required to buy — ordinarily, supply and demand would dictate that prices would rise. A ballot initiative that would allow the state to regulate insurance prices (and thus keep them from becoming unaffordable) is being pushed for November, but is facing protests from insurance companies like Blue Cross Blue Shield. And even if insurance rates aren’t able to be regulated, there will still be Americans who can’t afford insurance — those who don’t meet the 8%-of-income mark but also don’t qualify even for extended Medicaid coverage.  But there will also be Americans who may be able to access care that they would never have been able to afford, and diagnoses that may have previously been death sentences because their victims weren’t in the top income bracket of the United States may now be treatable. There’s no way to know whether the Affordable Care Act will remain in its current state, especially if we find ourselves with a Republican president in November. But it will certainly be added to the list of accomplishments of the Obama administration during his first term, and for many it will be remembered as a major step forward.

Obama Speaks For LGBT Pride Month, Doesn’t Counsel Patience

On Friday, at the White House’s LGBT Pride Month Reception, Obama publicly rededicated his positive feelings about the LGBT community, and took the opportunity to remind us of the strides that the White House has made this year in terms of helping queer people live more safely and equally. Obama first officially proclaimed June LGBT Pride Month in 2009, marking it as a moment to “commit to achieving equal justice under law for LGBT Americans.”

In his remarks on Friday, he acknowledged that mission isn’t yet accomplished, but pointed out that quite a few milestones have been achieved. DADT has been repealed, the Matthew Shepard Act has been passed to prosecute hate crimes, hospitals that accept Medicare or Medicaid have to treat LGBT patients equally and allow their partners access to them, and gender identity is included in non-discrimination policies for employees of the federal government. Section 3 of DOMA has been declared unconstitutional, and the President has publicly announced his personal support of marriage equality. Things look very different in a lot of ways in 2012 than they did in 2009.

Of course, there’s plenty that’s not mentioned in this speech. In conceding that life still isn’t perfect for LGBT Americans, Obama acknowledged the need for a fully inclusive version of ENDA, and referenced the White House’s ongoing efforts to combat bullying. He didn’t mention violence against trans women of color, for instance, or the rampant homelessness that affects the trans and queer communities, especially for young people. But he did say:

Now, I’ve said before that I would never counsel patience; that it wasn’t right to tell you to be patient any more than it was right for others to tell women to be patient a century ago, or African Americans to be patient a half century ago.  After decades of inaction and indifference, you have every reason and right to push, loudly and forcefully, for equality.

Which seems like something many have been waiting for a long time to hear. Nicholas Benton, a gay man who’s worked previously as a journalistic correspondent in the White House, writes that for the first time in his career, the White House is finally a place he feels welcome in. He believes that while he knew his dreams of being President were dashed by the fact that he was an out gay man, “there is no doubt in [his] mind now that there is some LGBT youngster in our land right now who will grow up to become president of the United States some day.” Obama’s speech also managed to scandalize Trinity Communications and CatholicCulture.org, who wrote that the President “mocked” DOMA because he called it the “so-called Defense of Marriage Act.” So clearly, he’s doing something right.

On the whole, the real work of supporting the LGBT community isn’t done at a reception; it’s done on a daily basis, listening to the real needs of the community and doing whatever it takes to get them met, regardless of what the religious right thinks. Obama is trying to communicate his willingness to do that, in the time we have until November, and depending on how the election goes, for four years after that. It’s up to each of us to decide whether his track record is a good indicator of that — whether it’s true when Obama says “And as long as I have the privilege of being your President, I promise you, you won’t just have a friend in the White House, you will have a fellow advocate.”

VIDEO: Texas Baptist Pastor Defends Obama’s Gay Marriage Position, Suggests Anti-Gays “Take A Chill Pill”

Pastor Frederick Haynes III of Friendship West Church knew his congregants would be coming to church on Sunday eager to hear Haynes’ take on Obama’s recently-stated support of same-sex marriage. He’d been fielding multiple requests for “conference calls” with other religious leaders on the topic and was growing increasingly stunned by how many people in his community were freaking out about it, too.

Friendship West is a Baptist congregation, a population which many write off as inherently anti-gay. Their website describes the Church as “a caring community of Christians committed to developing a personal relationship with our Lord that eventuates into a ministry of evangelization, edification, and emancipation, in the Church and the community.”

