[KibblesBits]

Pretty sad to see. The large black population in my state, Maryland, ensures that we'll probably never get same sex marriage legalized unless something happens on a federal level.

Yes, because it all hinges on the Black vote in Maryland alone.

[Gaborn]

The purpose for you wasn't the purpose at the time. So... okay? How about you quote some of the other prominent speakers at the time. Malcolm, Farrakhan, many others would've said much different things. If you want to take one tidbit of information and run with it. Fine. Keep it close to you. Value it. But its one part of a very big discussion - and it was fucked up. Just like how you posted about that one transgender woman and didn't want to hear about how she'd be exploited left and right at the time.

I'm sorry, your opinion is JFK wasn't a prominent speaker?

Seriously, I'm beginning to think you're just a hack that wants to shit up these threads because I'm not seeing much of a point to your posts. You keep dancing around things without actually saying much of anything.

[blame space]

he just wants everything to always be about black people

[Dead Man]

Because you've said this before and its getting old. Either PM me, or just keep ranting.

Man, I was replying specifically to your post.

This one:

Something about equality for all and whatnot. And I really just don't dig the whole uplift, progress, wecandoitism anymore. I just want to see things done and often times people get caught up in speeches more than they get caught up in voting, practicality, or getting out and making a real difference. And that definitely sounds prick-ish. People fall in love with the words of the CRM all the time and more than a majority don't want to know or even acknowledge the things that went on before, during, and definitely after.

That is all. You have to let shit go man. I don't care if I have made a similar statement before. This statement is about that post. You don't want to acknowledge that, that's fine, but don't pretend like I am digging up some old issue.

[Pollux]

... Let's start with you PMing me about one of these stranger things you're alluding to. I'm honestly curious. I mean that whatever the official position of the Church, American Catholics are ahead of the curve in terms of being supportive of equal rights for gay people. This isn't happening randomly; it's happening because a good portion of American Catholics are taking it upon themselves to reinterpret their religious beliefs and elect to either ignore or reject official Catholic dogma. You wouldn't be seeing this sort of reexamination of religious beliefs about homosexuality if it weren't for the fact that there has been a marked shift in social mores around the issue of sexuality.

Writing PM now.

But w/ regards to the individuals, I agree. It's actually fascinating because my generation (20s) are FAR more traditional as a whole w/ regards to the faith (i.e. Mass, dogma, living our own lives, etc.) but are FAR more progressive on how our faith impacts others. For people I know, and for myself, faith is something that should be shared with all --> but that faith should not be FORCED upon ANYONE. My personal beliefs don't really matter in the grand scheme of things, what does matter is that everyone has equal rights and the ability to live their lives in the way they want to live them so long as they aren't hurting anyone. So while traditional Catholicism is resurgent, it's a more private type of traditional Catholicism. At least that's what I've noticed w/ people I know. Just my .02 cents.

[Mumei]

I'm pretty much saying the same thing and I'm glad that you get where I'm coming from. I'm basically addressing 3-4 people at the same time ITT so its easy to get streams crossed over particular details.

I....

I do?

Well that's good to hear.

I will say that, when you get down to the specific points, that true equality and isn't actual true equality. It happens when people say "I don't see color" and even when people say that women should be treated the same as men in the military. You can dismiss entirely the factors that have essentially put a group in a hole in state of perpetual catch-up mode or dismiss the fact that there are physiological differences between the sexes that make handling things such as deployment, benefits, job demands more than just a simple issue of "is that person's resume good enough?" but what does that really do? Many issues, to me at least, are worth more than just an attitude of "raising awareness"

Wouldn't the point of raising awareness be to educate people so that they realize that saying, "I don't see color" is both untrue and unhelpful and that appeals to colorblindness do more to propagate that particular system of dominance by rendering it invisible than it does to actually make it go away? I don't think that raising awareness should be thought of as an end in and of itself; to simply make people aware that there is a problem. I think that the point of raising awareness is the hope that you can meaningfully educate at least people about the issue - whatever it might be - and hopefully galvanize some of them into some sort of action.

