Only one was deleted for massive ad hominen attacks. There you go again.

I suppose that’s one way to “win” an argument, just delete the posts you don’t agree with and leave yours up to make it seem as though you are right and the poster didn’t have a valid response.

Shame! I guess is time to dedicate my time to towleroad.

As a resident of MD, it is my feeling that if the marriage law goes to public referendum, it will lose. With the opposition of the Catholic hierarchy and the leaders of the Black Protestant churches (especially in Prince George’s County and in Baltimore City)the effort will succeed. There would not be enough supporters in stalwart Mongtomery County and perhaps in Howard County to offset the effectiveness of what we here in Montgomery County call the “Shower Nuts” (the group who almost succeeded in reversing an anti-Transgender Rights law passed in M.C.). The same fear tactics, lies, and ugly attacks aimed at the GLBT community in Maryland will resonate throughout the rest of conservative Maryland. This is the kind of issue that will get out the vote in our, shall we say charitably, less educated citizenry in the state. Progressives will, as usual, take winning for granted.

What position one takes after the office has less tangible impact and is of less importance. It also contains more idealism and less political pragmatism than a sitting president can afford. So that is not a useful tool for measurement.

Rather we have to look at their record in office. And here is where the debate becomes meaningless.

Because the truth is that over the past 30 years of so, each President’s administration has been more supportive – or at least less hostile – than the last.

Those who don’t like Reagan* will still have to accept that his administration’s attitude towards gay individuals was better than Carter’s 1970′s Southern Baptist sensibilities (though that may not be consistent with the alternate history created in the minds of the producers of TV docu-dramas). Under Reagan, it became politically acceptable to have known gay friends and even have a gay couple sleep over in the White House. (Amusingly when today’s Reagan-haters can’t find the homophobic language that they are sure he spouted will decide that he must have been more anti-gay in private when actually those who know him say the opposite was true.)

Bush Senior was a bit better than Reagan and was probably the first president to acknowledge gay people as a community. Barbara’s candle in the window for AIDS activism did step up the extent to which heartland Americans could empathize.

Clinton was worlds better. But flawed and still subject to a culture that was deeply homophobic. He campaigned and probably wanted to move our rights forward – or some of them – but he also was Bill Clinton.

George W Bush* at times felt like a step back, but most of that was not really in comparison to Clinton. Bush started off by putting a gay man in charge of his transition team and appointing a gay ambassador. Bush can be credited with advancing the idea that being gay, in and of itself, should no longer be a political liability amongst conservatives. And while Bush actually campaigned for office using his opposition to our marriage rights (as had Clinton) he was the first to speak of finding a way to accommodate couples. And many will find his endeavor to take on AIDS with a budget that surprised everyone to be a factor that weighs in his favor.

And obviously Obama is worlds more supportive than Bush.

But these changes are less indicative of the attitudes or advocacy of these men than it is a reflection of social change. On issues of gay rights, society has advanced tremendously over the past decades and a president that could not afford to endorse some measure of couple recognition at the time of Jimmy Carter cannot now afford not to.

It’s fair to note that some presidents were more inclined to lag behind change while others sought to advance it. “He should have” discussions which take time and culture into consideration may be of relevance (provided they include a full record), but impassioned direct comparison seems a bit pointless.

It may be interesting to discuss how one president may have done better or worse in place of another but ultimately it is unknowable. The more interesting discussion is the movement in culture that allowed/forced the nation’s leader at the time to move forward.

* – (Yes, I know that I spent more time on Reagan and Dubya, but they are the one’s most presumed to be a step backwards when in reality they were probably simply not as big of a step forward as others might have been)

2-cents on the rest:

Leadership or no-lead, the important take-away is not to underestimate the resistance to pro-gay initiatives, either now or back then.

There are/were very few gay rights victories that were a cake-walk. Even the court fights, which are in a sense easier to “manage”/”control”, created backlash, some of it highly significant.

How is that DNC job going? Or are you Clinton’s personal assistant now?

Not true:

http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2010/06/12/23417/comment-page-1#comment-70344

Not true:

http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2010/02/19/20450/comment-page-1#comment-62642

And that non-truth is repeated here:

http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2011/03/04/31143/comment-page-1#comment-90250

Obama’s DOJ has never compared gay people to pedophiles. We’ve been through this before. I know that there are people out there who want to give Obama zero credit and demonize him at every turn, but the ACTUAL FACTS for that charge do not support it.

http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2009/06/12/12023

There is simply no comparison to pedophilia.

Meanwhile, you like to paint Clinton as someone who walked on water for gay people, despite the fact that he signed DOMA that he had no need to sign whatsoever, and paid money to brag about it with Christians. You keep ignoring it. I guess it’s too much truth for you to handle. As for me, I would never tolerate someone backstabbing me like that. Not then, not now (hence, this post about Arora).

This is NOT intended as a comment on your truthfulness, but is merely a suggestion:

Consider giving some thought to changing your screen-name to one that does not contain the word “truth.” My anecdotal observations have repeatedly shown that there is an inverse relationship between the frequency that persons/organizations proclaim they are a source of truth and the frequency that they are actually a source of truth. And when the word “truth” is part of an organizations name, the inverse relationship usually reaches the ultimate extreme. Think Americans for Truth About Homosexuality, or the common reference to “Biblical truth.” This is also why I rolled my eyes when Wayne Besen named his organization Truth Wins Out (but then I understood that it was a response to all the anti-gays who proclaim they have the truth). Take a look at these Google search results using the words “homosexuality” and “truth:”

http://www.google.com/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=1G1GGLQ_ENUS376&=&q=homosexuality+truth&aq=f&aqi=g-v2&aql=&oq=