Haynes was undoubtedly brave to take what he knew could possibly be an unpopular stance with his some of followers (you can hear occasional jeering during his speech) and he is also undoubtedly correct in what he says. I could quote him all day, but you really need to experience it for yourself.

You have to see this. Really, you do:

[via queerty]

Obama, Gay Marriage and America One Week Later

Obama’s recent announcement that he personally supports the right of same-sex couples to marry has made waves to a degree that little else from his term has, as historic as his presidency already was. This week, both Newsweek and The New Yorker have devoted their covers to commemorating the President’s declaration. The New Yorker‘s, fairly tame, depicts a version of the White House with rainbow columns out front, which the cover artist Bob Staake describes as a way to “celebrate the bravery of the President’s statement—a statement long ovedue—but all the more appreciated in this political year.” Newsweek‘s cover, on the other hand, is more controversial: a portrait of Obama with a rainbow-patterned halo over his head and the headline “The First Gay President.”

The cover story, by Andrew Sullivan, purports to answer some of the questions that Americans had immediately following Obama’s announcement: Was it planned, or forced by Joe Biden’s unscripted statement a few days earlier? And to the extent that it was planned, was it a heartfelt expression of a deeply held personal conviction, or a politically calculated move aimed at reelection, or something in between? Sullivan has been following Obama’s stance on marriage equality for years, and describes his heartbreak at watching Obama reiterate his view that civil unions are a better option at a fundraiser in 2007, but also a certain skepticism: “…it also felt strained, as if he knew it didn’t quite fit… he was both a cold, steely, ruthless, calculating politician who nonetheless wanted to do the right thing in the end.” Sullivan believes that this is something Obama has believed and wanted to make known for some time, and finally had the opportunity to.

As for the timing of that opportunity, Sullivan says that Obama had already been planning to make this announcement before the election, but not quite as soon as he did. He had meant to make his statement on The View yesterday, but Joe Biden’s statement pushed his schedule up, and instead he ended up talking with the women of The View about what his announcement meant. As in his interview with Robin Roberts, Obama carefully avoided implying any commitments about the legislative future of same-sex marriage, and instead stuck to talking about his own opinions on the subject.

And what about Newsweek’s title, “The First Gay President?” It’s a reference to the moment in 1998 when Toni Morrison called President Bill Clinton “the first black president,” saying, “After all, Clinton displays almost every trope of blackness: single-parent household, born poor, working-class, saxophone-playing, McDonald’s-and-junk-food-loving boy from Arkansas.” In the same vein, as Eric Randall of the Atlantic Wire points out, Obama has already been called the “first woman president” three times now, the “first Asian-American president,” the “first Hispanic president,” and the “first Jewish president.” In each of those instances, the allusion represents either Obama’s perceived solidarity with that group or is a suggestion that the facts of Obama’s own life somehow align him with this group. In this case, Sullivan asserts that Obama’s biracial identity gives him a lot in common with the gay community, despite the fact that for most of his life and career Obama told us that his religious identity informed his views on the gay community:

Barack Obama had to come out of a different closet. He had to discover his black identity and then reconcile it with his white family, just as gays discover their homosexual identity and then have to reconcile it with their heterosexual family. The America he grew up in had no space for a boy like him: black yet enveloped by loving whiteness, estranged from a father he longed for (another common gay experience), hurtling between being a Barry and a Barack, needing an American racial identity as he grew older but chafing also against it and over-embracing it at times. This is the gay experience: the discovery in adulthood of a community not like your own home and the struggle to belong in both places, without displacement, without alienation. It is easier today than ever. But it is never truly without emotional scar tissue. Obama learned to be black the way gays learn to be gay… I have always sensed that he intuitively understands gays and our predicament—because it so mirrors his own.

It’s not the first time attempts at comparisons between the experience of being gay and being of color have been made; drawing parallels between the civil rights movement of the 1960s and the movement for gay equality are fairly common. (Although Sullivan does seem to be talking more specifically here about the experience of being biracial in America, which is admittedly different.) In a lot of ways, Sullivan’s point here seems to make some of the same mistakes that the attempt to call on the civil rights movement often does: although Obama has written extensively about his own life, feelings, and experiences, and Sullivan is well versed in the experience of growing up gay, he’s still ultimately writing as a white man, and locating Obama’s life experience within his own may be overreaching.