[Dead Man]

Writing PM now. But w/ regards to the individuals, I agree. It's actually fascinating because my generation (20s) are FAR more traditional as a whole w/ regards to the faith (i.e. Mass, dogma, living our own lives, etc.) but are FAR more progressive on how our faith impacts others. For people I know, and for myself, faith is something that should be shared with all --> but that faith should not be FORCED upon ANYONE. My personal beliefs don't really matter in the grand scheme of things, what does matter is that everyone has equal rights and the ability to live their lives in the way they want to live them so long as they aren't hurting anyone. So while traditional Catholicism is resurgent, it's a more private type of traditional Catholicism. At least that's what I've noticed w/ people I know. Just my .02 cents.

I think you might find a lot of Catholics in Italy or Spain would be much less tolerant of gay issues than American Catholics too. European Catholicism is much more conservative than American.

[yeoz]

Razors.

No, no. Lasers.

[Neuromancer]

Yes, because it all hinges on the Black vote in Maryland alone.

I never said that but yes it certainly is a large factor.

[Al-ibn Kermit]

I give it two months before this coalition throws their support behind gay marriage.

[Escape Goat]

Someone needs to contact Blackace.

[Pollux]

I think you might find a lot of Catholics in Italy or Spain would be much less tolerant of gay issues than American Catholics too. European Catholicism is much more conservative than American.

True, but it does depend on the age group, region, etc. Part of the problem w/ American Catholicism was the absolutely shitty catechesis of the youth post VII. That's improving, and as it is traditional Catholicism is rising. But we're not losing our "American individualism" lol, at least as far as I can tell in my circle of friends and acquaintances.

[ivysaur12]

No, no. Lasers.

This is how we beat the gays. Razors and Lasers.

[DY_nasty]

That is all. You have to let shit go man. I don't care if I have made a similar statement before. This statement is about that post. You don't want to acknowledge that, that's fine, but don't pretend like I am digging up some old issue.

I take that exact same tone with all of the OWS, KONY, and anti-war/miitary people too.

You're not that special. And you're either reading way too far into a dry, "I really don't care because a speech in a different climate =/= direct change OR practicality", don't care that much for words, etc response to a drawn out message of hope that I already said sounded prick-ish or you're bringing up old shit.

Either way, PM me.

Or get over it.

I.... I do? Well that's good to hear. Wouldn't the point of raising awareness be to educate people so that they realize that saying, "I don't see color" is both untrue and unhelpful and that appeals to colorblindness do more to propagate that particular system of dominance by rendering it invisible than it does to actually make it go away? I don't think that raising awareness should be thought of as an end in and of itself; to simply make people aware that there is a problem. I think that the point of raising awareness is the hope that you can meaningfully educate at least people about the issue - whatever it might be - and hopefully galvanize some of them into some sort of action.

Too many people look at raising awareness like that though. That isn't good enough. Blanketing and bundling issues together leads to things where key details get lost in the sauce and you have another NC.

[Bo]

No, no. Lasers.

"Contemplate upon this piece of music, and also upon your (evidently) dysfunctional relationship with your father. Go, and be without hair."

[KibblesBits]

Pretty sad to see. The large black population in my state, Maryland, ensures that we'll probably never get same sex marriage legalized unless something happens on a federal level.

I never said that but yes it certainly is a large factor.

How did you never say that? Please explain what other meaning you could have implied?

While the Black vote may be important in Maryland it's glossing over the votes of other groups who happen to be in the majority who have a stronger impact on the ballots.

[Kusagari]

No, no. Lasers.

You want to subject gays to listen to Lasers? Have some humanity.

[Neuromancer]

How did you never say that? Please explain what other meaning you could have implied? While the Black vote may be important in Maryland it's glossing over the votes of other groups who happen to be in the majority who have a stronger impact on the ballots.

I said probably, not certainly. Anyway what groups might those be?

[KibblesBits]

I said probably, not certainly. Anyway what groups might those be?

Then you should have said something along the lines of, "I fear that the Black vote in my state could possibly cause same sex marriage to not become legal unless a federal mandate is brought into play."

Going by the national census of 2010 the percentages concerning ethnicity play out this way in Maryland:
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/24000.html

Now forgive me, math is not my strongest subject but if I'm reading that data correctly non-hispanic whites still hold the majority.

My point if you still don't get it, is don't blame everything on Black people. Don't become clenched over something that may or may not happen. Don't buy into the media sensationalism and it's idea of how Black people should be portrayed. If you are so concerned about the Black vote go out and talk to those who are likely to vote instead of sitting around complaining and worrying about something that isn't predetermined.

