And I was drawn by this:

"I am proud to have marched in Gay Pride parades as both First Lady and as Senator and to have spoken in front of so many LGBT audiences ranging from the Human Rights Campaign, Empire State Pride Agenda, the Hetrick Martin Institute, PFLAG (Parents, Families, and Friends of Lesbians and Gays), GMHC (Gay Men’s Health Crisis), and the American Foundation for AIDS Research"

A few weeks back...and I apologize, but I couldn't find the link...someone here posted a YouTube video of Hillary answering questions from people. One of the questions about about gay and lesbian youth and the issues they face in this country. She said "I value you as gay and lesbians". And she talked about real, concrete things that could be done to help the gay and lesbian youth. I know the source of that...she visited the Hetrick Martin Institute, a school in New York ONLY for gay and lesbian teens. She was there, she spoke to the kids there, and she took something from that visit. And you see it right here.

This is why. In case you still don't get it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discu...

In 2003, we gay and lesbian people watching the State of the Union address heard the President of the United States call for an amendment to the Constitution that would permanently define marriage as between a man and a woman. The President of the United States was framing it in terms of reining in "activist judges" but the intent (unless you were tragically clueless) was this: to enshrine, permanently, bigotry between a group of Americans into the Constitution of the United States. Never before, in the history of this country, was an amendment proposed that would TAKE AWAY the rights of law abiding Americans. I was white hot with anger that night watching that. It was one of the shameful moments ever in a State of the Union address. Apparently, full equality was a serious problem enough to amend the Constitution.

The current occupant of the White House has been nothing less than public enemy #1 of the GLBT community. From peddling shameful consitutional amendments to putting in homophobic judges in the Federal judiciary to appointing homophobes in the administration to threatening to veto any kind of legislation that would confer equal rights to GLBT people...George W. Bush has been consistently opposed to GLBT equality.

And that's why it's important, to me, that the next President (and yes, I absolutely think it will be a Democrat) "gets it" as far as GLBT issues are concerned. When ENDA (a fully inclusive ENDA) is introduced in the next Democratic Congress, I want the President to actively lobby for it and to sign it. When Don't Ask Don't Tell is up for review, I want the President to strongly take on the Pentagon and to be committed to its repeal, so that gay and lesbian soldiers can serve their country openly. When the next Congress passes a federal hate crimes bill, I want the President to lobby for its passage.

I want the next President to begin respecting us. To stop treating us as second class citizens. I've had 7 years of that and enough's enough.

I know Hillary isn't perfect on issues relating to GLBT people. Yes, DOMA and DADT are odious. And I hope that a Obama adminstration or a Hillary Clinton adminstration will work to repeal these discriminatory policies.

But the "ex-gay" movement has no place in our political system. I don't give a damn if the Donnie McClurkins of the world decide to try to "change" their sexual orientation. Hell, if they can delude themselves into doing it, whatever. Just don't prey on people genuinely conflicted with their sexual orientations. And goddammit, don't prey on gay and lesbian youth who are dealing with their sexuality.

And I'll go one farther...I encourage the Obama AND Clinton campaigns to condemn this odious, abusive movement that is nothing but bigotry.

Again, thanks.

Seriously, knock it off. DOMA and DADT are horrible POLICIES that can be repealed. And ultimately will be repealed.

The "ex-gay" movement, which McClurkin and Caldwell represent and promote, says that gay and lesbian people are "sick" and "evil" and need to be "cured". The "ex-gay" movement is something for hatemoners to get behind to appear "compassionate". Since they can't come out and say "I wish you fags and dykes would all die".

Knock off this attempt to lessen what a vile, hateful thing the "ex-gay" movement is, please. Seriously.

Because I KNOW Obama won't apologize. He didn't apologize for McClurkin and he won't be apologizing for this. It would be nice if the Advocate were to have this story...and will publish it.

Like you said...there are limits. I've said on DU over and over that I would vote for the Democratic nominee, no matter what. I just can't do it. I just can't. There are limits to the disrepect we GLBT people are getting from the Presidential candidates. Obama, Edwards, Clinton saying that they can't support our rights to marriage equality because...well, they just can't. Clinton saying that she'll support only partial repeal of DOMA.

But this...this is too fucking much. I just can't do it.

Obama will not be getting my vote if he's the nominee.

And I agree with the comments expressed here about the Democrat bashing around here. It's beyond ridiculous and is actually rather sad. And at a web site called Democratic Underground! My, you could cut the irony with a chainsaw.

That's my story in high school. Because I was gay...I got that same kind of treatment. Harassment and humiliation constantly. And there were times when I wished I were dead.

And I hope that some day there are no more stories like this, also.

It doesn't matter what context, it doesn't matter that there are different meanings of the word, whatever.

It's wrong. Period.

Just to clear up any misconceptions.

It's pure homophobia. And yes, it IS a ban..."Don't Ask, Don't Tell" notwithstanding. Gay and lesbian Americans are banned from serving in the military.

It's homophobia...but couched in terms like "unit cohesion". Translation: straight men (and women) are freaked out at the idea of some gay man or lesbian looking at them in the shower. Which, of course, besides being laughably ignorant, is THEIR problem.

20 some industrialized nations, including Israel, allows openly gay men and women to serve in their military. I'd say that Israel certainly doesn't have a problem with "unit cohesion".

This ban is, in the words (and God help me, I'm actually quoting him) former Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney, who said of the military ban on gay men and lesbians serving in the military, that it's a "bit of an old chestnut". In that one thing, I agree with Cheney (again, God help me). This ban is a ridiculous, sad remnant of World War II. It should be lifted immediately so that gay and lesbian Americans can serve their country, OPENLY.

The Lord God HATES same-sex marriage.

Really, does anyone even bother taking this plainly obvious nutjob seriously these days?

is promiently mentioned in the 2nd Amendment. I really, really don't think that the 2nd Amendment was adapted so Joe Dumbfuck could have the right to own as many guns as he wants to. Regardless of circumstance.

I really don't think the Founding Fathers wanted to insure that every man, woman and child, regardless of whether the nation was at war or at peace, could have the right to own an AK-47. That's my interpretation.

And you know as well as everyone else that a surfeit of guns (last number I heard, there was 300 million guns in this country), coupled with the extremely violent culture in the United States, is a very, very, very volitile, bad mix.

I've always thought that religion and people's religious beliefs should be a private matter. I am intensely uncomfottable readind or hearing some politician going on and and on about their religion or religious beliefs. It has no bearing whatsoever as to what kind of person you are. Bush is a perfect example of that.

Plain and simple.

If civil unions could give the same benefits to gay and lesbian couples that heterosexual married couples enjoy (even to someone like Britney Spears, who doesn't seem to grasp that marriage is not some damn thing to do on a drunken weekend in Vegas), well great, fine. I'd be 100% in favor of civil unions.

OR...if the government were to get out of marriage entirely...if heterosexual couples were to enter into civil unions as well as gay and lesbian couples...reserving marriage as a stricly religious right, without conferring any legal benefits whatsoever, regardless of sexual orientation...then, hell, I could get behind civil unions. But we all know that neither of those scenarios are ever going to happen.

We gay and lesbian people deserve the same rights that you do. There are no legal reasons to deny us those rights. As the Supreme Courts of Masaachusetts and Canada have so ruled.

in the midst of the worst financial crisis in this country's history, was to pick out a goddamned rug.

Goddamn, the stupidities, the irrelevancies, the nonsense that spews forth from Bush's mouth never ceases to embarrass.