Furthermore, arguing that Obama’s move last week came out of a personal identification with the gay community seems almost reductive. It’s true that relating on a personal level to someone in the gay community is often a way in which someone comes to support our equality, but ultimately, it’s also just the right thing to to do. And isn’t that what Obama himself said? He spoke about friends, staff, and American servicemembers, and the kind of world that his own daughters expected to grow up in, and that ultimately his faith led him to support equality and families, not work against them. It’s very possible that Obama’s own experiences of marginalization and feelings of alienation contributed to his thinking on the matter, but it’s also possible that someone can look at the current state of things for gay Americans and simply come to the realization that it’s not okay — and that may be what we need from America as a whole more than anything.

Beyond the response of the media, the real-world effects of Obama’s announcement have been more difficult to pin down. In terms of day-to-day life for gay Americans, not much has changed; Obama’s statement was a matter of stance and principle more than anything else. The only indication we have of any real legislative change came on Monday, when Obama said during a fundraiser that his policy goals for his potential second term do in fact include repealing DOMA. The fundraiser in question was hosted by gay activists and attended by Ricky Martin, and seems to indicate that Obama’s stance will earn him more funding from gay donors, many of whom had been less enthusiastic after he refused to sign an executive order for gay workplace protections. Latino/a voters and activists also appear to be heartened by Obama’s move, and hope that they can adopt tactics similar to the gay rights movement and secure more from Obama in terms of immigration reform.

Voters on the whole, however, didn’t have a uniformly positive reaction. As far as supporting Obama’s support, one poll from Washington Post-ABC News is  evenly split, with 46% in favor of Obama’s announcement and 46% opposed (8% undecided). Polls that look at how Obama’s move might affect his overall success are even less optimistic. Although each poll is slightly different and none are definitive, polls from the Pew Research Center and the New York Times/CBS both found that roughly 25% of those polled are now less likely to vote for Obama as a result of his statement, and only 16-19% were more likely to vote for him. Polls also found that “a clear majority of Americans regarded Obama’s declaration of support for same-sex marriage as largely a political move,” which seems unlikely to win him a lot of support from any demographic. When asked about how he sees the election going, Obama said he believes the economy, and not gay marriage, will ultimately be what makes up voters’ minds.

“Gay president” or no, Obama’s unprecedented statement of support will go down in history as a surprising and to many, brave and compassionate, move towards support and solidarity with the gay community at a time when a politician’s stance on gay issues is perceived as a make-or-break issue. Whether it will also be remembered as something that made a major difference, either in the lives of gay Americans or in Obama’s political career, remains to be seen.

We Got 99 Haters But Jay-Z Ain’t One

Jay-Z supports marriage equality and considers Obama’s recently completed gay marriage evolution a political plus. In fact, he thinks it was “the right thing to do.”

What a man.

Yesterday was your average Monday until Jay-Z, credited in his interview with CNN’s Poppy Harlow as a “Rapper/Philanthropist,” decided to wax philosophical about politics. Like most of Jay-Z’s words, they were perfect. 

Jay-Z is a long time friend of the Obama family, a White House VIP, and a personal musical favorite of the President himself. (Obama prefers Jay-Z over Kanye.) During his CNN interview he refused to talk about Mitt Romney and confessed to not knowing much about him. He decided, instead, to praise Obama’s decision to endorse gay marriage:

“I’ve always thought it as something that was still holding the country back. What people do in their own homes is their business and you can choose to love whoever you love. That’s their business. It’s no different than discriminating against blacks. It’s discrimination plain and simple…I think it’s the right thing to do, so whether it costs him votes or not – again, it’s not about votes. It’s about people. It’s the right thing to do as a human being.”

Coming from a man who describes himself as not “a huge fan” of our political system, that’s a huge compliment for Obama. But let’s focus on us. Jay-Z supports gay marriage, everyone. It is right there in print, on video, and across the Internet. Let us all rejoice by listening to The Black Album and looking at pictures of Blue Ivy Carter emotionally.

Jay-Z also talks the importance of business ethics and helping the less fortunate (a not-so-common perspective for a mogul), the current state of our economy and Obama’s stimulus, and the similarities between hip-hop and politics in his interview.

As an emerging rap starlet and former political hopeful myself, the news that Jay-Z supports progressive politics and the rights, equality, happiness, and forever humanity of gay people is second to everything in my life except Drake (let’s be real).

Let’s just hope Hov performs at the next A-Camp Talent Show.