[Neuromancer]

Then you should have said something along the lines of, "I fear that the Black vote in my state could possibly cause same sex marriage to not become legal unless a federal mandate is brought into play." Going by the national census of 2010 the percentages concerning ethnicity play out this way in Maryland: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/24000.html Now forgive me, math is not my strongest subject but if I'm reading that data correctly non-hispanic whites still hold the majority.

Ok perhaps you're right.

[Dude Abides]

Here is what Huey Newton had to say on the matter.

http://hiphopandpolitics.wordpress.c...s-endorsement/

During the past few years strong movements have developed among women and among homosexuals seeking their liberation. There has been some uncertainty about how to relate to these movements. Whatever your personal opinions and your insecurities about homosexuality and the various liberation movements among homosexuals and women (and I speak of the homosexuals and women as oppressed groups), we should try to unite with them in a revolutionary fashion. I say ” whatever your insecurities are” because as we very well know, sometimes our first instinct is to want to hit a homosexual in the mouth, and want a woman to be quiet. We want to hit a homosexual in the mouth because we are afraid that we might be homosexual; and we want to hit the women or shut her up because we are afraid that she might castrate us, or take the nuts that we might not have to start with. We must gain security in ourselves and therefore have respect and feelings for all oppressed people. We must not use the racist attitude that the White racists use against our people because they are Black and poor. Many times the poorest White person is the most racist because he is afraid that he might lose something, or discover something that he does not have. So you’re some kind of a threat to him. This kind of psychology is in operation when we view oppressed people and we are angry with them because of their particular kind of behavior, or their particular kind of deviation from the established norm. Remember, we have not established a revolutionary value system; we are only in the process of establishing it. I do not remember our ever constituting any value that said that a revolutionary must say offensive things towards homosexuals, or that a revolutionary should make sure that women do not speak out about their own particular kind of oppression. As a matter of fact, it is just the opposite: we say that we recognize the women’s right to be free. We have not said much about the homosexual at all, but we must relate to the homosexual movement because it is a real thing. And I know through reading, and through my life experience and observations that homosexuals are not given freedom and liberty by anyone in the society. They might be the most oppresed people in the society. And what made them homosexual? Perhaps it’s a phenomenon that I don’t understand entirely. Some people say that it is the decadence of capitalism. I don’t know if that is the case; I rather doubt it. But whatever the case is, we know that homosexuality is a fact that exists, and we must understand it in its purest form: that is, a person should have the freedom to use his body in whatever way he wants. That is not endorsing things in homosexuality that we wouldn’t view as revolutionary. But there is nothing to say that a homosexual cannot also be a revolutionary. And maybe I’m now injecting some of my prejudice by saying that “even a homosexual can be a revolutionary.” Quite the contrary, maybe a homosexual could be the most revolutionary. When we have revolutionary conferences, rallies, and demonstrations, there should be full participation of the gay liberation movement and the women’s liberation movement. Some groups might be more revolutionary than others. We should not use the actions of a few to say that they are all reactionary or counterrevolutionary, because they are not. We should deal with the factions just as we deal with any other group or party that claims to be revolutionary. We should try to judge, somehow, whether they are operating in a sincere revolutionary fashion and from a really oppressed situation. (And we will grant that if they are women they are probably oppressed.) If they do things that are unrevolutionary or counterrevolutionary, then criticize that action. If we feel that the group in spirit means to be revolutionary in practice, but they make mistakes in interpretation of the revolutionary philosophy, or they do not understand the dialectics of the social forces in operation, we should criticize that and not criticize them because they are women trying to be free. And the same is true for homosexuals. We should never say a whole movement is dishonest when in fact they are trying to be honest. They are just making honest mistakes. Friends are allowed to make mistakes. The enemy is not allowed to make mistakes because his whole existence is a mistake, and we suffer from it. But the women’s liberation front and gay liberation front are our friends, they are our potential allies, and we need as many allies as possible. We should be willing to discuss the insecurities that many people have about homosexuality. When I say “insecurities,” I mean the fear that they are some kind of threat to our manhood. I can understand this fear. Because of the long conditioning process which builds insecurity in the American male, homosexuality might produce certain hang-ups in us. I have hang-ups myself about male homosexuality. But on the other hand, I have no hang-up about female homosexuality. And that is a phenomenon in itself. I think it is probably because male homosexuality is a threat to me and female homosexuality is not. We should be careful about using those terms that might turn our friends off. The terms “faggot” and “punk” should be deleted from our vocabulary, and especially we should not attach names normally designed for homosexuals to men who are enemies of the people, such as Nixon or Mitchell. Homosexuals are not enemies of the people. We should try to form a working coalition with the gay liberation and women’s liberation groups. We must always handle social forces in the most appropriate manner.

[Dead Man]

Here is what Huey Newton had to say on the matter. http://hiphopandpolitics.wordpress.c...s-endorsement/

Fine words from a very passionate man.

[akira28]

Maryland voted it in. Now the opposing side is trying to shore up signatures to block it later this year.

The black vote probably doesn't care as much as some think, more worried about job market, economy, state and local funding. It's down to the preachers to try to mobilize opposition. They failed the first time with the radio commercials and newspaper ads, but more outside money (coming from where...wanna guess?) is helping them organize an opposition.

[spiderman123]

Someone needs to contact Blackace.

Why b/c he's an ace

[tiff]

That's like arguing that when this nation was founded they didn't really mean anyone but white male landowners.

Surely if the consensus was for including black people the Constitution wouldn't have included measures to protect slavery.

[woodypop]

Wouldn't it be funny if only white gays would get the right to marriage? I think then you'd hear those pastors say something else.

Heh, spot on.

[GillianSeed79]

...the NAACP has lost almost all of its relevance anyway.

I know you probably feel like you are getting picked on in this thread, but, daww man, don't say that. I mean, I guess regarding national politics that might be true, but all politics is local.

There's local NAACP chapters in nearly every county and state and they do a lot of good locally - at least where I live. We even have a very active youth NAACP chapter where I live, as well as a black pastors association that is very active in the local community. Stuff like raising money for scholarships for kids, hosting local political debates, working with legislators and such.
I look at it like finding the trees despite the forest. Like I'm not really a religious person and get steamed at a lot what the leaders of organized religion try to do, but realize that a lot of religious folk, regardless of their beliefs, do good works in a lot of communities.

I guess that's why, even being straight, I'm so steamed about these pastors' position. It kind of paints a stereotypical picture of all black pastors. Like where I live the black community is really tight with the B'hai, even though they are from different races and religious backgrounds. The B'hai faith - and I'm probably spelling this wrong - originated in Iran of all places. (They are super liberal btw) Every year they march with the local NAACP Chapter and even a few years ago opened their house of worship to the marchers, which was a huge honor for them. Usually the march was focused on the historically black churches in the community.

[gutter_trash]

LOL at the group with the highest rate of single mothers being so anti-gay...

speaking about family

how about manning up and being men and know your role a be the fathers who you wish to defend in traditional marriages?

[Parallax]

LOL at the group with the highest rate of single mothers being so anti-gay...

What the hell does this have to do with the topic at hand?

[marathonfool]

LOL at the group with the highest rate of single mothers being so anti-gay... speaking about family how about manning up and being men and know your role a be the fathers who you wish to defend in traditional marriages?

Literally gutter trash comment.

[BlueTsunami]

LOL at the group with the highest rate of single mothers being so anti-gay... speaking about family how about manning up and being men and know your role a be the fathers who you wish to defend in traditional marriages?

Damn, shots fired

[Alucrid]

don't really care what MLK said, but I would like to know what ja thinks

[DY_nasty]

I would say something in depth in direct response to such a blatantly fucked post, but it'd come off as victim card - like someone has already laid out ITT

OR I could say something simple like "This guy is just here to push stereotypes wit his 'man up' shit at the end. What the hell is the point of addressing it?" and have Dead Man jump down my shit sideways again for not taking the time to educate.

So what am I left with?

Especially when someone hops in with shit like "shots fired"?

[Plumbob]

Cool, now find a gene that all strict homosexuals humans share.