BREAKING: President Obama Announces He Supports Same-Sex Marriage (With Video!)

Just a few days after Vice President Joe Biden’s comments that he personally supports same-sex marriage, President Barack Obama has made an announcement that he also personally supports equal marriage rights, although he also supports leaving the legislative decision up to the states.

Obama has made moves implying support for marriage equality in the past, from calling on the Department of Justice to stop defending DOMA in court to speaking out against North Carolina’s Amendment 1. But this is the first time he’s openly and explicitly confirmed his personal belief in marriage equality. In doing so, he used the language of “evolution” that’s been used in the past to describe his stance on the issue, and also spoke of the way in which his faith informs his view.

video platform video management video solutions video player

In an interview with ABC’s Robin Roberts, Obama said:

“I have to tell you that over the course of several years as I have talked to friends and family and neighbors when I think about members of my own staff who are in incredibly committed monogamous relationships, same-sex relationships, who are raising kids together, when I think about those soldiers or airmen or marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf and yet feel constrained, even now that Don’t Ask Don’t Tell is gone, because they are not able to commit themselves in a marriage, at a certain point I’ve just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married.”

Obama’s announcement comes the day after Amendment 1, a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage and potentially invalidating civil unions and domestic partnerships, passed by 61% in North Carolina. Obama had already declared his opposition to the amendment, and it’s possible that the amendment’s success (and perhaps Biden’s words) motivated him to make a statement, or at least make one sooner than he would have otherwise.

Obama’s position on same-sex marriage has been under much debate as the election approaches; Biden’s comments were seen as “off-the-cuff,” and it’s possible that Biden’s move created some pressure for Obama to make an announcement of his own. After Biden’s announcement, a top aide to Obama’s re-election campaign, tweeted that Obama’s stance was the same as Biden’s — specifically that “What VP said – that all married couples should have exactly the same legal rights – is precisely POTUS’s position.” It’s also possible, however, that both Biden and Obama’s statements were calculated as moves that might help them win four more years in the White House. The Washington Post has an in-depth breakdown of the pros and cons of supporting marriage equality in 2012 — for instance, it may help him re-connect with the activist youth base that helped him get elected the first time. On the other hand, it may also distance him from voter demographics that he needs to win from the GOP. (True to form, Fox News is currently describing Obama’s announcement as an instance of “flip-flopping.”)

Romney’s camp has wasted no time re-confirming his opposition to gay marriage: “I indicated my view, which is I do not favor marriage between people of the same gender, and I do not favor civil unions if they are identical to marriage other than by name… My view is the domestic partnership benefits, hospital visitation rights, and the like are appropriate but that the others are not.” Not long ago, Obama’s stated position was fairly similar; in 2004, he said that “I’m a Christian. I do believe that tradition and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman.” It wasn’t until 2010 that he began to describe his views as “evolving,” and he’s now the first US President (and the only candidate in 2012) who personally supports marriage equality.

Biden and Obama were both careful in their statements not to espouse any specific courses of legislative or judicial action; neither went so far as to claim that marriage equality should be federally recognized, or make any statements whatsoever as to the legal future for gay families. To the extent that this announcement may impact the 2012 election, Obama made no promises about what he would accomplish in office around this issue if re-elected. On the other hand, his willingness to take a controversial position at what some would call the riskiest time to do so does raise the question of what he would be willing to do to support the community when re-election wasn’t at stake — perhaps in terms of issues besides marriage, even. With this announcement, Obama has made history as the President to most actively and explicitly support the queer community in the controversy which most Americans think of when they think of gay people. Depending on how the 2012 election goes (and, in part, how this announcement is received), he may have a chance to be our ally in a way we’ve never seen in a politician before.

Joe Biden Goes Rogue With Same-Sex Marriage Support

On Sunday’s edition of Meet the Press, Vice President Joe Biden surprised the press he was meeting, as well as many viewers at home, when he explicitly expressed support for same-sex marriage. According to The New York Times, Biden said he was “absolutely comfortable” with same-sex marriage, explaining:

“I am absolutely comfortable with the fact that men marrying men, women marrying women and heterosexual men and women marrying one another are entitled to the same exact rights, all the civil rights, all the civil liberties…That’s what people are finding out is what, what all marriages, at their root, are about,” he said, “Whether they’re marriages of lesbians or gay men or heterosexuals.”