I present to you the Sonic Hedge Hog Gene.

http://www.andrologyjournal.org/cgi/...l.110.012849v1

Male sexual orientation has been proposed to have genetic components, but previously suggested candidate genes have all received negative results. The human sonic hedgehog (SHH) gene is located in the 7q36 region, which was linked to male sexual orientation in a previous genome-wide association study. SHH is known to play an important role in embryo patterning, and there is evidence connecting it to sexual orientation. In this study, we performed an association analysis of the SHH tag single nucleotide polymorphism (tag SNP) rs9333613 in 361 subjects and 319 Chinese male controls. We find a significant difference in genotype and allele distribution between identified homosexuals and heterosexual control subjects, suggesting that the SHH gene may potentially be associated with male sexual orientation.

You still have no response to the majority of the wiki article:

"Finger length ratios between the index and ring fingers may be different between non-gay and lesbian women." - Your explanation?

"Gay men and lesbians are significantly more likely to be left-handed or ambidextrous than non-gay men and women; Simon LeVay argues that because "[h]and preference is observable before birth[70]... [t]he observation of increased non-right-handness in gay people is therefore consistent with the idea that sexual orientation is influenced by prenatal processes," perhaps heredity.[31]" - Your explanation?

"A study of 50 gay men found 23% had counterclockwise hair whorl, as opposed to 8% in the general population." - your explanation?

"Gay men have increased ridge density in the fingerprints on their left thumbs and pinkies." - your explanation?

"Blanchard and Klassen (1997) reported that each older brother increases the odds of a man being gay by 33%." - your explanation?

That's right, there is no explanation that accounts for these studies because you can't choose finger length, hair whorl, birth order, handedness, or whether you have the version of the SHH gene that other gay men have.

Let's put it as plainly as possible. If you were to find a man who was the youngest of five brothers in his family, who was left-handed, and had a counter-clockwise hair whorl, he would be much more likely to be gay than any other man you met off the street. How do you explain that? If you think being gay is a choice, you can't. Now go and forever-more be rid of your painful ignorance.

[KibblesBits]

LOL at the group with the highest rate of single mothers being so anti-gay... speaking about family how about manning up and being men and know your role a be the fathers who you wish to defend in traditional marriages?

Not only is this inappropriate and insensitive, it's irrelevant and irresponsibly ratcheting up the overdone drama inherent in these threads. Misplaced anger and vile trollish statements like these are as useful as sunlight to outdoor plants in a windowless room.

The only thing funny about your statement is that it shows you for the terrible thing you are.

[Alucrid]

While it would be more difficult under todays tax code, it was eliminated in the first place due to religious reasons. Besides that, I don't think difficulty is a very valid reason. As for civil unions, I was never really in favor of them as it was kind of a half assed stop gap solution, do it "right" or don't do it at all. I certainly don't think priests are going to be forced to marry gay couples, and even if they were I don't know why anyone would want to be married by someone that didn't want them there. As a side note, my cousin got married last year and wasn't allowed to get married in their church because of premarital sex, they didn't claim discrimination. But until you find that link you can't claim what you're saying. It matters in the discussion Obsessed and I are having. Cool, now find a gene that all strict homosexuals humans share.

probably because it's not discrimination

[MWS Natural]

I never said that but yes it certainly is a large factor.

LOL at the group with the highest rate of single mothers being so anti-gay... speaking about family how about manning up and being men and know your role a be the fathers who you wish to defend in traditional marriages?

Yes keep pushing the "Blacks are preventing gay rights!!!" agenda. The mindless trash of America will eventually believe it....it's happening right before our eyes

[Synth_floyd]

The tide of public opinion is turning decisively in favor of gay marriage, but it's just sad that many people will still think that way in the mean time.

[computers putin']

LOL at the group with the highest rate of single mothers being so anti-gay... speaking about family how about manning up and being men and know your role a be the fathers who you wish to defend in traditional marriages?

Jesus fucking christ I can't believe I just read this.

[DECK'ARD]

I present to you the Sonic Hedge Hog Gene. http://www.andrologyjournal.org/cgi/...l.110.012849v1 You still have no response to the majority of the wiki article: "Finger length ratios between the index and ring fingers may be different between non-gay and lesbian women." - Your explanation? "Gay men and lesbians are significantly more likely to be left-handed or ambidextrous than non-gay men and women; Simon LeVay argues that because "[h]and preference is observable before birth[70]... [t]he observation of increased non-right-handness in gay people is therefore consistent with the idea that sexual orientation is influenced by prenatal processes," perhaps heredity.[31]" - Your explanation? "A study of 50 gay men found 23% had counterclockwise hair whorl, as opposed to 8% in the general population." - your explanation? "Gay men have increased ridge density in the fingerprints on their left thumbs and pinkies." - your explanation? "Blanchard and Klassen (1997) reported that each older brother increases the odds of a man being gay by 33%." - your explanation? That's right, there is no explanation that accounts for these studies because you can't choose finger length, hair whorl, birth order, handedness, or whether you have the version of the SHH gene that other gay men have. Let's put it as plainly as possible. If you were to find a man who was the youngest of five brothers in his family, who was left-handed, and had a counter-clockwise hair whorl, he would be much more likely to be gay than any other man you met off the street. How do you explain that? If you think being gay is a choice, you can't. Now go and forever-more be rid of your painful ignorance.

Good post, well done for posting that.

I couldn't be bothered to dig anything more out as he comes across as wilfully ignorant.

[GillianSeed79]

I would say something in depth in direct response to such a blatantly fucked post, but it'd come off as victim card - like someone has already laid out ITT OR I could say something simple like "This guy is just here to push stereotypes wit his 'man up' shit at the end. What the hell is the point of addressing it?" and have Dead Man jump down my shit sideways again for not taking the time to educate. So what am I left with? Especially when someone hops in with shit like "shots fired"?

I imagine their names will be greyed out within the next 24 hours. I don't wish anybody to be banned, but that dude with the Q-bert avatar just dropped a Youtube quality comment.

Even though we may disagree, I always appreciate Dy-Nasty's comments, since he actually facilitates discussion. Spouting that shit that was just posted above by that other poster makes me realize why some posters might seem so defensive. Seriously, WTF was up with that post?

Edit: Ah, he's banned already. Swift justice.

[BlueTsunami]

Especially when someone hops in with shit like "shots fired"?

No disrespect towards the thread and serious posters meant, my intention was to add some levity to a out from left field hateful comment

[The Incarnation]

Jesus fucking christ I can't believe I just read this.

Surprised it took six pages to be honest with you.

And it's typically another case of when some black people do something disagreable, ALL get insulted.

[Socreges]

Surprised it took six pages to be honest with you. And it's typically another case of when some group of people do something disagreable, ALL from that group get insulted.

It's how human beings "reason".

[jaxword]

I wonder what was the catalyst in the past year or two for even Obama realizing it was time to jump on the pro-gay bandwagon.

[Dead Man]

I would say something in depth in direct response to such a blatantly fucked post, but it'd come off as victim card - like someone has already laid out ITT OR I could say something simple like "This guy is just here to push stereotypes wit his 'man up' shit at the end. What the hell is the point of addressing it?" and have Dead Man jump down my shit sideways again for not taking the time to educate. So what am I left with? Especially when someone hops in with shit like "shots fired"?

Damn man, I'm not out to get you or anything! Why would I jump in your shit if you are actually addressing it rather than just insulting him? And yeah, other posters did manage to get a small bit of educating in about not generalising to a whole group from individuals. You gone a bit crazy over there man. Dude made a fucked up post, and got slapped, as he should. Why would I have a problem with that?

[SmokyDave]

"Fuck you, we got ours!"

I suspect there's some psychology at play where supporting minorities is seen as dangerous for other minorities. Don't wanna get in bad books with the majority.

[Amibguous Cad]

"Fuck you, we got ours!" I suspect there's some psychology at play where supporting minorities is seen as dangerous for other minorities. Don't wanna get in bad books with the majority.

There's too long of a tradition of solidarity between liberation movements for me to buy this. The lamentable gay-black tiffs aside (and to be clear, there's as much racism on my side of the fence as there is homophobia over there), minority groups seem more supportive of other minorities' civil rights than most.

[Measley]

Alveda King is ridiculous on so many levels. I love how righties drag her out and use her as a way to connect MLK to the modern conservative movement. Its pretty damn disgusting.

[Jackpot]

I'm sorry, your opinion is JFK wasn't a prominent speaker? Seriously, I'm beginning to think you're just a hack that wants to shit up these threads because I'm not seeing much of a point to your posts. You keep dancing around things without actually saying much of anything.

Agreed. You post quotes from MLK and JFK showing how they both wanted civil rights to be applied to wherever injustice occured, now he moves the goalposts saying that MLK doesn't count and he needs speakers more prominent than the President at the time.