The Times cites that Biden, with his “unexpectedly expansive remarks,” now represents “by far the highest-ranking White House official to move closer to a formal embrace of same-sex marriage.” Biden talked about meeting gay families on the campaign trail and wishing Americans could see that this fight is about love.

+

+

Predictably enough, Biden’s aides “scrambled” in response to these “off the cuff remarks” to make sure everybody knew that Biden’s opinion was not deviating from White House policy and also that “Mr. Biden did not say explicitly that the federal government should recognize it.” They didn’t necessarily need to bother with that, though — Biden had specifically said on-air that “I am vice president of the United States of America. The president sets the policy.” His aides made the following statement:

“The vice president was saying what the president has said previously – that committed and loving same-sex couples deserve the same rights and protections enjoyed by all Americans, and that we oppose any effort to roll back those rights. That’s why we stopped defending the constitutionality of Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act in legal challenges and support legislation to repeal it. Beyond that, the vice president was expressing that he too is evolving on the issue, after meeting so many committed couples and families in this country.”

David Axlerod tweeted: “What VP said – that all married couples should have exactly the same legal rights – is precisely POTUS’s position.”

“Gay rights leaders” were unimpressed by Team Biden’s scramble, expressing “frustration and dismay over attempts by the White House to play down the vice president’s words.”

But more exceptional still, Joe Biden actually name-dropped Will & Grace — yes, the sitcom — as something that “probably did more to educate the American public than almost anything anybody’s ever done so far.”

Some suspect Joe Biden’s remarks were pre-meditated and part of an overall strategy to engage gay donors, who have “replaced Wall Street money” in this election. Biden has always stated same-sex marriage was “inevitable,” but this explicit expression of support stands out and is part of a larger pattern of satillites to the president presently publicly supporting same-sex marriage rights — Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, Education Secretary Arne Duncan and Housing and Urban Development Secretary Shaun Donovan. Meanwhile, Team Romney can’t keep one gay guy on their staff. What a weird election this is gonna be.

Barack Obama Swag: 14 Fascinating and Strange Obama-Inspired Products

I don’t know if you’ve heard, but there’s an election coming up and if you’re not already sporting an Obama/Biden bumper sticker on your binder (the Trapper Keeper kind of “binder,” not the chest-contour kind), you probably don’t like Freedom. But what if you don’t have a car or a binder? What then? Surely there must be a way you can support Barack Obama while sitting in a chair drinking beer, right? OF COURSE THERE IS.

See, Obama is a very inspirational figure, not only to young children who dream of one day getting railroaded by the Republicans in congress, but also to artists, designers, etsy crafters and People Who Just Discovered Cafèpress. The Obama store even has a whole section of weird things you can wear designed by famous people like Vera Wang, Beyoncé, Diane Von Furstengberg, Jason Wu and Sean Jean.

This is not the case for Mitt Romney, whose campaign store is a wee thing compared to Obama’s commercial multitudes:

no really, this is his entire store, these are all of the products

Get it? Moms “drive” the economy? Because they drive their husbands to work? Hm. Well, let’s look at some of the many many things available online in celebration of our present president, Barack Obama.

Barack Obama Swag: 14 Ways To Put Your Money Where Your Beer Cozy Is

+

1. The Joe Biden Can Holder – $10 – (barackobama.com)

Though allegedly designed to keep your “soda” cold, everybody knows that this item exists to conceal the fact that you’re drinking Natty Light. It was this beer sleeve that inspired me to make this list to begin with (I also appreciate the “Cup of Joe” mug).

2. The Michelle Obama Tote Bag – $30 – (etsy/kraftho)

What I really like about this bag is the attention to detail.

3. Pins, Pins, Pins 

L to R, clockwise: Obama Mama (Obama Buttons 2012/Etsy), Barack Obama Obey (AtellerBagatelle/Esty) (“an hommage to the Andre the Giant sticker/stencil campaign”), Pirates for Obama (ViaDella/Etsy), Hippies for Obama (TIG INC/Amazon), Kittens For Obama (Psychadelic Tara/Etsy), Alaskan Wildlife For Obama (Tiger Eye Design/Amazon), Hookers For Obama (Psychadelic Tara/Etsy), Baruch Obama (AtellerBagatelle/Etsy)

+

4. Hope on a Rope – $20 – (etsy/bubblegenius)

This soap-on-a-rope inspired item “smells like a breath of fresh air” because Obama “IS a breath of fresh air!” The thing is that I could never put Obama in my armpit.

+

5. Dog Sweater ($35) + Dog T-Shirt ($30)- (barackobama.com)

The funny thing about puppies is that you can train them to support Obama and if they wanna support Romney, they have to go outside.

 +

6. Barack Obama Felt Finger Puppet – $12 – (etsy/mullishmuse)

“Here is Barack Obama ready to usher in his 2012 campaign with his new look ! Grey hair and darker blue tie! Get excited and order your felt buddy today.”

+

7. Obama Tailgate Pack – $65 – barackobama.com

I wish this said “grill baby grill” on it.

+

8. Michelle Obama Type Fragrance Oil  $10 (Green Planet Organics/Etsy)

This is so when people come into your house and you’re burning your fragrance oil and they’re like, “ooo what smells so good?” you can be like, “Oh, it’s Michelle Obama.” There’s also Barack Obama fragrance oil, which represents “leadership, history and achievement.”

+

9. YO! Bama Pillow – $25 –  (Reclaim LA/Etsy)

This fantastic pillow is inspired by Barack Obama and YO! MTV Raps. Sweet dreams guaranteed.

+

10. Barack Obama Dashboard Doll – $10.92 – (Amazon/KC)

If there’s anything better than Barack Obama being president, it’s Barack Obama playing the Ukelele. It’s like the new Hula Girl dashboard ornament.

+

11. Barack Obama Basketball – $69.95 (amazon/photo sportballs)

“A Well-Rounded President.” Get it? A ‘well-rounded’ president? On a round basketball?

+

12. Matryoshka – “a family of U.S. President Barack Obama, Michelle Robinson, Malia and Sasha. His wife and children of the president.” – $35 – (Brusesa/Etsy)

The best part about this is that the smallest wooden doll in the series represents the entire country of the United States. The second-best part is how well Sasha’s cuteness translates to all formats.

+

13. Obama Monkey – $45 – etsy/AngDavidson

This makes me want to get pregnant and give birth so that I can give this to my baby and take a cute picture of a baby with a monkey doll.

+

14. President Beerack Obama – $30 – honeydewstudio/etsy

 

“This funny little bumble bee ornament was created from polymer clay, and hand painted with acrylics. The paint has been reinforced with a glossy sealant. President Beerack Obama has wire antennas and fabric wings printed with Obama’s election logo. A loop in his back has been threaded with a yellow ribbon, so you can hang it anywhere you like. President Beerack Obama is approximately 2 inches long.”

There you have it. Alternately, you could just write “Obama” on your breasts with a Sharpie.

Obama’s Not Signing LGBT Workplace Protection Exec Order For Vague, Unconvincing Reasons

Despite the exhortations of an adorable family who loves Easter Eggs (not to mention the letter sent by 72 members of Congress), Obama has refused to sign an executive order that would protect LGBT employees from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation by federal contractors. Instead, Obama’s administration says it’s looking to ENDA as the solution to problems faced by queer members of the workforce. And inclusive ENDA bill, you may recall, has been introduced countless times, with no real hope of ever being passed. Back in October, an organization formed to work for ENDA’s passage, but what progress has been made since then is unclear. In short, it would appear that Obama has decided not to sign this executive order because he’d rather put progress in the hands of a piece of legislation that’s failed consistently and which no one believes will succeed in the foreseeable future.

this is what obama won't be doing for LGBTs

What’s confusing is that to the outside observer, it doesn’t even seem necessary. Ostensibly, Obama is making this move because he doesn’t want to appear to be too gay-friendly in an election year. But Obama’s support of the gay community (and Planned Parenthood, while we’re on the subject) seems like it’s already more than enough to turn off anyone who’s basing their ability to vote on gay issues. Someone who will flat out refuse to support a President who allows gay and lesbian employees to be protected from discrimination seems like they probably already jumped that ship when Obama declared Section 3 of DOMA unconstitutional, or supported DADT’s repeal. Furthermore, the number of people (voters) who oppose this move seems to actually be pretty small — while large percentage of Americans still oppose marriage equality, a full 74% of Americans don’t believe that employers should be able to discriminate based on sexual orientation. So why is Obama so hesitant?

Political maneuvering meant to woo undecided voters in election years is common, and no one is surprised by it, even from Obama. And using the queer community as a way to distinguish yourself in one way or another isn’t new, either, and often takes the form of throwing us under the bus. But to refuse to extend basic protections to queer people when it’s within your power to do so, and to not even get a meaningful political payoff for it? That seems utterly indefensible. And even more indefensible, Jarrod Scarbrough and Les Sewell, the couple who attended the White House Easter Egg Roll to confront Obama about the executive order, are still left trying to explain to their eight-year-old daughter why their family still doesn’t have the rights and securities it deserves.

White House Announces LGBT Pride Video Contest, Clearly Likes Your Face

I thought I was hallucinating when I followed a link this morning to the “Pride Month Champions of Change Video Challenge” on the whitehouse.gov website. The White House? Of America? Hosting a “contest” for LGBT Pride Month? This is a real thing?

Indeed it is. The contest is part of the White House’s “Champions of Change” series, which seeks to celebrate “everyday heroes who are demonstrating commitment to improving their own communities, their country, or the lives of their fellow citizens,” and in celebration of LGBT Pride Month (June), the White House Video Challenge invites y’all to highlight the champions of LGBT rights, a.k.a, “to explore the stories of unsung heroes and local leaders who are leading our march towards a more perfect union.”

Participants must produce a three-minute (or less) video in more or less any format — PSA, music video, video blog, interview — that fits into one or more of the following seven categories:

+ Storytelling  (stories of coming out or overcoming adversity)

+ Culture & Identity (interesting intersections with race, national origin, religion, and disability)

+ Unsung Heroes (individuals and organizations that haven’t been recognized for their contributions)

+ The Arts (music, art, photography, poetry, and prose that inspire courage and acceptance)

+ Social Entrepreneurship & Innovation (individuals and organizations that are testing new approaches and demonstrating results)

+ Community Solutions (local initiatives that are solving local challenges)

+ Friends & Allies (family members, teachers, faith leaders, and other allies in the fight for equality)

They’re also accepting essays “no longer than 750 words” (that’s an epically short essay) for those unable to make videos, and all entries are due May 4th. In June everyone will vote on who’s the best and then the finalists will be “featured as Champions of Change at an event at the White House.” There appears to be no limit on how many of you can make videos about me, so it’s basically a free-for-all in that regard.

Needless to say, this is kinda awesome. Of course, like everybody, I’ve got a laundry list of complaints to register with President Obama regarding the unmet expectations and unwelcome surprises of the last four years — as an uninsured person prescribed now-under-attack medicinal marijuana for a chronic pain disorder and a small business owner who will be mailing the IRS my entire bank account while General Motors and Bank of America pay nothing, there’s a lot I think Obama could do for me and people like me that he’s not doing.

But as a queer person, I’m relatively pleased and surprisingly optimistic about our future with this administration.

Like many of you, I get lots of weirdo emails “from” Obama, Michele and Joe Biden, and recently I followed the link on one of Biden’s emails to donate to the Obama campaign. It asked me to “tell Obama” what issue was most important to me this election season, and although the economy is probably my honest #1, I picked “LGBT rights” in order to represent. My “thank you for donating” page was met with this:

Mhm, that’s right — President Obama is committed to equality for LGBT Americans! I know there’s dissent over this allegation, but I admit I get slightly ragey when other queers argue that Obama’s gay rights initiatives are just transparent disingenuous efforts to snag the gay vote. (I also get ragey when journalists argue that Obama’s unlikely to support same-sex marriage because it will harm his chances with African-American voters — a concept that has been debunked at least a billion times over the last four years.) For starters, snagging votes is his job, he’s a politician! That’s like criticizing us for publishing posts catered towards our readers’ interests in order to maintain or improve website traffic — of course we want traffic. That’s our job. In addition to my subjective conviction that he’s just too smart to be against equality, we’ve all witnessed some pretty serious gains for LGBT rights over the last four years, from repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell to his refusal to support DOMA in court.

As Rachel wrote yesterday about the Obamas’ policy of inviting gay families to the annual White House Easter Egg Roll — the first administration to do so — these types of gestures are “a hallmark of how different the Obama administration is from the one before it. The fact that the administration considers it important to differentiate itself in this way is another hallmark — they actively want to be perceived as pro-equality, and be associated with same-sex families, not associated with the movement against them.”

And now he wants to get it on film. Check out the video challenge website for more details.

Read ad-free: join AF MEDIA